Delhi District Court
Kishan Chand vs Digvijay Paliwal on 13 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Vikas Madaan, DJS
CS SCJ No. 950/2023
CNR DLWT 030019242023
Date of institution of suit : 26.07.2023
Date of reservation of Judgment : 22.07.2024
Date of passing of Judgment : 13.08.2024
Sh. Kishan Chand
R/o H.No. 601, Jatav Mohalla
Badli Village, Tehri Daulat Pur
Delhi-110042
..........Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. Digvijay Paliwal
S/o Sh. Ajit Singh Paliwal
R/o H.No. 8, Road No. 18
East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi-26.
......... Defendant
Argued by
Sh. R.K. Tiwari:Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
____________________________________________________
Digitally
signed by
VIKAS
VIKAS MADAAN
MADAAN Date:
2024.08.13
15:58:14
+0530
Page no. 1 of 5 Kishan Chand Vs. Digvijay Paliwal CS SCJ No. 950/23
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.3,00,000/-
JUDGMENT
A FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant and defendant are having friendly relations with each other for last many years. It is averred that defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of March, 2021 for a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- for six months and said friendly loan was given to defendant by plaintiff in two equal installments from the day to day earning received by him, from his dentist shop. It is further averred that when the plaintiff contacted defendant after six months to get back his money, defendant showed his helplessness to repay the loan amount and sought three months time to repay the same. It is further averred that in lieu of amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- defendant issued one cheque in favour of plaintiff, drawn on Kotak Mahindra bank, vide cheque bearing no. 00000, dated 15.04.2023, towards legal liability and defendant requested the plaintiff to present the same for encashment. However on presentation before his banker on 15.04.2023, the same was returned unpaid vide Return Memo dated 17.04.2023 with objection "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT". Thereafter legal demand notice dated 08.05.2023 was sent to defendant. It is further averred that the said cheque was again presented by the plaintiff on 14.07.2023 to his banker i.e. State Bank of India as the said cheque was valid upto 14.07.2023 and plaintiff could only deposit on Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN Page no. 2 of 5 Kishan Chand Vs. Digvijay Paliwal CS SCJ No. 950/23 MADAAN Date:
2024.08.13 15:58:20 +0530 the last date i.e. 14.07.2024 at 10.49 a.m but the bank official returned the cheque vide return memo dated 15.07.2023 vide remarks "STALE CHEQUE, OUTDATED" and when plaintiff asked defendant to issue a fresh cheque in exchange of the old cheque on 19.07.2024 defendant outrightly refused to give fresh cheque. Hence, the present suit is filed.
2. By virtue of present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs :
(a) Decree for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for returning back hard earned money of the plaintiff.
(b) Future interest on the amount of Rs.
3,00,000/- @ 12 % p.a be granted to the plaintiff from the date of the suit till realization of the decree amount.
(c) Costs and litigation expenses of the present
suit
(d) Such other or further orders
B. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 1/A and has relied upon following documents: Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date:
2024.08.13 15:58:26 +0530 Page no. 3 of 5 Kishan Chand Vs. Digvijay Paliwal CS SCJ No. 950/23
1. Original cheque dated 15.04.2023 Ex. PW 1/1 bearing no. 000002
2. Return memo dated 17.04.2023 Ex. PW 1/ 2
3. Legal demand notice Mark A
4. Return memo dated 15.07.2023 Ex. PW 1/ 3 5. Court fees Ex. PW 1/ 4
4. Besides himself plaintiff has examined another witness namely Sh. Arun Gautam as PW-2 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 2/A.
5. Thereafter vide statement made by plaintiff on 08.05.2024, the ex-parte PE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
6. I have heard final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.
7. In order to prove his case the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has placed on record the original cheue bearing no. 000002 dated 15.04.2023 i.e. Ex. PW 1/1 which was issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was dishonoured vide bank return memo dated 17.04.2023 vide Ex. PW 1/ 2. The said cheque was again returned back vide return memo dated 15.07.2023 i.e. Ex. PW 1/3.
Digitally Thereafter plaintiff sent a legal demand notice to signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN defendant i.e. Mark A. Plaintiff has also examined Sh. MADAAN Date:
2024.08.13 15:58:42 +0530 Page no. 4 of 5 Kishan Chand Vs. Digvijay Paliwal CS SCJ No. 950/23 Arun Gautam i.e. PW-2 who deposed that the cheque bearing no. 000002 was given in his presence.
8. Thus, on the basis of the conjoint and cumulative appraisal of evidence made as above, it can be stated that, the testimony of PW-1 has remained unrebutted and unblemished as the defendant did not appear to contest the present suit. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of the court, by virtue of oral and documentary evidence on record, plaintiff has been able to prove its case for the recovery of sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-alongwith interest @ 9 % p.a. ( as the interest as mentioned in prayer clause i.e. 12 % p.a. seems to be higher side) from the date of filing of suit till realization. Plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN ANNOUNCED IN THE MADAAN Date:
2024.08.13 OPEN COURT TODAY 15:58:50 +0530 13.08.2024 (VIKAS MADAAN) CIVIL JUDGE-01, WEST, TIS Note: This judgment contains 05 HAZARI COURTS, DELHI pages and each page is signed by the under signed.
Page no. 5 of 5 Kishan Chand Vs. Digvijay Paliwal CS SCJ No. 950/23