Delhi District Court
Aye Finance Pvt Ltd vs Mohammad Rafeeq on 15 December, 2025
THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH
CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
CNR No. DLND03-002277-2023
CS SCJ 1225/2023
In the matter of:-
AYE Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative Pranav Sharma
Having Its Registered Office At:
M-5, Magnum House-1, Opp Milan Cinema,
Hemwati Nandan Bahugun Marg
Karampura market, Karampura
New Delhi, Delhi-110015.
Branch Bank Account At:
HDFC Bank
M 36, Outer Circle,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001 . . .Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq
R/o Allampura Chickmagalur
Kaimara (P) Chikmagalur
Karnataka 577101 . . .Defendant
Date of Institution : 21.09.2023
Date of Reserving Judgment : 15.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 15.12.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 10,002.5/- (RS. TEN
THOUSAND TWO AND FIVE PAISA ONLY)
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The present suit is filed for recovery of Rs.10,002.5/- by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.15 16:29:48 +0530 CS SCJ 1225-2023 AYE Finance Pvt Ltd vs. Mohd. Rafeeq Page No. 1 of 5
2. Brief facts as alleged by the Plaintiff are that the Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at M-5, Magnum House-1, Opp Milan Cinema, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Marg, Karampura Market, Karampura, New Delhi and engaged in the business of extending financial assistance by way of loans and advances to the business owners. The present suit has been filed by Mr. Pranav Sharma, who is Manager of Plaintiff Company and is authorized to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute the present case, as well as lead evidence.
3. Defendant approached the Plaintiff for the purpose of availing the loan facility under the Emergency Credit Line Guaranteed Scheme for the expansion of the business vide Loan Application Form in the Plaintiff's office. The plaintiff considered the request and sanctioned the loan amounting to Rs. 20005/- vide Sanction Letter dated 28.06.2021. The said loan was repayable in 48 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs. 234/- each. However, the Defendant failed to pay the required installments and defaulted on making due payments. Therefore, Plaintiff sent Loan Recall Notice to the Defendant. However, despite service of Loan Recall Notice, Defendant failed to pay the outstanding dues. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the present suit.
4. Summons was served upon Defendant on Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.15 16:29:52 +0530 CS SCJ 1225-2023 AYE Finance Pvt Ltd vs. Mohd. Rafeeq Page No. 2 of 5 06.05.2025, however, Defendant failed to appear before the Court. Hence, Defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 15.12.2025.
5. Plaintiff in his plaint has relied upon following documents:
Sl.No Documents
1. Authority letter
2. Sanction letter dated 28.06.2021
3. Loan Agreement dated 28.06.2021
4. Loan recall notice dated 08.06.2023 along with postal receipts
5. Statement of account
6. In Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. vs. Satya Infra and Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013:DHC:653, it was held that:
"2. . . .The defendant is thus proceeded against ex parte.
3. The next question which arises is whether this Court should consider the application for interim relief and direct the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs are willing to give up the reliefs of delivery, of rendition of accounts and of recovery of damages, if the suit for the relief of injunction alone were to be heard today.
4. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. "
7. Relying on the same, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Date: 2025.12.15 16:29:54 +0530 CS SCJ 1225-2023 AYE Finance Pvt Ltd vs. Mohd. Rafeeq Page No. 3 of 5 in Parsvnath Developers Limited vs. Vikram Khosla, 2021:DHC:812 held as follows:
"2. When this case came up for hearing for the first time on November 07, 2019 summons were issued to the defendant through all modes. On the second date of hearing, it was recorded that the service report was refused by one Pradeep, after which fresh summons were issued again. On the next date of hearing on March 02, 2020, the service report came back with the comments 'refusal by wife of defendant'. Thereafter the matter was placed before Court by the learned Joint Registrar. This Court vide order dated March 13, 2020 proceeded ex-parte against the defendant, in view of deemed service. The question which arises is whether the plaintiff should be directed to lead ex-parte evidence. The Plaint having been verified and is also supported with affidavit/Statement of Truth on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant having been proceeded ex-parte no purpose would be served if the plaintiff was directed to lead ex-parte evidence. "
8. I have perused the record in light of the arguments advanced.
9. The present suit is well within the stipulated time of limitation. Further, since the payment was made from the account of the Plaintiff at CP and as per the agreement between the parties, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present case. Since the amount claimed is less than Rs.3,00,000/-, this Court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this case.
10. Plaintiff has relied on documents such as Authority Letter, Sanction letter, Loan Agreement, Loan recall notice and statement of account of defendant, clearly establishing the commercial relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not bother to contest the suit. Thus, the Defendant was proceeded ex-parte. Hence, this Court has no Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.12.15 16:29:56 +0530 CS SCJ 1225-2023 AYE Finance Pvt Ltd vs. Mohd. Rafeeq Page No. 4 of 5 reason to disbelieve the assertions of the Plaintiff, which leads to a necessary inference that Defendant has failed to make the payment owed to the Plaintiff, which he is liable to pay.
11. As per the case of the Plaintiff, on 28.06.2021, a principal amount of Rs.20,005/- was financed to the Defendant which was due and payable by the Defendant. After part- payment, as on date of the filing of the suit, Rs. 10,002.5/- is left to be paid and is sought to be recovered.
12. The suit of the Plaintiff is thus decreed in its favour and against the Defendant for an amount of Rs. 10,002.5/- with pendente lite rate of simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced by me in the Open Court on 15.12.2025. VAIBHAV Digitally by VAIBHAV signed PRATAP Date: 2025.12.15 PRATAP SINGH SINGH 16:30:01 +0530 (VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH) Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts New Delhi District, Delhi CS SCJ 1225-2023 AYE Finance Pvt Ltd vs. Mohd. Rafeeq Page No. 5 of 5