Delhi District Court
Shyam Singh vs Rajender Singh Negi on 30 April, 2025
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, DISTRICT
JUDGE-04,NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-006327-2018
CS No. 514/2018
In the matter of :-
Sh. Shyam Singh
S/o Late Sh. Zile Singh Sisodia
R/o H. No. 1, Main Road,
Mukundpur, Delhi-110042 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rajender Singh Negi
S/o Late Sh. Jeet Singh Negi,
R/o House No. 21, Type-2, Lucknow Road,
Multi storey, Timarpur,
Delhi-110054 .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 10.07.2018
Date of Ex. Parte Final Arguments : 22.04.2025
Heard
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.04.2025
Final Outcome : Suit Decreed
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 19,50,000/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest and cost of litigation. CS No. 514/2018 Shyam Singh Vs. Rajender Singh Negi Page: 1 of 6
-:: 2 ::-
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the defendant came in contact of the plaintiff, claiming himself to be owner of one plot area measuring 300 Sq. Yds. out of Khasra No. 234, Mukundpur extension, Part-II, Delhi-110042 and expressed his desire to sell the same and after negotiation, the defendant entered into agreement to sell dated 22.05.2012 with the plaintiff and pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant as Bayana for purchase of the said plot. It is further stated that thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendant so many times for execution of the documents in respect of the aforesaid plot and to accept the remaining balance payment at the time of execution of sale documents before Sub-Registrar, Delhi. On the promise of defendant, the plaintiff visited the office of Sub-Registrar on 25.08.2012 but the defendant failed to appear in the office of Sub-Registrar for the execution of relevant sale documents in respect of aforesaid property. It is further stated that the plaintiff again visited the defendant at his residence and requested him to take the balance amount and execute relevant documents in respect of said plot and the defendant agreed to remain present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 27.08.2012 but on that day, the defendant again failed to appear before Sub-Registrar office for executing the documents in respect of above said plot in favour of the plaintiff. It is further stated that plaintiff, at his personal CS No. 514/2018 Shyam Singh Vs. Rajender Singh Negi Page: 2 of 6
-:: 3 ::-
level, made some enquiry in the locality about the actual facts and came to know that the defendant had already sold the said plot to some other person. It is further stated that on making a persistent demand and requests to the defendant, the defendant agreed to return the double of the bayana amount to the plaintiff and the defendant in due discharge of his lawful debts and liabilities towards the plaintiff issued two cheques bearing No. 279174 dated 30.11.2014 for Rs. 10,00,000/- and cheque No. 279175 dated 30.10.2014 for Rs. 10,00,000/-, both drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., B/o Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It is further stated that at the time of handing over the said cheques to the plaintiff, the defendant assured the plaintiff regarding honouring of cheques on their presentation. It is further stated that plaintiff presented the abovesaid cheques with his banker i.e. HDFC Ltd. B/o D-2/3, Model Town-III, Delhi-09 but said cheques returned back as dishonoured with the remark 'payment stopped' vide two separate memos dated 22.01.2015 and 24.01.2015.
3. It is further stated that after receiving the dishonoured cheques, the plaintiff contacted the defendant and demanded back the cheques amount in cash but the defendant started avoiding the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 20.02.2015 through his counsel was sent to the defendant but to no effect. Hence, the present suit.
CS No. 514/2018 Shyam Singh Vs. Rajender Singh Negi Page: 3 of 6
-:: 4 ::-
4. Defendant was served by way of publication in newspaper 'Veer Arjun' on 06.05.2024, however, despite service, neither the defendant appeared nor filed the written statement within stipulated period. Thereafter, the defendant was proceeded ex-
parte.
5. In order to substantiate its case, plaintiff/Shyam Singh examined himself as PW-1 by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A, wherein he deposed on the lines of averments made in the plaint. Plaintiff has relied on the documents i.e. certified copy of cheques no. 279174 dated 30.11.2014 and 279175 dated 30.10.2014 Ex. PW1/1, certified copy of two separate debit advice dated 22.01.2015 and 24.01.2015 Ex. PW1/2(colly), certified copy of legal notice dated 20.02.2015 Ex. PW1/3 and certified copy of two returned registered and speed post envelopes Ex. PW1/4(colly).
9. I have heard ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully gone through the material on record.
10. In C.S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1964 AIR 962 it was held by the Apex Court that facts in the affidavit uncontroverted by opposite party can be deemed as admitted by CS No. 514/2018 Shyam Singh Vs. Rajender Singh Negi Page: 4 of 6
-:: 5 ::-
the other side. Further, in Sushma Berlia & Ors. vs Kamal Kumar & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Testimony of PW-1 (Bharat Bhushan) has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the defendants for not contesting the suit on adjourned date and remaining ex- parte. There are no sound reasons to disbelieve the positive uncontroverted testimony of PW-1.
11. In the present case, as the defendant remained ex-parte, the testimony of PW1 remained unrebutted. As such this court has no reason to not believe the case of the plaintiff.
12. On a bare perusal of evidence of PW-1, particularly in view of the documents filed on record, Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2, shows that the defendant had issued two cheques in favour of the plaintiff which got dishonoured on presentation. The plaintiff has also proved on record the legal notice Ex. PW1/3 sent by him to the defendant. The plaintiff in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A deposed the facts as mentioned in the plaint. Since the defendant did not appear in the present case and chose to remain ex parte, the evidence and documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Consequently, the plaintiff is held entitled for the relief claimed.
CS No. 514/2018 Shyam Singh Vs. Rajender Singh Negi Page: 5 of 6
-:: 6 ::-
13. It is stated by the plaintiff in paragraph no.11 of the plaint that defendant made payment of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff in cash in the month of September, 2015 towards the dishonoured cheques. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on 10.07.2018. In these circumstances, the suit has been filed well within period of limitation.
Relief
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of decretal amount.
15. The plaintiff is entitled to recover costs of the suit from the defendant.
16. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
17. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed KISHOR by KISHOR KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.30 Announced in open 16:28:28 +0530 Court on 30.04.2025 (Kishor Kumar) DJ-04, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi/30.04.2025 CS No. 514/2018 Shyam Singh Vs. Rajender Singh Negi Page: 6 of 6