Delhi District Court
Smt Kavita Puri vs Smt Tripti Sajjan on 4 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
WEST DISTRICT-DELHI.
Civ DJ No.- 718/22
CNR NO. DLWT01-007797-2022
DLWT010077972022
Mrs Kavita Puri
W/o Shri Kamal Puri,
R/o 19/291, New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
.......Plaintiff.
Versus
Mrs Tripti Sajjan
W/o Sh. Rajiv Sajjan
R/o A-172, Second Floor,
New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
.....Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 12.08.2022
Date on which reserved for judgment : 02.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 04.07.2025.
Order on the application seeking Leave to Defend the suit
1.The defendant has moved the present application for seeking unconditional leave of the court to defend the claim raised by the plaintiff for seeking recovery of Rs. 11,83,500/-.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 1/20
2. The brief factual recapitulation leading to filing of the present suit u/o 37 CPC would be relevant.
3. As per plaint, in terms of mutual agreement dated 08.11.2019, the defendant had let out one room set, front side portion of second floor of property no. A-172, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') to the plaintiff against a security of Rs. 6,50,000/- for a period of 2 years w.e.f 08.11.2019 to 07.11.2021, with stipulations that the defendant would not charge any rent from the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall not charge interest on her said security deposit.
4. It is averred in the plaint that thereafter defendant approached to the plaintiff for loan as defendant was in urgent need of money for personal need. Upon the request of defendant and considering good relation, the plaintiff helped the defendant financially and gave her a loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- and the defendant had received the same on 23.02.2020 vide her hand writing dated 23.02.2020. It is further averred that the defendant had acknowledged to have received total sum of Rs. 9,30,000/- from plaintiff vide his handwriting dated 23.02.2020 and 18.10.2020 and vide his writing dated 26.07.2020, the defendant had committed, agreed and promised to pay interest @ 2% per month on said total sum of Rs. 9,30,000/-.
5. It is further averred by the plaintiff that to ensure part payment out of total outstanding to the plaintiff, the defendant in discharge of her liability, had issued a cheque to the plaintiff i.e. cheque bearing no. 260238 dated 01.11.2021 for an amount of Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 2/20 Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, DLF Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15 and thereafter having good faith the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendant against the issuance of the above said cheque and the defendant assured the plaintiff that aforesaid cheque would be encashed, on its presentation, on due date.
6. It is further averred by the plaintiff that on presentation of above said cheque for realization and enchashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks as "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque returning memo dated 24.11. 2021. It is further averred in the plaint that despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to make the payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- and as such defendant has intentionally and deliberately with held the said amount and failed to pay her outstanding liability as per terms and conditions of the said mutual agreement, and consequently, defendant is liable to pay the interest on the said amount of Rs. 9 lacs as defendant has agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month, on the said total sum of Rs. 9,30,000/-.
7. It is further averred by the plaintiff that thereafter, plaintiff tried to contact and interacts with the defendant in this regard but defendant is ignoring and rather threatening the plaintiff by representing her that the defendant shall sell, transfer and enter any agreement with third party by which she will gain wrongfully.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 3/20
8. It is further averred that plaintiff got served a legal notice dated 21.12.2021 through registered AD, speed post and the said legal notice was duly served upon the defendant, at the above mentioned address but inspite of that defendant has failed to comply with said notice, i.e. to make payment with interest till date.
9. It is further averred by the plaintiff that plaintiff has filed a complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act against the defendant for committing offence, which is pending in the court of Ms Chayya Tyagi Ld. M.M. West District vide C.C No. 572/22.
10. It is further averred by the plaintiff that due to non- payment of the above said amount by the defendant, the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 11,83,500/- against the defendant.
11. Summons of the suit under order 37(2) CPC in the form 4 as prescribed in Appendix-B was issued to the defendant. The defendant was served on 29.08.2022 and statutory appearance was put in on 05.09.2022. Thereafter summons for judgment were served upon the defendant on 16.08.2023 and the present application under order 37 rule 3(5) CPC for leave to defend has been filed on behalf of defendant on 25.08.2023 which is within limitation.
12. In the application seeking leave to defend, it is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff by filing the instant suit, wants to take the benefit of his own wrong as the suit is false Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 4/20 to the knowledge of plaintiff himself as a sum of Rs.11,83,500/- became due to the defendant from the plaintiff and in order pressurize the defendant not to lay his claim to the said amount, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit.
13. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit or that there is no cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff or that plaintiff has not come with clean hands before this court and has filed the present suit, in order to crate pressure upon the defendant.
14. It is further contended by the defendant that there is lot of ambiguity in the suit of the plaintiff, the amount which plaintiff has demanded is different from the cheque amount, agreement amount and the receipts filed by the plaintiff. It is further contended that the interest calculated by the plaintiff is wrong and false.
15. It is further contended by the defendant that as per order 37, plaintiff cannot claim interest amount in this case, if he wants the interest then the simple recovery suit would be filed by the plaintiff. It is further contended that all the documents filed by the plaintiff with suit is unregistered, without notarization, and are just a rough slips, and the same are completely denied by the defendant, as the defendant never signed these types of documents.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 5/20
16. It is further contended by defendant that the sign of the defendant, on documents filed by the plaintiff is different everywhere. It is further contended that plaintiff has nowhere mentioned that how a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- converted into Rs. 11,83,500/-. It is further contended that the suit of the plaintiff is completely depends on the documents filed with the suit and which are denied by the defendant and the defence of the defendant is that he never signed these hand written documents and defendant has already paid the amount mentioned in the agreement. The defendant has denied his signatures on all the documents filed by the plaintiff. She further submitted that the documents filed by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated.
17. The Plaintiff has filed reply to the above said application and took preliminary objections that the application in the present form is not maintainable because the defendant has failed to file detailed affidavit of facts for seeking leave to contest the present suit. It is further averred in the reply that there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the allegations of the defendant and in the absence of any cogent or plausible evidence on record, to substantiate her allegations and same are of no legal consequence or credence.
18. It is further averred in the reply that it is impossible to believe that defendant had made alleged payment to the plaintiff, without getting any receipt/acknowledgment of alleged payment from the plaintiff without even mentioning the date, month and year of the alleged payment made to the plaintiff.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 6/20
19. It is further submitted that the grounds for seeking leave to defend the case made in the application are self contradictory to the allegations made by the defendant in her defence to the complaint filed by the plaintiff under section 138 of N.I. Act 1881, vide CC No. 572/2022, titled Ms Kavita Puri Vs Ms Tripti Sajjan, pending in the court of Sh. Vaibhav Pratap Singh, ld. M..M. (NI)-02, West Distt. Delhi wherein the defendant has admitted inter-alia her signatures on cheque, subject matter of the present suit, whereby the defendant had acknowledged to have received the cheque amount and stated that the defendant has returned the entire amount in cash after the plaintiff vacated the rented property but failed to produce any receipt for payment of the amount in question. It is further submitted that without production of receipt for payment in cash, the contention and submission as made by the applicant/defendant is not admissible under the law especially there is specific direction from the RBI that no transaction in cash is admissible more than Rs. 2 lacs.
20. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the allegations made by the defendant that the documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the present suit are just rough slips, not signed by the defendant, not registered, not notarizated and are forged and fabricated, are contrary to her defence taken in complaint filed by plaintiff against her u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, hence the allegations in the application under reply are vitiated, unbelievable and improbable on the face of them.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 7/20
21. It is further averred that there is no explanation from the defendant as to why and under what circumstances she did not give reply to notice dated 21.12.2021, despite service of said notice on the defendant. This fact amounts to admission of claim of the plaintiff in the present suit by the defendant.
22. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the present application has been filed without any merit, but with malafide intention to gain time for making payment of the plaintiff and to unnecessarily harass the plaintiff.
23. It is further averred that admittedly, there is not even a single writing or communication from the defendant to the plaintiff, to the effect that the defendant had allegedly paid said sum to the plaintiff and this false allegation has been made in the application by the first time by the defendant after getting summons for judgment in the present case. In the absence of any such communication or writing or cogent and plausible evidence regarding alleged payment to the plaintiff by the defendant, the allegations of the defendant are absolutely unbelievable and improvable on the face of them. It is submitted that there is not at all any defence available to defendant to contest the present suit, therefore there is no triable issue in present suit.
24. On merits most of the contents of the application has been denied as wrong and it is averred that defendant has no plausible defense and defendant is not entitled to any unconditional leave to defend the suit. Plaintiff has also reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 8/20
25. I have heard the arguments from both sides and have gone through the entire case file and have carefully considered the written submissions as well as judgments relied upon by the plaintiff.
26. It is contended by the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has claimed interest in the present suit. It is further contended that in a suit filed u/o 37 CPC, the plaintiff cannot claim interest amount.
27. In a case titled Swaranjit Singh Sayal Vs M.K. Jain, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
18. I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the plaintiff being for a fixed amount of money under a receipt and cheque, the execution whereof is not denied by the defendant, would squarely fall within the ambit of Order XXXVII CPC. In this regard, reference may be made to the following observations of the coordinate bench in paragraph 13 of its decision in Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. N.S. Atwal decided on 04.07.2013 in CS(OS) 713/2010:
"13. As far as the plea of the maintainability of the suit under Order 37 of the CPC is concerned, though undoubtedly there is no document on the basis whereof, the defendant can be said to have admitted the liability in the balance principal amount of Rs. 2,98,39,060/- towards the plaintiff but in my opinion, in view of the subsequent admission by the defendant of the liability in the principal amount claimed in the suit, the same pales into insignificance. This Court, if were to, inspite of such admission by the defendant, go into technicalities as to the maintainability of the suit under Order 37 of the CPC, would be lending credence to the perception "the law is an ass - an idiot" echoed by Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens 'Oliver Twist'. Justice cannot be frustrated by legalistics. It is the duty of every court to prevent its machinery from being made a sham, thereby running down the rule of law itself as an object of public ridicule. It will Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 9/20 and must prove any stratagem self defeating if a party indulges in making the law a laughing stock, for the court will call him to order. Justice Krishna Iyer in Bushing Schmitz Private Limited v. P.T. Menghani MANU/SC/0344/1977 : (1977) 3 SCR 312 quoted with approval Lord Erskine "there is no branch of the jurisdiction of this Court more delicate than that, which goes to restrain the exercise of a legal right". He further held "But the principle of unconscionability clothes the court with the power to prevent its process being rendered a parody". Once it is clear that there is no dispute of the sum of Rs. 2,98,39,060/- being due from the defendant to the plaintiff in the loan account, the Court will not enter into an academic exercise and pronounce on technicalities. The Supreme Court in T. Arvindandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal MANU/SC/0034/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 2421, Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I MANU/SC/0951/2003 : (2004) 9 SCC 512 and ITC Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellant Tribunal MANU/SC/0968/1998 : (1998) 2 SCC 70 has held that the Courts are not to prolong litigations, the fate whereof is otherwise clear and at the expense of other cases requiring adjudication. Even if not under Order 37 of the CPC, the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC or under Order 15 is entitled to a decree in the principal sum of Rs. 2,98,39,060/- . Recently also, in Krishna Devi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group MANU/SC/0085/2011 : (2011) 3 SCC 363, the Supreme Court observed that justice is only blind or blindfolded to the extent necessary to hold its scales evenly; it is not, and must never be allowed, to become blind to the reality of the situation, lamentable though that situation may be."
22. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that in case while dealing with an application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC, the Court finds that the facts disclosed by the defendant in his affidavit are sufficient to show that he has a good defence to the plaintiff's claim on merits, he is entitled to an unconditional leave to defend. On the other hand, where the defendant may not have a good defence but is able to raise a triable issue indicating that he has a bonafide or reasonable defence, he is entitled to leave subject to conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Court. It is only in a case where Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 10/20 the Court finds that the facts disclosed by the defendant in his affidavit do not indicate any substantial defence or indicate that the defence raised by him is frivolous or moonshine, leave to defend will be refused. It is in the light of this legal position that the defence raised by the defendant is required to be considered. In the present case, as already noted hereinabove the only defence raised by the defendant is that the amount, received by him from the plaintiff, stood forfeited. While the learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently urged that the amount stood forfeited as the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the agreed time, it is the plaintiff's case that the property was already mortgaged with the Kotak Mahindra Bank on the date when the payment was received by the defendant, a fact which was concealed by him.
"25. I may now refer to the plaintiff's final plea that the suit which includes the claim for interest is not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC. For this purpose, while the defendant has relied on the decision in J.R. Sharma Overseas Ltd. (Supra), the plaintiff has relied on the later decisions of this Court in Sanjay Kohli (Supra) and Jindal Steel & Power Limited (Supra). In my considered view, even though the defendant is correct in urging that there is no written contract insofar as the plaintiff's claim for interest @18% p.a. is concerned, the plaintiff would still, in terms of Section 80 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, be entitled to claim interest. It is by now well settled that while filing a suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a claim for interest on the due amount can be raised by the plaintiff. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to paragraph 11 of the decision in Sanjay Kohli (Supra), which reads as under:
"The other contention raised by the counsel for the defendant no. 1 is that the amount of interest cannot be claimed in a summary suit under Order XXXVII is also devoid of any merit. This issue is no more res integra as the settled legal position is that even if there is no agreement between the parties to claim any specified interest, the plaintiff is entitled Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 11/20 to include the interest amount in a summary suit in terms of Section 80 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Order XXXVII of CPC. It will be relevant here to refer to the judgment of this court in the case of S.K. Malhotra v. Man Mohan Modi MANU/DE/2960/2009 : 166 (2010) DLT 723: 2009 (113) DRJ 802 wherein the court while granting the interest in a summary suit held as under:
4. In the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Ors. v. G.C. Roy reported as MANU/SC/0142/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 732, the Supreme Court held that a person is entitled to the payment of interest on the principal amount and the security deposit illegally retained, on the ground that the person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. Even in the present case, it cannot be disputed that the appellant was deprived of the use of the money to which he was legitimately entitled and thus he had a right to be compensated for the period of deprivation at least from the date of institution of the suit till the date of passing of the decree.
As manifest from above, the plaintiff would be entitled to the amount of interest even if there is no term regarding payment of interest stipulated between the parties. In the light of the above discussion, this court does not find any merit in the present application and the same is hereby dismissed."
26. I have also considered the decision in J.R. Sharma Overseas Ltd. (Supra) but find that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It can, therefore, not be said that merely because the plaintiff has raised a claim for interest on the sum of Rs.3 crores, the suit would not be maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC. However, taking into account the current market rate of interest and the rates of interest charged by different banks, the plaintiff's claim for interest @18% per annum cannot be accepted. Considering the fact that the Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 12/20 plaintiff has been deprived of this amount since the year 2012, I am of the view that interest of justice will be met by directing that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest @10% per annum with effect from 06.01.2012, when the defendant had received the entire sum of Rs.3 crores from the plaintiff.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, the application for leave to defend, being meritless, is dismissed. Consequently, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.3 crores along with interest @10% per annum with effect from 06.01.2012 till the date of institution of the present suit, along with pendete lite and future interest at the same rate of 10% per annum till the date of recovery. The plaintiff will also be entitled to costs of the suit as per the schedule. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
28. In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff can claim interest in a suit filed under order 37 CPC so, the above said contention of the defendant that present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has claimed interest in the suit, is not valid and stands rejected.
29. It is contended by the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable as the amount demanded by the plaintiff is different from the cheque amount, agreement amount and the receipts filed by the plaintiff. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has nowhere mentioned as to how a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- is converted into amount of Rs. 11,83,500/-.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 13/20
30. In the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of Rs. 11,83,500/- from the defendant. The plaintiff is seeking recovery of Rs. Rs. 9,00,000/- as principal amount and an amount of Rs.2,83,500/- as interest @ 18% p.a on the principal amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The plaintiff has clearly stated as to how amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- has become Rs.11,83,500/-. So, there is no force in the above said contention of the defendant.
31. Plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of mutual agreement, receipt both dated 08.11.2019, handwritten receipts dated 23.02.2020, 18.10.2020, and July, 2020, and cheque bearing no. 260238 dated 01.11.2021 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, DLF Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15.
32. The plaintiff has averred that on 8.11.2019, he has given amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the defendant as a security while taking front side portion of 2nd floor of property bearing no. A-172, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi, on rent from the defendant and it was agreed by the defendant that he will return the security amount within a period of 2 years.
33. The plaintiff has averred that he has given loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the defendant in cash and the defendant has acknowledged the receiving of said loan amount vide his handwriting dated 23.02.2020.
34. In in para no. 19 of the leave to defend application, the defendant has mentioned that he has already paid the amount Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 14/20 mentioned in the agreement and the agreement has been expired or completed by fulfill all the conditions.
35. The defendant has not denied the agreement and security receipt dated 8.11.2019 and also not denied the receiving of Rs. 6,50,000/- as security from the plaintiff but his only defence is that he had returned the said amount. The defendant while giving defence to the notice framed u/s 138 N.I. Act, by the court, in the complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act filed against him by the plaintiff, has admitted the above said fact regarding giving the property on rent and paying the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- as security by the plaintiff to him but has taken the defene that he has returned the said amount in cash.
36. The defendant has not mentioned any date, month and year when he returned the said amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the plaintiff. No document has been attached by the defendant in respect of returning the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendant has also not mentioned the name of any person in whose presence he has returned the said amount.
37. The plaintiff has further averred that in part payment of the total amount of Rs. 930,000/-, the defendant has issued him a cheque dated 01.11.2021 of Rs. 9,00,000/- and when he presented the said cheque for encashment, the same got dishonoured.
38. The defendant has averred in his leave to defend application that he has given the said cheque as a security. The Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 15/20 defendant has not mentioned for what security, he has given the said cheque. There is no reason with the defendant to give the said cheque in security to the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff who had taken the premises on rent from the defendant and paid Rs. 6,50,000/- as security, so there is no occasion for the defendant to give any cheque in security to the plaintiff. The defence of the defendant regarding giving the above said cheque as a security is a vague defence and is not believable.
39. The defendant has admitted her signatures on the above said cheque while giving his defence on the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C by the court in complaint case u/s 138 N.I. Act, filed by the plaintiff against him before ld. M.M-02, West Tis Hazari, Delhi.
40. Section 118 Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, until the contrary is proved. Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act states that it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature refer to section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any liability. In this case the contentions of the defendant that he had given the cheque in question as a security is not believable as there was not occasion for the defendant to give cheque as security to the plaintiff. The defendant has not mentioned any reason for giving the cheque in question as security to the plaintiff. The defendant has no documentary or oral evidence for proving that he has given the said cheque as security to the plaintiff and even the Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 16/20 defendant has not mentioned any date, month and year when he had given the said cheque as security to the plaintiff. In this case the defendant has no evidence to rebut the presumptions raised in favour of plaintiff u/s 118 and u/s 139 of N.I. Act that the cheque shall be presumed to be given in discharge of the debt liability by the defendant.
41. The plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 21.12.2021, to the defendant through registered AD and speed post and also attached the attested copy of speed post receipts, tracking IDs and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of tracking IDs. As per tracking ID, the notice had been delivered to the defendant on 13.12.2021 and 24.12.2021 respectively. The defendant has not denied the fact of receiving above said legal notices. Even, while giving defence on the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C of NI Act, the defendant has admitted the receiving of above said legal notice. The defendant has not given any reply to the said legal notices and there is no reason why the defendant has not given the reply to the said notices, by way of which the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay amount of Rs.9,00,000/- due to dishonouring of the cheque, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. An adverse inference is required to be drawn against the defendant for failing to give reply of above said legal notice to the plaintiff.
42. I have perused the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in a case titled IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Hubtown Ltd 2017 (1) SCC 568, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has restated the principles governing the grant or refusal to Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 17/20 grant leave to defend to the defendant in a Summary suit as per amended Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These are as under: -
1) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit;
2) if the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend;
3) even if the defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is left with the trial judge about the defendant's good faith, or the genuineness of the triable issues, the trial judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court or furnishing security. Care must be taken to see that the object of the provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial causes is not defeated. Care must also be taken to see that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe orders as to deposit or security;
4) if the Defendant raises a defence which is plausible but improbable, the trial Judge may impose conditions as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court, or furnishing security. As such a defence does not raise triable issues, conditions as to deposit or security or both can extend to the entire principal sum together with such interest as the court feels the justice of the case requires.
5) if the Defendant has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues, and Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 18/20 the court finds such defence to be frivolous or vexatious, then leave to defend the suit shall be refused, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith;
6) if any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in court.
43. Vide hand written letters dated 23.02.2020 and 26.07.2020, the defendant has admitted his liability of Rs.9,30,000/- towards the plaintiff. Vide hand written letter dated 26.07.2020, the defendant has agreed to pay interest @ 2% p.m. The defendant has disputed above said both letters and submitted that both letters do not bear her signatures. The defendant has given cheque of Rs. 9 lacs to the plaintiff. In case, there were no liability of the defendant to pay any amount to the plaintiff, then the defendant would not have given cheque of Rs. 9 lacs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has averred that the said cheque of Rs. 9 lacs has been given by the defendant in discharge of her part debt and liability. There is no reason or evidence on record to disbelieve the above said version of the plaintiff. Presumptions u/s 118 and u/s 139 of N.I. Act have also in favour of the plaintiff that the said cheque of Rs. 9 lacs has been given by the defendant in discharge of her debt and liability and the defendant has no plausible evidence to rebut the said presumptions. So the defence of the defendant that the above said letters do not bear her signature is also not genuine defence and appears to be taken just to prolong the trial.
Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 19/20
44. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the defendant has no substantial defence in the present case and the defence taken by the defendant in her leave to defend application is not plausible defence rather it is a moon shine defence. No triable issue has arisen in the present case, therefore, the leave to defend application of defendant stands dismissed. The plaintiff is held entitled to receive her principal amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the defendant. Considering the fact that plaintiff has been deprived of his amount without any valid reason by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to receive interest on the said amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- @ 12% p.a instead of 24% p.a from the defendant w.e.f 24.11.2021 ( date of dishonur of cheque) till realization of the said amount. Consequently, a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 9,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a w.e.f 24.11.2021 till its realization is passed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.07.04 Announced in the open court 14:56:46 +0530 on 4th July, 2025 (SHIV KUMAR) District Judge-02 (West), Delhi Civ DJ No. 718-22 Kavita Puri V. Tripti Sajjan 20/20