Delhi District Court
Sanjay Dhingra vs Mrs. Neelam Uppal on 19 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN, ACJ/CCJ/ARC
(SOUTH): DISTRICT COURT SAKET: NEW DELHI.
CS SCJ No.1167/2018
Sanjay Dhingra
s/o late Sh. Ishwar Dass Dhingra,
R/o: E3/8, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110018 .......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mrs. Neelam Uppal
wd/o late Sh. Ravinder Uppal
2. Sh. Vikram Uppal
s/o late Sh. Ravinder Uppal
3. Ms. Honey Uppal
D/o late Sh. Ravinder Uppal
All Residents of:
A276, 2nd Floor, Shivalik,
New Delhi 110018 ..........Defendant
Date of Institution : 17.12.2018
Date Reserve for orders : 30.09.2019
Date of Decision : 19.10.2019
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,68,000/ (RUPEES ONE LAKH SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 15% PER ANNUM
1. It is the case of plaintiff that husband of defendant no.1 i.e. deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal s/o late Sh. V. P. Uppal and father of CS SCJ No. 1167/18 Sanjay Dhingra v. Neelam Uppal & Ors. Pages 1/6 defendants no.2 and 3 had previous acquaintance with him and, accordingly, deceased Ravinder Uppal took a friendly loan of Rs.3 lakhs from him for three months in the year August, 2015 through cheque bearing no.078744 and same was encashed by the deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal on 12.08.2015 from his account in Central Bank of India, Malviya Nagar. As per plaintiff, deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal at the time of taking the friendly loan had given a handwritten undertaking accepting the liability of Rs. 3 lakhs towards him and had also issued a cheque bearing no. 079598 dated 11.11.2015 for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs maintained in Central Bank of India, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi from his account.
2. As per plaintiff, even after the expiry of the three months deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal due to financial hardships requested him to return the loan amount in installments as and when he was capable of returning any part of the loan amount due and asked him to return his previous cheque no. 079598 as the same had become infructuous and would issue three new cheques amounting to Rs.1 lakh each in his favour. Plaintiff stated that as per request of deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal, he returned the said cheque to him and took three undated cheques amounting Rs.1 lakh each from him.
3. As per plaintiff, during the said period, even all the defendants have been contacting him for the repayment of part of the loan amount by cash or paytm app during Ravinder Uppal's lifetime and CS SCJ No. 1167/18 Sanjay Dhingra v. Neelam Uppal & Ors. Pages 2/6 after his demise. As per plaintiff, defendant no.2 being the son of deceased remained in touch with him during the lifetime of his father and even after his demise and send messages to him through whatsapp seeking time for repayment of the loan amount. As per plaintiff, defendant no.2 also paid the part payment of the loan amount to him via his paytm account. As per plaintiff, unfortunately deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal had expired and all defendants have inherited his assets being the legal heirs and, hence, the liability of the repayment of the loan amount rests against all the defendants jointly and severally.
4. As per plaintiff, on several occasions he communicated to the defendants that till date out of loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/ till August, 2018 had been returned in parts by deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal. As per plaintiff, after the demise of Sh. Ravinder Uppal despite several assurance by all the defendants, they have shown their dishonest intentions and had not paid the balance loan amount to him till date.
5. As per plaintiff, in order to give one more opportunity to the defendants issued a legal notice dt. 20.11.2018 to all the defendants which was duly served on them on 27.11.2018. However, no further payment has been received till date despite service of said legal notice.
Hence, the present suit has been filed for passing a decree in CS SCJ No. 1167/18 Sanjay Dhingra v. Neelam Uppal & Ors. Pages 3/6 favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ the principal amount as well as Rs.8,000/, the interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. August, 2018 to December, 2018 thus total amounting to Rs.1,68,000/ till date of filing of the present suit and shall be entitled to further interest @ 15% per annum till the realization.
SERVICE & APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT
6. All defendants were served on 26.02.2019. However, defendants neither filed their WS nor entered appearance thereafter. The opportunity for filing the WS was closed on 08.04.2019 and matter was proceeded ex parte.
EX PARTE PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
7. In ex parte plaintiff evidence, plaintiff Sanjay Dhingra examined himself as PW1. He relied upon the following documents: Ex.PW1/A is his bank statement showing the amount of Rs. 3 lakh by cheque bearing no. 078744 Ex.PW1/B is the handwritten undertaking issued by deceased Sh. Ravinder Uppal, husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2 and 3.
Ex.PW1/C (colly) are the three cheques amounting to Rs.1 lakh each given by deceased Ravinder Uppal to plaintiff CS SCJ No. 1167/18 Sanjay Dhingra v. Neelam Uppal & Ors. Pages 4/6 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to Annexure D (whatsapp conversation) is Ex.PW1/D, Annexure E (paytm statement) is Ex.PW1/E and certificate is Ex.PW1/E1. Ex.PW1/F (colly) is the legal notice dated 20.11.2018 along with postal receipts and internet generated tracking report.
8. He also tender additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/2. As per the said affidavit, the plaintiff has furnished the details of the properties acquired/inherited by the legal heirs of late Sh. Ravinder Uppal as under:
a) House No.A276, 2nd Floor, Shivalik, New Delhi (Valued Rs. 1 crore)
b) Shop No.89, Central Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017 presently rented out to M/s Mobifit by defendant no.2 after the demise of late Sh. Ravinder Uppal.
FINDINGS:
9. I have gone through the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and testimony of PW1. The plaintiff has proved the bank account statement showing the encashment of the cheque of Rs.3 lakhs and has deposed on oath that the said amount has been given to the husband of defendant no.1. He has also proved the undertaking given by husband of defendant no.1 whereby he has acknowledged the liability of Rs.3 lakhs towards the plaintiff. The plaintiff has deposed that defendants are the spouse/children of the debtor of CS SCJ No. 1167/18 Sanjay Dhingra v. Neelam Uppal & Ors. Pages 5/6 deceased and that they have inherited his properties valuing more than the outstanding dues of the deceased towards the plaintiff. The testimony and the documents of plaintiff are unrebutted. Rather defendants have even failed to dispute the pleadings of the plaintiff. Accordingly, case of plaintiff stands proved on preponderance of probabilities.
Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff is decreed and plaintiff is held entitled to recover amount of Rs.1,60,000/ from the defendants. The plaintiff has also claimed the interest @15% per annum but no document have been filed showing such rate of interest and rather it is the case of plaintiff himself that loan was given as a friendly loan. However, the loan was not paid within the prescribed period and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the same. Considering the interest rates of the nationalized banks, court deems it fit to award the interest @ 9% since the date of the legal notice till realization. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN SANGWAN
Pronounced in open court SANGWAN Date:
2019.10.19
on 19th October, 2019 17:08:51
+0530
(Sachin Sangwan)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(South):
District Court Saket,
New Delhi.
CS SCJ No. 1167/18 Sanjay Dhingra v. Neelam Uppal & Ors. Pages 6/6