Delhi District Court
Sonu vs Ashok Kumar on 22 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV: DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
CNR NO. DLSH010065822022
CS No. 619/2022
In the matter of:-
Memo of Parties
Sh. Sonu
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh
R/o H.No.77/11, Mukesh Nagar,
Jwala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. .......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. S.R. Kumar
R/o E-67, South Anarkali
Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
Also At:-
C/o Sh. Bal Kishan Bhardwaj
Shop No. 10, Plot No. 20,
Parmesh Tower, Commercial Centre,
Near Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. .......Defendant
Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
CS No. 619/2022 GAURAV Date:
Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 1 of 14 2025.08.22
17:02:02
+0530
22.08.2023
ORDER
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two applications filed on behalf of the defendant. The first is an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"); seeking condonation of delay in filing leave to defend. The second is an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to defend the present summary suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that he and the defendant had cordial and friendly relations for about 3-4 years preceding the transactions in question. In the first week of November 2019, the defendant is stated to have approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- for a period of four months to meet urgent needs. Trusting their relationship and acting in good faith, the plaintiff advanced Rs. 5,00,000/- on 14.11.2019, without interest. The defendant also executed an agreement and a promissory note (pronote) in favour of the plaintiff and issued two post-dated cheques bearing Nos. 267592 and 267593, each for Rs. 2,50,000/-, dated 15.03.2020 and 20.03.2020 respectively, drawn on Axis Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (hereinafter referred to as "cheques in question").
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 CS No. 619/2022 17:02:25 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 2 of 14 +0530
3. On the defendant's assurance, the plaintiff presented the cheques in question in his bank on 09.06.2020; however, both cheques were returned unpaid with the remarks "Debit Account Freeze" vide bank returning memos dated 11.06.2020. Despite being apprised of the dishonour, the defendant failed to make payment. Thereafter, legal notice dated 03.07.2020 was issued, calling upon the defendant to pay the loan amount but all in vain. Consequently, plaintiff instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the defendant and also filed the present summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, seeking a decree for Rs. 5,00,000/-.
4. Summons for appearance under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was duly served upon defendant and upon which, defendant also put his appearance within statutory period. Thereafter, summons for judgment in prescribed format, was also issued to the defendant, which was also duly served upon them on 11.05.2023. Consequently, defendant filed the application along with supporting affidavit, seeking leave to defend as per the mandate of Order XXXVII CPC on 03.06.2023, i.e. after the stipulated period of 10 days along with application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) of read with Section 151 CPC, seeking condonation of delay in filing leave to defend application.
5. By way of the aforesaid application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) read with Section 151 CPC, the defendant has Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 CS No. 619/2022 17:03:00 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 3 of 14 +0530 sought condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the application for leave to defend, attributing the delay to circumstances beyond his control. It is averred that though the summons for judgment were received by the defendant on 10.05.2023, and he was, thus, required to file his application on or before 20.05.2023, the same came to be filed on 29.05.2023 as the copy received by him, was misplaced in his house and could be traced only on 27.05.2023. Thereafter, the defendant approached his counsel, who drafted and filed the aforesaid applications on 29.05.2023.
6. In the aforesaid application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC, seeking leave to defend, the defendant has raised several pleas, asserting that triable issues are involved which necessitate adjudication by way of evidence. It is the case of the defendant that in November 2020, he had approached the plaintiff not for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, but for a loan of Rs. 50,000/- only. It is averred that the plaintiff agreed to advance Rs. 50,000/- on the condition that the defendant would hand over certain security documents, namely the blank signed cheques, two to three white papers, one blank stamp paper, and two passport size photographs. Upon handing over the said documents, the plaintiff advanced a cash loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 25.12.2020, with an assurance to return the said security documents upon repayment.
7. It is further averred that he repaid the said loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ Rs. 2,600/- per day until Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 CS No. 619/2022 17:03:29 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 4 of 14 +0530 28.01.2021, totaling Rs. 59,800/-. Despite such repayment, the plaintiff failed to return the cheques in question, blank signed papers, stamp paper, and photographs.
8. It is also averred that the payment made to the plaintiff is duly reflected in his bank passbook and the promissory note relied upon by the plaintiff, is forged and fabricated, and that the defendant's signatures were obtained on blank papers with the intent of misuse. According to him, the agreement is similarly fabricated, and the plaintiff has misused the blank cheques and papers with an intent to extort money. On these averments, at the end, the defendant has prayed for grant of unconditional leave to defend and contest the suit as there are triable issues involved.
9. Per contra, the plaintiff has vehemently opposed both applications by filing replies, wherein it is contended that the defendant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The plea of misplacement of copies received by him is alleged to be a false and baseless excuse, reflecting the casual and negligent attitude of the defendant towards the judicial process. He further contended that the application for leave to defend is founded on false and concocted pleas and does not raise any genuine triable issue. Hence, both applications are liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard the arguments at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No. 619/2022 GAURAV Date:
Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 5 of 14 2025.08.22 17:04:23 +0530 on behalf of the plaintiff, and carefully examined the entire material available on record.
11. Before this Court proceeds to consider the merits of the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to defend, it is first necessary to adjudicate the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant for condonation of delay. Unless the delay of 12 days in filing the leave to defend is condoned, the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC cannot be taken up for consideration.
12. The factual position is not in dispute. The summons for judgment were duly served upon the defendant on 11.05.2023. Consequently, as per the mandate of Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC, the defendant was required to file his application for leave to defend within ten days, i.e. on or before 21.05.2023. However, the application came to be filed only on 03.06.2023, thereby occasioning a delay of 12 days.
13. The explanation furnished by the defendant is that although he had received the summons on 10.05.2023, the copy of the summons and related papers got inadvertently misplaced in his residence. Despite making efforts to trace the said documents, he could locate the same only on 27.05.2023. Immediately, thereafter, he approached his counsel, who drafted and filed the application on 29.05.2023 without any further delay. It is, thus, contended that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but occasioned by circumstances Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
CS No. 619/2022 2025.08.22
Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 6 of 14 17:05:03
+0530
beyond his control, and if the delay is not condoned, grave prejudice would be caused as he would be deprived of his right to defend the suit.
14. On the other hand, the plaintiff, in his reply, has opposed the condonation application and contended that the plea of misplacement of copies is a concocted and untenable excuse, advanced only to cover up the negligence and inaction of the defendant. He further contended that litigant who has been duly served with summons for judgment is expected to act with diligence and promptitude, particularly when the summary procedure under Order XXXVII CPC is involved. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was fully aware of the time frame prescribed in law, yet failed to adhere to it.
15. It is settled that the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Courts are expected to lean in favour of adjudication on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice on technicalities of limitation. At the same time, the term "sufficient cause" cannot be elastic enough to cover situations where delay is caused by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides. Thus, the explanation tendered must be bona fide, reasonable and convincing.
16. Tested on these principles, the explanation offered by the defendant that the copies received, was misplaced in his house and could be traced only on 27.05.2023, is undoubtedly slender. Ordinarily, a prudent litigant who has been served Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No. 619/2022 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 7 of 14 GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 17:06:19 +0530 with summons in a summary suit, where the procedure is strict and time-bound, would be expected to act diligently and preserve the documents with care. The plea of misplacement, unsupported by any corroborative material, does not inspire a high degree of confidence.
17. However, what cannot be overlooked is that the delay involved is only of 12 days. It is not a case where the defendant has allowed the matter to linger for months together or shown utter disregard for the timelines fixed by law. The application was filed promptly once the documents were allegedly traced, and there is no material to infer that the delay was deliberate or mala fide. Denial of condonation in such circumstances would have the effect of foreclosing the defendant's right to defend the suit altogether, which in the scheme of Order XXXVII CPC would result in an immediate decree being passed against him.
18. In the considered view of this Court, while the explanation tendered may not be wholly satisfactory, the short length of delay coupled with the stringent consequences of refusal tilt the balance in favour of a justice-oriented approach. The object of summary procedure is to ensure expeditious disposal of suits based on negotiable instruments and written contracts, but the same cannot be stretched to such an extent as to deny an opportunity of defence in a case where the delay is short and not shown to be tainted with mala fides.
Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No. 619/2022 GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 8 of 14 17:06:57 +0530
19. Accordingly, adopting a liberal but cautious approach, and to advance substantial justice, this Court deems it appropriate to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC. The application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) CPC is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.
20. Having allowed the application for condonation of delay as above, this Court now proceed to consider the second application filed by the defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to defend the present summary suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
21. The object of Order XXXVII CPC is to provide a summary procedure for suits based on written contracts or other specified instruments where the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated amount. The very purpose is to avoid protracted trials in cases where the defendant has no substantial defense. However, at the same time, the provision is not meant to shut out genuine defenses. It is settled that Courts must allow leave to defend where there is a plausible or bona fide defense, though the same may be conditional in appropriate cases.
22. The principles governing grant of leave to defend have been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as "IDBI Trusteeship vs. Hubtown Ltd." (paragraph 17), (2017) 1 SCC 568" in the following terms:-
Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No. 619/2022 GAURAV Date:
Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 9 of 14 2025.08.22 17:07:23 +0530 "17. Accordingly, the principles stated in para 8 of Mechelec case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., MANU/SC/0043/1976 :
(1976) 4 SCC 687] will now stand superseded, given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros., MANU/SC/0376/1965 : AIR 1965 SC 1698: (1966) 68 Bom LR 36], as follows:
17.1. If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit.
17.2. If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
17.3. Even if the defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is left with the trial Judge about the defendant's good faith, or the genuineness of the triable issues, the trial Judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court or furnishing security. Care must be taken to see that the object of the provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial causes is not defeated. Care must also be taken to see that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe orders as to deposit or security.
17.4. If the defendant raises a defence which is plausible but improbable, the trial Judge may impose conditions as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court, or furnishing security. As such a defence does not raise triable issues, conditions as to deposit or security or both can extend to the entire principal sum together with such interest as the court feels the justice of the case requires. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 CS No. 619/2022 17:07:32 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 10 of 14 +0530 17.5. If the defendant has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues, and the court finds such defence to be frivolous or vexatious, then leave to defend the suit shall be refused, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith.
17.6. If any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in court"
23. In the present case, it is pertinent to observe herein that before this Court, at present, are two diametrically opposite versions regarding the very foundation of the transaction in question. On the one hand, the plaintiff asserted that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was advanced in cash to the defendant, duly recorded in a promissory note and agreement executed between the parties. On the other hand, the defendant disputed the same and contended that only Rs. 50,000/- was ever borrowed as a friendly loan, which already stands repaid. The defendant further contended that the blank signed cheques, were misused and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated.
24. This Court is mindful of the fact that at this stage, the controversy is not to be adjudicated on merits in its entirety, but the observations must be confined to prima facie appreciation of material, so as to determine whether a triable issue arises. However, while forming such prima facie view, Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 CS No. 619/2022 17:07:45 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 11 of 14 +0530 the Court cannot remain oblivious of the circumstances highlighted by the defendant which, if ultimately established at trial, may materially affect the claim of the plaintiff.
25. One significant aspect emerging from the record is that the plaintiff admittedly advanced the alleged loan in cash. No details as to the source of the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- have been placed on record. The absence of such disclosure prima- facie raises a doubt.
26. Equally, the defence version cannot be brushed aside at this juncture. The contention that only Rs. 50,000/- was borrowed as a friendly loan, which stands repaid, and that blank security cheques were handed over, is a line of defence that courts frequently encounter in money recovery suits. Whether such cheques were indeed misused or whether the documents produced by the plaintiff are genuine, are questions of fact which cannot be determined without evidence being led by both sides. Moreover, the defendant further categorically contended that the promissory note and agreement relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated. Forgery is a serious allegation, and although mere plea of forgery is not sufficient to discard a document, yet the existence of such plea, coupled with denial of execution, again creates a triable issue requiring proper adjudication after evidence.
27. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the defence taken by Digitally the defendant is not sham or moonshine, as contended by the signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 CS No. 619/2022 17:07:58 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 12 of 14 +0530 plaintiff. The defendant has raised specific pleas which, if substantiated, may go to the root of the plaintiff's claim. The absence of proof of source of funds on part of the plaintiff, coupled with the plea of repayment of a lesser amount of Rs. 50,000/-, execution of blank signed cheques, and allegation of forgery of supporting documents, together disclose bona fide disputes between the parties.
28. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter cannot be decided in a summary fashion merely on the basis of documents filed by the plaintiff, without affording the defendant an opportunity to establish his defence through trial. The pleas raised by the defendant cannot be rejected outright at the threshold.
29. In the light of aforesaid discussion and findings and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the present application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC is hereby stands allowed. The application is accordingly disposed of and unconditional leave is granted to the defendant.
30. Defendant is directed to file the written statement within stipulated period with an advance copy to the opposite party. Upon receipt of written statement, plaintiff is at liberty to file the replication, if any, within four weeks with an advance copy to the opposite party.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 CS No. 619/2022 17:08:12 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 13 of 14 +0530
31. Nothing in the present order shall tantamount to expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the case. (Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and Digitally pronounced in open court on 22.08.2025) signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.08.22 17:08:24 +0530 (GAURAV) DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI CS No. 619/2022 Sonu Vs. Ashok Kumar Page No. 14 of 14