Delhi District Court
M/S Vintage Credit And Leasing Pvt Ltd vs Lucky Vashisht on 13 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
CS SCJ NO. 1729/2022
CNR Number: DLWT-03-003186-2022
Ms. Vintage Credit & Leasing (P) Ltd.
Office at : 7/30, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi - 110008.
Through its Manager
Sh. Sanni Gupta .....Plaintiff
Versus
(1). Sh. Lucky Vashisht S/o. Sh. Puran Chand,
R/o. H. No. B-365, Near S. S. Public School,
Sangam Vihar, Mehrouli, Delhi - 110062.
Also at :-
Sh. Lucky Vashisht S/o. Sh. Puran Chand,
C/o. : Centraprise IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
Designation : Assistant Manager Research
H-28, Arv Park, Sector - 63, Noida,
U.P. - 201301.
2. Sh. Sumant Kumar
S/o. Sh. Suresh Kumar,
R/o. H. No. 104/4, Hans Enclave,
Near Dinesh Jain Complex, Rajiv Chowk,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001.
Also at :-
Sh. Sumant Kumar S/o. Sh. Suresh Kumar
C/o. : HSIL Limited,
Designation : Assistant Manager,
3rd Floor, Unit No. 301 - 302,
Park Centra, Sector - 30, NH-8,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001.
Digitally signed ......Defendants
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.13
16:01:25
+0530
Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 1 of 24
Date of Filing of the suit : 16.11.2022
Date of Judgment : 13.08.2025
Decision : Decree
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.85,000/- under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) along with future interest at the rate of 19.9% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. It is inter-alia averred by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff M/s Vintage Credit & Leasing (P) Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the plaintiff is represented through its authorized representative Mr. Sanni Gupta, who has been working as Manager and duly authorized by the Board of Directors vide Board Resolution dated 01.01.2019.
3. It is further averred, that defendant no.1 Sh. Lucky Vashisht (Borrower) approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and promised to repay the amount with interest as per the terms and conditions. It is further averred, that defendant no.2 introduced himself as family friend of defendant no.1 and promised to repay the Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:01:37 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 2 of 24 loan amount, if the same is not repaid by defendant no.1 i.e. Sh. Lucky Vashisht.
4. It is further averred, that after relying on the assurance of the defendants, plaintiff had advanced loan for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant no.1 and also entered a tripartite Agreement dated 28.03.2019, wherein the defendant no.1 signed in the capacity of the borrower and defendant no.2 signed in the capacity of guarantor. The defendant no.1 had to repay the loan amount in 24 equal monthly installments of Rs.11,650/- each.
5. It is further averred, that after availing the loan facility, defendant no.1 i.e. borrower was very irregular and failed to make the payment of the installments in time and thus defaulted in clearing the loan amount. It is further averred, that the defendant no.1 in the capacity of borrower towards the discharge of the liability of balance amount issued a cheque bearing no.000041 dated 19.07.2022 for Rs.85,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Noida, U.P. and also assured that the said cheque, would be enchased without any difficulty.
6. It is further averred, that on representation, the cheque was returned unpaid vide cheque returning memo dated 26.07.2022 with the remark as "payment stopped by the drawer". Thereafter, a notice of demand dated 17.08.2022 was sent via speed post on 23.08.2022 to the defendant, which was duly served on the defendants, but despite service, the defendants had not made the payment of the said cheque Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:01:44 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 3 of 24 and the same is still outstanding as per the statement of account maintained by plaintiff. Lastly, it is prayed, that the present suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
7. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendants under Order 37 CPC and the defendants were duly served.
8. Thereafter, defendant no.1 filed an application for leave to defend, which was allowed subject to the condition of depositing 50% of the amount in the form of FDR by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 20.03.2024. The relevant portion of the order dated 20.03.2024 is reproduced as under :-
"6. Considering the averments of this application and the documents annexed therewith, it is clear that the said application disclosed triable issues. Application for leave to defend filed by the defendant no. 1 is allowed subject to the condition of deposition of 50% of the amount in the form of FDR. The defendant is directed to file written Digitally signed by statement within 30 days from today with RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
advance copy to the opposite party. 2025.08.13 16:01:50 +0530 Replication, if any, be filed."
9. Thereafter, Written Statement was filed by the defendant no.1.
Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 4 of 24However, the defendant had failed to file the FDR as ordered vide order dated 20.03.2024.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1.
10. It is averred by the defendant in his WS, that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and has intentionally suppressed the material facts. It is further averred, that this suit is a blatant attempt to deceive, pressurize and illegally grab money from the Defendant no.1. Further, the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is based on the basis of forged, fabricated and manipulated documents, which are even otherwise not admissible in the eyes of law.
11. It is further averred, that no amount or the alleged amount is due or payable by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 is not liable to pay any cheque amount or the alleged amount, as the defendant no.1 had already paid every installment to the plaintiff and now the plaintiff company has been illegally demanding more amount. It is further averred, that the plaintiff by misusing the cheque given by the defendant no.1 at the time of availing the loan is now trying to drag defendant no.1 in Court solely to grab the excess amount.
Therefore, the defendant has denied all the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMARICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.13
16:01:58
+0530
Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 5 of 24
12. Defendant no. 2 has neither appeared in the Court personally nor has filed any written statement in his defence.
ISSUES
13. From the pleadings, following issues were framed on 19.11.2024:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of Rs.85,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 19.9% per annum, as prayed for ?OPP
2.Whether the defendant no.1 has paid every installment of the loan and no amount is due or outstanding against him? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts ? OPD
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFF
14. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Sanni Gupta, AR as PW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW- 1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
1. Mark X is the true copy of the certificate of incorporation,
2. Mark Y is the true copy of board resolution,
3. Ex.PW1/C is the original loan agreement dated 28.03.2019,
4. Ex.PW1/D is the ledger statement, Digitally signed by
5. Ex.PW1/E is the original cheque bearing no. 000041, RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13
6. Ex.PW1/F is the returning memo of cheque, 16:02:07 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 6 of 24
7. Ex.PW1/G is the legal demand notice,
8. Ex.PW1/H (colly) is the postal receipts,
9. Mark A (colly) is the tracking report.
15. PW1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
16. Thereafter, the plaintiff evidence was closed on 24.04.2025.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE DEFENDANT No.1
17. In order to prove his case, defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW-1, and filed his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.DW1/A. DW1 was cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the plaintiff.
18. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was closed on 18.07.2025.
19. Pursuant to the completion of evidences advanced by the parties, the present matter was listed for final arguments.
20. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the respective stakeholders at length and have gone through the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under :-
21. The burden to prove issue No. 1 was on the plaintiff and that of the Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA second and third issue was on the defendants. SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:02:15 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 7 of 24
22. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to discuss in brief the law pertaining to the burden of proof as entailed under the earlier Indian Evidence Act and the present Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023.
23. The burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation upon the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claim against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. Relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 dealing with burden of proof are produced as under:-
Burden of proof:-
104. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA 105. On whom burden of proof lies.-- SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:02:23 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 8 of 24 The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
106. Burden of proof as to particular fact.-
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
109. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
24. Therefore, on the basis of the law laid down as above, court proceeds with the appreciation of evidence as adduced in the present suit.
25. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Sanni Gupta as PW1, who in his testimony got exhibited the true copy of the certificate of incorporation marked as Mark X, which reveals that the plaintiff company was incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 on 10th September, 1992. Further, PW1 has placed on record the true copy of the Board Resolution marked as Mark Y, vide which Mr. Sanni Gupta, Manager of the plaintiff, was authorized to pursue the present case on behalf of the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by RICHASHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.13 16:02:30 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 9 of 24
26. Further, in order to prove that the loan facility was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1, in which the defendant no. 1 was the borrower and the defendant no. 2 was the guarantor, PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has got exhibited various loan documents which were executed between the plaintiff bank and the defendants, as original loan agreement dated 28.03.2019 exhibited as Ex.PW1/C, ledger statement exhibited as Ex.PW1/D, original cheque bearing no. 000041 exhibited as Ex.PW1/E, returning memo of cheque exhibited as Ex.PW1/F, legal demand notice exhibited as Ex.PW1/G, postal receipts exhibited as Ex.PW1/H (colly) and tracking report exhibited as Mark A (colly). Bare perusal of the above said loan document clearly shows, that plaintiff company had granted financial assistance by way of loan facility to the defendant no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 28.03.2019, which was to be repaid in 24 equal monthly loan installments of 11,650/- in terms of agreement. Further, the above documents also reveals, that the defendant no. 1 had agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount @ 19.9 % per annum and the defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant no. 1.
27. It is further pertinent to mention, that PW1 was subjected to litmus test of cross-examination, whereby no material discrepancy could be seen in cross-examination of PW-1 and further, the stand of PW-1 through out the cross-examination is concurring with the averments of the plaint.
Digitally signed by RICHARICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:02:36 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 10 of 24
28. Further, the plaintiff has also placed reliance upon the legal notice exhibited as Ex.PW1/G supported with postal receipts already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/H (Colly) and tracking report marked as Mark A, vide which the loan was recalled by the plaintiff on the persistent defaults committed by defendant. It is a settled proposition of law, that if a party despite service of legal notices chooses not to reply to the same, the averments of the notice stands admitted.
Furthermore, the legal notice along with postal receipts was also sent by plaintiff to the defendant and at this stage inference can be drawn on the basis of Section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshar Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act), which states that, "the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and/a private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case." The Clause (f) appended to the section clearly states that, "common course of business has been followed in a particular case, implying that where a letter or legal notice as in the present case is sent to the defendant, it would have ordinarily been delivered in the common course of business to the party to whom it was addressed."
29. In this case the delivery of the legal notice also stands proved by the postal receipts placed on record and also the tracking report of the service of the legal notice.
Digitally
30. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:02:45 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 11 of 24 Abdul Gaffar vs. DDA 2001 Rajdhani Law Reporter 249 that if a legal notice is given by a party, the same is not replied and contents not denied then, silence of the notice raises presumption against him. Another judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled as Kalu Ram v Sita Ram 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 44 is on the same aspect.
31. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention Section 27 of the General Clauses Act :
"Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or "given" or "send"
or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter Digitally signed by RICHA would be delivered in the ordinary RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 course of post."
16:02:50
+0530
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 12 of 24 Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 observed as under :
"The principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act could profitably be imported in a case where the sender had dispatched the notice by post with the direct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the addressee, unless he proves that it was not really served and he was not responsible for such non-service. These were the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case relating to service of notice U/s 138 of NI Act. "
33. Thus, it is noteworthy to mention, that plaintiff by virtue of loan documents, statement of account and legal notice placed on record of this court, has been able to prove its case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that the defendants had taken a financial assistance / loan from the plaintiff company and that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the outstanding amount from the defendants as the same is duly reflected from the account statement exhibited as Ex.PW1/D. Thus, by examining PW-1 and placing on Digitally signed by record all the relevant documents consisting of loan agreement, RICHA RICHA affidavit, statement of account, certificate under Bankers Book, SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:02:56 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 13 of 24 operations letter etc., plaintiff has duly substantiated its case and discharged the burden placed upon him as per Section 104 of the Bhartiya Sakshara Adhiniyam, 2023. Now, the onus was upon the defendant no.1 to establish the averments made by him in his written statement.
34. It is apropos to state, that defendant has nowhere denied that the defendant no.1 had taken a loan from the plaintiff company, but on the other hand defendant no.1 had taken the defence that he had already paid the loan amount through installments. At this stage, it become relevant to quote Section 104 of Bhartiya Sakshara Adhiniyam, 2023 which states, that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exists.
35. Further, Section 105 of the Bhartiya Sakshara Adhiniyam, 2023 talks about shifting of burden of proof. So, in the light of law as above if once it is admitted by the defendant no.1 that he had taken a loan from the plaintiff company and had repaid the same via installments, the burden shifts upon the defendant to prove the same. The defendant no.1 in order to prove his case examined himself as DW1.
36. DW1 was subjected to litmus test of cross-examination whereby he Digitally signed by admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs. 2 Lakhs from the plaintiff RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 company and the loan was to be repaid in 24 equal monthly 16:03:02 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 14 of 24 installments of Rs. 11,650/-. He further went on to admit in his cross-examination, that he had paid all the installments but the same were not paid on time. The relevant excerpts of his cross- examination to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"It is correct that I had taken loan of Rs. 2 Lakhs from the plaintiff company. It is correct that the installment of the loan amount was Rs. 11,650/-. The said loan was to be repaid in the 24 equal monthly installments of Rs. 11,650/-. I have paid all the installments but the same were not paid on time."
37. DW1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination, that he had not filed any document to show to the Court that he had made full payment to the plaintiff company. He voluntarily stated, that he does not have any receipt of cash payment that was made by him to the plaintiff company in order to substantiate his claim of payment being duly discharged by them. DW1 further went on to admit in his cross- examination, that he had not made any demand to the plaintiff company to give NOC for the loan taken by him and that he did not have any NOC issued by the plaintiff. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under:-
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:03:09 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 15 of 24 "I had not filed any document to show to the Court that I have made full payment to the plaintiff company. Vol. I do not have receipt of cash payment made to plaintiff company. I have not made any demand to the plaintiff company to give me NOC for the present loan. I do not have NOC."
38. It is imperative to note, that the defendant duly admitted the loan being taken from the plaintiff company and he stated that he had already paid all the installments in cash, but no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the defendant to support his contentions. In fact, the defendant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination, that he has not placed on record any such proof to show that any such amount stood repaid by the defendant.
39. DW1 further went on to admit in his cross-examination, that he could not even specify the dates on which he had made the installments in cash to the plaintiff company. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under:-
"I do not know as to when I have made Digitally signed by cash payments to the plaintiff company RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: which are not reflected in the company."
2025.08.13 16:03:15 +0530
40. During the course of the cross-examination, a question was put by Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 16 of 24 the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff to the DW1, that he had stated in para no. 1 of his affidavit in evidence that contents of the plaint are self contradictory at many places and that if he can point out those contradictions before the Court. A Court question was also put to DW1, that whether he was aware of the contents of his evidence affidavit, to which he replied that "abhi pata laga hain". The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under:-
"Q. I put to you that you have stated in para no. 1 of your evidence affidavit that the contents of the plaint are self- contradictory at any places. Can you point out those contradictions before the Court?
Court Question : Are you aware of the contents of your evidence affidavit? Answer : Abhi pata laga hain."
41. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff specifically asked a question to DW1 that in para no. 3 of his affidavit in evidence, he had stated that the suit is based on the false, fabricated and manipulated documents and he was asked to point out those documents. However, after taking sufficient time and after going through the record, DW1 failed to Digitally highlight any contradictions as stated by him. Rather, DW1 had signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: admitted that he had not filed any complaint qua the fabrication of 2025.08.13 16:03:22 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 17 of 24 the documents as alleged by him in evidence affidavit. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination are reproduced as under :-
"Q. I put to you that you have stated in para no. 3 of your evidence affidavit that the suit based on false, fabricated and manipulated documents. Can you point out those documents?
Court Observation : After giving sufficient time to the witness to go through the record, the witness is not able to highlight the said contradictions.
It is correct that till date I have not filed any complaint qua the fabrication of the documents as alleged by me as evidence affidavit."
42. DW1 further admitted in his cross-examination, that he had received the demand notice of the plaintiff company dated 17.08.2022 but he had not replied to the same, however, he telephonically contacted them and that he had not paid the said amount to the plaintiff company despite receiving the notice. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of DW1 are reproduced as under :-
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:03:29 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 18 of 24 "It is correct that I have received the demand notice of the plaitiff company dated 17.08.2022. I have not replied to the same however, I have telephonically contacted them. I have not paid the said amount to the plaintiff company despite receiving the notice."
43. Thus, there are clear-cut admissions on the part of the defendant no.1 qua the taking of loan from the plaintiff company. Though, the defence had been taken by the defendant No. 1 that he had paid all the installments to the plaintiff, but he miserably failed to prove the same by adducing any cogent documentary evidence to this effect on record.
44. Hence, on the observations and findings made as above and in absence of any cogent evidence being led by the defendants to prove their averments, it can be safely culled out, that the averments made by the defendant no. 1 are completely sham and illusionary as no material evidence is led by the defendants to prove their case.
45. Thus, in the teeth of the above analysis, issue no.1 stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
46. The onus to prove issue no. 2 and 3 was upon the defendants.
Digitally signed by RICHASHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.13 16:03:35 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 19 of 24
47. At the cost of repetition it is being stated, that defendant no. 1 has simply made bald and self serving statements with regard to the discharge of his complete liability towards the plaintiff. During the course of the cross examination of DW-1, it has been deposed by him on oath that he has made the entire payment as per the scheduled installments to the plaintiff but admittedly as per DW-1's own version the said installments were paid in cash and no proof regarding the said payment has been filed on record. There is no iota of evidence on record of the Court to even remotely deduce, that the defendant no. 1 has paid back the entire loan amount to the plaintiff company as there is neither any proof of payment placed on record of the court nor is there any receipt filed on record to show the mode and mechanism in which the installments were paid.
Therefore, in the absence of any evidence being brought forth on record of the Court by the defendant to establish his defence, issue no. 2 stands decided against the defendant.
48. As far as the third issue goes, it is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff neither approached the Court with clean hands nor has it brought the entire facts on record of the Court. Now, in the light of the said averments it was imperative upon the part of the defendant to have highlighted the facts that are alleged to be suppressed by the plaintiff in its plaint and at the same time it was also expected that the defendant ought to have adduced evidence to bring to the surface Digitally signed by the manner and mechanism in which the plaintiff has not approached RICHA RICHA the Court with clean hands but all in vein. Apart from making bald SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:03:43 +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 20 of 24 and blanket averments in the WS regarding the material suppression of the facts at the hands of the plaintiff and not coming to the Court with clean hands by the plaintiff, the defendant has not led any cogent evidence to prove the same. Leave alone the evidence, the said facts have not even been argued by the defendant and in this eventuality the present issue i.e. Issue no. 3 also stands decided against the defendant.
49. Further, the issues in civil cases are to be decided on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities was discussed in the judgment titled Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 330 which reads as under:
"17. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 this curt dealt with in details the distinction between negligence in civil law n din criminal law. It has been held that there is marked difference as to the effect of evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable Digitally signed by RICHA doubt".
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13
16:03:49
+0530
Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 21 of 24
50. In Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane on 19th March, 1975 AIR 1975 SC 1534, (1975), SCC 326, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"24.The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probably that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of Digitally signed by parties demand a closer scrutiny than those RICHA RICHA SHARMA like the loan on a promissory note : "the SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13 16:03:56 nature and gravity of an issue necessarily +0530 Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 22 of 24 determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue "Per Dixon, J. In Wright v. Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear" Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 A.E.R. 534 at 536. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged."
51. Therefore, in view of the detailed discussions as above and as a result of the appreciation of evidence, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has duly proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that an amount of Rs. 85,000/- was due by the defendants to the plaintiff.
52. As a squeal to the above, plaintiff has prayed for pendentelite and future interest on the principal amount @ 19.90% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till its realization. But, in the considered opinion of this court, interest sought by the plaintiff is on a higher side and therefore, interest @ 6% per annum being just, fair and reasonable is awarded. Therefore, plaintiff is awarded the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till its realization.
Digitally signed by RICHARICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.13
16:04:02 +0530
Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 23 of 24
Relief
53. Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed for the sum of Rs.85,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of the filing of the suit till its realization. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit.
54. Decree Sheet shall be prepared on filing of deficient Court fees, if any.
55. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court
on 13.08.2025
(Richa Sharma)
Digitally signed
by RICHA Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC
SHARMA
RICHA
SHARMA
Date:
2025.08.13
THC / Delhi /13.08.2025
16:04:07
+0530
Civil Suit No.1729/22 M/s. Vintage Credit and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Vashisht Page 24 of 24