Delhi District Court
Tilak Chand vs Rashi Auto Deals And Anr on 17 July, 2025
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS
SUIT NO. 964/2023
CNR NO. DLWT03-001884-2023
In the matter between:-
Sh. Tilak Chand
W/o Sh. Kishori Lal
R/o E-174, Jain Colony,
Barwala, Delhi-110039.
........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1). Rashi Auto Deals
Through its AR:- Sh. B.M. Duggal
Office at:- Shop no.58,
having office at Shop No.58 (18 also),
Super Market near Milan Cinema,
New Moti Nagar, Delhi.
Also at:- H.No.31, Westend Apartment,
Pocket-B8, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
2). Baldev Finlease Pvt. Ltd.
Through its AR
Office at:- A-31, Vishal Enclave,
New Delhi-110027.
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17
15:08:34
+0530
Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 1/14
- 2 -
3). The Transport Authority
Through its AR
Burari AUTC Unit, Delhi-110084.
....................DEFENDANTS
Date of institution of the suit - 25.07.2023
Date of reserving the Judgment - 05.06.2025
Date of decision - 17.07.2025
Decision - Dismissed
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT :-
By this ex-parte judgment this Court shall dispose of a
suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff
against the defendants.
1.The facts in brief relevant for the judgment as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff has purchased a vehicle i.e. Auto bearing no.DL-1RW-6333 on finance from the financier namely Rashi Auto Deals i.e. defendant no.1 on 02.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to be repaid in monthly EMI of Rs.10,450/-. That the loan was to be discharged from the period February'2018 to February'2020 i.e. two years.
2. It has been further averred that on initial payment made by Digitally signed by the plaintiff, the vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.07.17 15:08:44 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 2/14
- 3 -
the defendant no.1. That at that time, the name of the financier was reflected as Baldev Finlease Pvt. Ltd./defendant no.2, however, the EMI used to be paid to the said first agency/defendant no.1, which used to provide receipts to the plaintiff. That the insurance policy certificate was in the name of financier/defendant no.2.
3. It has been further averred that due to some financial crunch, the plaintiff failed to make payment of 10 installments within stipulated time. That thereafter, the plaintiff again approached the defendant no.1 in his office to settle the issue where the defendant no.1 advised the plaintiff to re-finance the default EMIs. Believing the advice of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff again took loan/re-finance from defendant no.2 with the help of defendant no.1 in the month of September'2020 for a sum of Rs.2 Lakh (default settled amount) for two years to be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs.10,850/- per month.
4. It has been further averred that in the month of December'2022, the entire loan amount has been paid by the plaintiff and he approached the defendant no.1 for changing/removal of the name of the financier/defendant no.2 as "financier" in the RC to the name of the plaintiff. That the defendant no.1 demanded the entire original receipts of payment from the plaintiff to be provided to the defendant no.1 at his residence situated in Vijay Vihar, Digitally signed by Delhi. It has been further averred that after perusal of Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17 15:08:55 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 3/14
- 4 -
receipts of payment, defendant no.1 took signatures of the plaintiff on few blank papers and assured that NOC will be issued shortly.
5. It has been further averred that the plaintiff approached time and again to the office as well as residence of the defendant no.1 but it evaded to provide the said correct certificate/NOC to the plaintiff on one pretext or other. That on 30.12.2022, when the plaintiff went to the office of the defendant no.1, it was found to be locked. That on enquiry, it was informed that the office of the defendant no.1 has been permanently closed.
6. It has been further averred that thereafter, the plaintiff approached defendant no.1 at his residence in the month of March 2023 where he assured that NOC will be issued very shortly to the plaintiff but till date, he has not issued the NOC. That on 08.06.2023, the plaintiff approached the office of the defendant no.2, about whom the plaintiff was informed through the insurance papers seeking rectification/ removal of name of the defendant no.2 in the policy paper and RC.
7. It has been further averred that on the request of plaintiff, the AR of defendant no.2 illegally demanded Rs.2 Lakh from the plaintiff for issuing correct certificate/NOC and further threatened the plaintiff that otherwise the auto/vehicle bearing no.DL-1RW-6333 will be lifted Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar forcibly by or on behalf of defendant no.2. Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17 15:09:05 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 4/14
- 5 -
8. It has been further averred that the plaintiff lodged a complaint with PS Moti Nagar against the defendant no.1 and 2, however, till date no action has been taken against them. Hence, left with no other option, plaintiff has filed the present suit.
9. That defendant no.2 was duly served with the summons on 02.08.2023 and thereafter the defendant no.2 entered appearance through its counsel on 07.08.2023. However, the defendant no.2 neither appeared before the Court subsequently nor filed any written statement and the right of defendant no.2 to file WS was closed vide order dated 30.10.2023.
10.That defendant no.1 was served through publication in newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated 20.12.2023. However, as the defendant no.1 failed to appear and did not file any written statement, the right of defendant no.1 to file WS was closed vide order dated 04.07.2024 and both the defendants were proceeded ex-parte. Accordingly, matter was proceeded with ex-parte plaintiff evidence.
11.In the meanwhile, an application was filed by the plaintiff U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC and same was allowed since it was necessary to implead the transport authority for effective adjudication in the matter. Thus, vide order dated 24.03.2025, Transport Authority, Burari Auto Unit was impleaded as defendant no.3 as a pro forma party.
Digitally
12.Thereafter, ex-parte evidence was led by the plaintiff. In signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17 15:09:14 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 5/14
- 6 -
ex-parte evidence in order to prove his case the plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and reiterated and reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the plaint on oath. Certain documents were also exhibited which are as under :-
Identification Mark Description Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR) Copy of TSR permit. Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR) Copy of GPS/GPRS. Ex.PW-1/3 & Copy of RC of vehicle and DL. Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR) Mark-X Copy of agency card (de-exhibited from Ex.PW-1/5 being photocopy). Ex.PW-1/6 (OSR) Copy of payment receipt. Ex.PW-1/7 (OSR) Copy of pollution receipt. Ex.PW-1/8 (OSR) Copy of CNG cylinder testing receipts.
Ex.PW-1/9 (OSR) Copy of driver's badge. Ex.PW-1/10 (OSR) Copy of fitness certificate of TSR. Ex.PW-1/11 (OSR) Copy of Aadhaar Card.
Ex.PW-1/12 (colly) Complaint.
Ex.PW-1/13 (colly) Copy of postal receipts and
(OSR) delivery report.
Ex.PW-1/14 Newspaper cutting showing the
publication regarding substitute service to defendant no.1.
13.No other witness was produced by the plaintiff. Thereafter, Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.07.17 15:09:26 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 6/14
- 7 -
ex-parte PE was closed vide order dated 05.06.2025 and ex-parte final arguments were also heard on the same date.
14.The arguments have been heard on behalf of plaintiff side and the pleadings along with the documents and evidence led has been carefully perused by this Court.
15.In order to prove the case, the plaintiff has placed on record a copy of payment receipt dated 11.12.2022 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- issued by Rashi Auto Deals/defendant no.1 i.e. Ex.PW-1/6 claiming that the same is the last payment receipt and as such the plaintiff has cleared all the payment of the loan taken by him. Further, plaintiff has placed on record Ex.PW-1/1 (colly), which is a copy of TSR permit showing the name of financier as "Baldev Finleae Pvt. Ltd." (defendant no.2 in the matter) on page no.16. Further, Ex.PW-1/2 is the "GPS/GPRS Integrated Fare meter backend Activation Details", Ex.PW-1/4 is the copy of DL, Ex.PW-1/3 is the copy of RC, showing financier as "Baldev Finleae Pvt. Ltd.". Further, Ex.PW-1/7 is the copy of pollution receipt, Ex.PW-1/8 is the copy of CNG cylinder testing receipt, Ex.PW-1/9 is the driver's badge mentioning the name of the plaintiff, Ex.PW-1/10 is the copy of fitness certificate of TSR bearing registration no.DL-1RW-6333, Ex.PW-1/11 is the copy of Aadhaar Card, Ex.PW-1/12 is the complaint addressed to SHO, PS Moti Nagar and Ex.PW-1/13 (colly) is the copy of postal receipts and tracking reports. Ex.PW-1/14 is the relevant Digitally signed by portion of the newspaper publication regarding substitute Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17 15:09:36 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 7/14
- 8 -
service to the defendant no.1. One document i.e. the copy of agency card was marked as 'Mark-X' (2 pages).
16.The defendants remained absent on the date when PW1 tendered his evidence. No cross examination was conducted on behalf of the defendants.
17.The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a decree of mandatory injunction against defendant no.2 in particular and/or other defendants in general directing them to provide the correct certificates of registration, insurance and other related documents pertaining to the vehicle no.DL-1RW-6333 and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from taking away the auto/vehicle bearing no.DL-1RW-6333 illegally from the lawful custody of the plaintiff.
18.The case of the plaintiff is based on the assertions that he got a vehicle/auto financed from defendant no.1 for Rs.1,90,000/-, for which the plaintiff had to pay EMI of Rs.10,450/- per month. This loan was to be discharged by the plaintiff from the period of February'2018 to February'2020 i.e. within 2 years. The plaintiff has further asserted that on the initial payment, the vehicle was delivered to him by defendant no.1 and at that time the name of the financier was reflected in the documents as "Baldev Finlease Pvt. Ltd." whereas the plaintiff used to make payments to the defendant no.1 agency, which used to provide receipts to the plaintiff. Further it is stated by the Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17 15:09:44 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 8/14
- 9 -
plaintiff that he faced some financial crunch and defaulted on payment of 10 installments within the stipulated time. Thereafter, plaintiff was advised by the defendant no.1 to re-finance the defaulted EMIs and the plaintiff took the loan/re-financed previous loan from defendant no.2 with the help of defendant no.1 in the month of September'2020 for a sum of Rs.2 Lakh for 2 years, which was to be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs.10,850/- per month.
19.The substance of the case of plaintiff is that he has made entire payment of the loan amount and seeks the decree from this Court directing the defendants, especially defendant no.2 to issue a NOC/certificate to him regarding completion of payment of loan/installments, so that the name of the financier can be removed from the documents of the vehicle bearing no.DL-1RW-6333 and he can get the documents of the vehicle issued/registered in his name.
20.Accordingly, it was for the plaintiff to prove through documentary and oral evidence that he has paid the entire amount of Rs.2 Lakh (amount of re-financed loan) to the defendant no.1 and 2, either jointly or severally from September'2020 onwards.
21.It is settled law that it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to lead on record the convincing evidence to seek the relief as prayed for. It is settled principle of law that the plaintiff cannot take benefit of the weakness of the defendants and the case of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs. Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17 15:09:52 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 9/14
- 10 -
Therefore, when the defendants are ex parte, it does not mean that the plaintiff will be automatically entitled to the decree as prayed for. In Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan [(1999) 8 SCC 396] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "As pointed out earlier, the court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor should the court proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the court..."
22.The law related to pronouncement of judgment where defendant fails to file the written statement has been provided U/O 8 Rule 5 (2) and Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. As per Order 8 Rule 5 (2) of CPC, where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint and the Court may in his discretion require any such fact to be proved. Further, as per Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, the Court may pronounce the judgment against the defendant who has failed to file written statement under Rule 1 or 9 or make such order as the Court thinks fit.
23.In the present case, neither of the defendants filed a written statement. Defendant no.3 was added as a pro forma party, who never joined the proceedings. Accordingly, Order 8 Rule 10 CPC becomes applicable to the facts of the case.
Digitally signed by Lalit
24.In essence, the case of the plaintiff is that he paid the entire Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.07.17 15:10:02 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 10/14
- 11 -
loan amount by the month of December'2022. Further, when he approached the defendant no.1 for changing/ removing the name of financier from the RC, the defendant no.1 demanded the entire original receipts of payment from him. When these receipts were shown to defendant no.1, he took plaintiff's signatures on some blank papers and assured him that NOC would be issued shortly. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 evaded the request of plaintiff on one pretext or another and did not issue the NOC till the filing of the suit.
25.To prove that the plaintiff has paid the loan amount to the defendants, plaintiff was required to place on record suitable documents to this effect. In this regard, plaintiff has placed on record only one receipt i.e. Ex.PW-1/6. Perusal of the same shows that it is a receipt bearing no.4515, dated 11.12.2022, for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and issued in favour of DL-1RW-6333. The said receipt has been signed on behalf of Rashi Auto Deals. As per the assertion of the plaintiff, Ex.PW-1/6, is the receipt of last payment of the EMIs. However, perusal of Ex.PW-1/6 / receipt does not show any such endorsement on the receipt to the effect that the amount of Rs.10,000/- mentioned in the receipt is the last EMI or that the loan has been repaid in entirety. Further, as per plaintiff's own version, the amount of EMIs of the re-financed loan was Rs.10,850/- per month, whereas Ex.PW-1/6 is only for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, Ex.PW-1/6 also appears to be only Digitally signed by a part payment and not full payment of any one of the Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.07.17 15:10:10 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 11/14
- 12 -
EMIs. Furthermore, no document has been placed on record by the plaintiff that is cross-signed either by defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 acknowledging that the loan taken by the plaintiff has been repaid or satisfied. Only on the basis of one receipt of part payment i.e. Ex.PW-1/6, it cannot be assumed that the plaintiff has paid his entire loan to the defendant no.1 or defendant no.2. In absence of any specific document or oral testimony of any witness apart from the plaintiff, it remains unproved that the plaintiff has discharged his liability towards the defendant no.1 or defendant no.2. It was for the plaintiff to prove the payment of entire loan amount i.e. Rs.2 Lakh to defendant no.1 or defendant no.2. However, plaintiff has only been able to prove a payment of Rs.10,000/- in favour of defendant no.1. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden to prove that he has satisfied his loan liability and is entitled to get the further relief of a NOC in his favour.
26.In his plaint, the plaintiff has asserted that after December'2020 (when the plaintiff allegedly paid the entire loan amount), the defendant no.1 had demanded the entire original receipts of payment to be produced by him at the residence of defendant no.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the original payment receipts were produced for perusal of defendant no.1 and after perusal, the defendant no.1 assured him that NOC would be issued. Therefore, it is clear that at some point of time, plaintiff Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar was in possession of more than one payment receipt. The Kumar 2025.07.17 15:10:17 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 12/14
- 13 -
plaintiff has failed to specifically mention whether or not these receipts were retained by defendant no.1. No other explanation has been provided by the plaintiff about the whereabouts of other payment receipts. The plaintiff has failed to produce any other payment receipts apart from Ex.PW-1/6 for reasons best known to him.
27.All the other documentary evidences placed on record by the plaintiff do not help his case in any way as these are either the documents pertaining to the vehicle (such as TSR compliance, pollution certificate, GPS/GPRS certificate, RC, etc.) or the documents pertaining to the plaintiff (driving licence, Aadhaar Card, etc.). It is pertinent to mention that plaintiff has placed on record Ex.PW-1/3, which is supposedly the Registration Certificate (RC) of the Auto/vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1RW-6333. However, perusal of Ex.PW-1/3 shows that it does not mention the registration number "DL-1RW-6333" or any other registration number. Therefore, it is not clear whether the Ex.PW-1/3 is the RC of the vehicle/Auto for which the loan was taken by the plaintiff. Accordingly, Ex.PW-1/3 stands rejected from the evidence as it does not prove that it is the RC of the same vehicle for which the loan was taken by the plaintiff from defendants.
28.In view of the above, owing to the absence of documentary and oral evidences, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case in so far as the payment of loan amount of Rs.2 Lakh is Digitally signed by concerned. No acknowledgment of defendants has been Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.07.17 15:10:26 +0530 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 13/14
- 14 -
placed on record to show that the plaintiff had fulfilled his loan liability. Furthermore, only one payment receipt of Rs.10,000/- has been placed on record against the admitted loan amount of Rs.2 Lakh. Other documentary evidences placed on record by the plaintiff do not pertain to either the loan or its repayment.
29.Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has failed to categorically prove the payment of entire loan amount to the defendants that would entitle him to get a NOC from the defendants so that he can get the correct certificate of registration, insurance and other related documents pertaining to vehicle no.DL-1RW-6333, issued in his own name. Therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on merits.
30.In light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed in discharging his burden to prove his case on merits. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities. Digitally signed Lalit byDate:Lalit Kumar Kumar 2025.07.17 15:10:42 +0530 (This judgment contains 14 pages and each (LALIT KUMAR) page has been signed by the undersigned) Civil Judge-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open Court on 17.07.2025 Suit No.964/2023 Tilak Chand Vs. Rashi Auto Deals & Anr. Page No. 14/14