Delhi District Court
Salil Gupta vs Bharat Kumar Gupta on 6 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAGUN SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE-12 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
___________________________________________________
RCA DJ No.26/2024
CNR No. DLCT-01-002490-2024
MEMO OF PARTIES
Shri Salil Gupta,
S/o Sh. Lalit Gupta,
R/o 28-A, First Floor,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 ...Appellant
VERSUS
Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta,
S/o Late Shri Ram Nath Gupta,
R/o 99, Anand Lok,
New Delhi-110049
...Respondent
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 06.02.2026
Decision : Dismissed
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree Page no. 1 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Learned Civil Judge in suit No. 786/2026.
2. Along with the present appeal, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. There is a delay of 670 days in filing the present appeal.
3. For the sake of clarity, the parties shall be referred to according to their status before the Learned Trial Court, i.e., the appellant shall be referred to as the "defendant" and the respondent shall be referred to as the "plaintiff."
4. Case before the Learned Civil Judge- The plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand Only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
5. Plaintiff's Case- The brief facts, as averred in the plaint, are that in June 2015 the defendant approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- as he was in need of money. The plaintiff advanced the said amount to the defendant by way of two cheques:
(i) Cheque No. 119537 dated 29.06.2015 drawn on HDFC Bank, Bengali Market, New Delhi for Rs. 1,00,000/-;
(ii) Cheque No. 115512 dated 07.07.2015 drawn on HSBC Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi for Rs. 1,00,000/-.
6. It is further averred that after expiry of six months, i.e., in January 2016, the plaintiff orally demanded repayment of the Page no. 2 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta loan, but the defendant expressed his inability and sought one month's time. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 02.12.2016 through Registered A.D., calling upon the defendant to repay the amount. The plaintiff claims recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from July 2015 till filing of the suit, amounting to Rs. 45,000/-, and pendente lite and future interest till realization.
7. Defendant's Case- The defendant filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff was a long- standing family acquaintance and that the amount in question was not a loan, but payment towards the cost of waistcoats/jackets supplied to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had requested supply of approximately 300 waistcoats for distribution at a memorial function, and plaintiff had made part payment of Rs 2,00,000 by way of two cheques mentioned in the plaint, and the same were encashed in the personal bank account of the defendant for the goods supplied. It is further pleaded that the total cost of the goods was Rs. 2,25,000/-, out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid and Rs. 25,000/- remained outstanding. The defendant denied the remaining averments of the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8. Replication- The plaintiff filed replication reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the allegations made in the written statement, except those specifically admitted.
Page no. 3 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta
9. Issues- After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 26.10.2017:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.
2,45,000/- as prayed? (OPP) ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP) iii. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938? (OPD) iv. Relief.
10. Plaintiff's EvidenceThe plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), reiterating the contents of the plaint. He relied upon the following documents:
Mark A and Mark B (copies of bank statements), Ex. PW1/1 (legal notice dated 02.12.2016), Ex. PW1/2 (postal receipt), Ex. PW1/3 (A.D. card), Ex. PW1/4 (corrigendum dated 17.02.2017), Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 (postal receipt and A.D. card), Ex. PW1/7 (certificate dated 20.02.2018 issued by HDFC Bank), and Ex. PW1/8 (bank statement details).
11. He was cross examined by Defendant. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 17.08.2019 and the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence.
Page no. 4 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta
12. Defendant's Evidence- The defendant filed his affidavit of evidence but thereafter failed to appear. Consequently, vide order dated 27.02.2021, the defendant was proceeded ex parte.
13. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff vide judgment dated 22.03.2022.
14. Grounds of Appeal- The defendant/appellant has challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the following grounds:
a. That adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence was not granted.
b. That the trial court failed to properly appreciate the documents filed by the defendant and wrongly relied upon the plaintiff's documents.
c. That the impugned judgment was passed without proper application of judicial mind.
d. That the plaintiff failed to prove advancement of any friendly loan and the amount represented part payment for goods supplied by the defendant.
e. That the defendant could not appear and depose due to serious medical condition.
f. That the impugned judgment and decree are arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
15. Arguments were heard on Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal as well Appeal . Record Perused.
Page no. 5 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta
16. Application under Order XLI Rule 3A read with Section 151 CPC:- It is stated that there is a delay of approximately 670 days in filing the present appeal. It is submitted that after the cross- examination of the plaintiff, the defendant had filed his affidavit of evidence along with supporting documents for examining himself as a witness, and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence on 23.03.2020. However, the defendant was suffering from a serious medical condition relating to his left leg for several years, due to which he was unable to walk properly and could not appear before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that in March 2020, the nationwide lockdown was imposed, due to which the defendant could not pursue his evidence, and thereafter vide order dated 27.02.2021 he was proceeded ex parte.
17. It is further submitted that the defendant's medical condition continued to deteriorate and he remained under continuous treatment since the year 2020. The defendant was admitted in Medanta Hospital on 05.04.2021 for surgery relating to ulceration/venoplasty of the affected limb and subsequently required further treatment, including another surgery on 04.11.2023. Owing to his continuing medical condition, the defendant could not remain in regular contact with his counsel or pursue the matter diligently. It is stated that only after receiving notice from the Executing Court did the defendant contact his present counsel, and upon examining the record and the impugned judgment, the present appeal was filed. It is therefore Page no. 6 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be decided on merits.
18. Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff- The plaintiff has opposed the application contending that the defendant was negligent in pursuing the matter before the Trial Court and despite several opportunities, failed to appear for defendant's evidence. It is submitted that even after service of court notice upon the defendant as well as his counsel, the defendant did not appear and was rightly proceeded ex parte. It is further contended that the defendant later appeared in execution proceedings through the same counsel and sought time for settlement, which shows that the present appeal has been filed only as an afterthought. It is also argued that the entire period of delay has not been satisfactorily explained and that the medical condition relied upon by the defendant was not a new ailment, as the medical documents themselves show treatment for similar issues in earlier years. Hence, the application deserves dismissal.
Judicial Analysis-
19. Order on Application under Order XLI Rule 3 A r/w Section 151 CPC- I have heard the submissions of the parties and perused the record. It is settled law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the Court is required to adopt a liberal approach where sufficient cause is shown, particularly when refusal to condone delay may result in denial of an opportunity to have the matter adjudicated on merits. At the Page no. 7 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta same time, the conduct of the party and the explanation furnished for the delay are also relevant considerations.
20. In the present case, although there is a considerable delay in filing the appeal, the defendant has placed on record medical documents showing that he was undergoing treatment and surgical procedures relating to his left leg during the relevant period. The period in question also coincides partly with the nationwide disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the explanation furnished may not account for each and every day of delay with mathematical precision, the material on record does indicate that the defendant was facing continuing medical difficulties which reasonably contributed to the delay.
21. Keeping in view the settled principle that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds of limitation, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay.
22. Accordingly, the application under Order XLI Rule 3A read with Section 151 CPC is allowed, and the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. The appeal shall now be considered on merits
23. Adjudication on Grounds of Appeal The grounds raised by the defendant are taken up together, being interconnected, and are adjudicated as follows:
24. At the outset, it is important to note that the issuance of two cheques and receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the defendant in his Page no. 8 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta personal bank account are admitted by the Defendant in his written statement . Thus, the factum of receipt of amount of Rs. 2,00,000 is not in dispute. The sole defence of the defendant is that the said amount was not advanced as a friendly loan but represented part payment towards the price of waistcoats/jackets allegedly supplied to the plaintiff.
25. Once the receipt of money stands admitted, and the defendant asserts a specific alternative transaction i.e that the amount was consideration for supply of waistcoats , thus the onus squarely shifts upon the defendant, in terms of the settled principles of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, to establish the said defence. However, the defendant has failed to place on record any documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the alleged supply transaction. No purchase order, manufacturing order, delivery record, correspondence with the plaintiff regarding quantity, size, colour or specifications of the garments, acknowledgment of receipt, invoice, or even any communication demanding the alleged balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been produced.
26. Even assuming the defendant's plea that the plaintiff requested that no invoice be raised to avoid tax liability, the defendant has failed to produce any independent material such as manufacturing records, stock registers, or communication with the manufacturing unit showing that such garments were ever produced for the plaintiff. The defence, therefore, remains a mere bald assertion without proof.
Page no. 9 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta
27. The contention of the Defendant that no opportunity was granted to lead defence evidence is also without merit. The record reflects that adequate opportunities were granted to the defendant to lead his evidence, and even court notices were issued both to the defendant and to his counsel. Despite service, the defendant failed to appear, and only thereafter was he proceeded ex parte. The plea that he could not inform his counsel due to illness also does not inspire confidence, particularly when the Defendant himself admits that he did not communicate the alleged medical condition to his counsel. The material placed on record does not show that the ailment was of such nature as to render him incapable of communication or of instructing counsel. On the contrary, the record indicates that the defendant subsequently appeared in execution proceedings, which further weakens the plea of complete incapacity.
28. The Defendant's argument that the plaintiff failed to prove advancement of the loan is equally untenable in view of the admitted receipt of Rs.2,00,000 in his account. Once the defendant admits receipt of the amount, the burden to prove the alternative defence "pleaded by him"lies upon him, which he has failed to discharge. Significantly, even during the cross- examination of the plaintiff, no substantial questions were put to substantiate the alleged transaction of supply of waistcoats, except for a bare suggestion, which is insufficient to establish the defence pleaded.
29. The objection that there exists a defect in the plaint regarding the statement that the plaintiff approached the Page no. 10 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta defendant for the loan is also inconsequential. The alleged discrepancy is, at best, a typographical or drafting error which neither misled the defendant nor caused any prejudice, as is evident from the detailed defence taken in the written statement addressing the claim on merits. Such minor inconsistencies do not go to the root of the matter.
30. Similarly, the submission that the plaintiff could not recall the exact date when he asked the Defendant for repayment of loan during his cross examination does not materially affect the case, particularly when the Defendant has admitted receipt of Rs 2,00,000/- Despite alleging that the amount represented part payment for goods, the defendant has not shown any communication or demand made by him for recovery of the alleged balance amount of Rs. 25,000/-, which would have naturally followed had such a transaction actually taken place. The absence of any such conduct further renders the defence improbable.
31. Regarding the plea relating to production of documents:-
The contention of the defendant that he could not earlier file certain documents and had subsequently moved an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC for production of additional documents also does not advance his case. A perusal of the said application shows that it was filed at a highly belated stage, i.e., at the stage of the defendant's own evidence. The documents sought to be produced comprised certain carbon copies of alleged bills and a photocopy of a partnership deed. Significantly, there is not even a single averment in the written statement regarding Page no. 11 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta the existence of such bills. It is a settled principle of law that documents can be tendered in evidence only in support of the pleadings, and in the absence of any foundational pleading, such documents cannot be relied upon.
32. Even during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the witness was neither confronted with any such bills nor was any question put to the witness regarding the said bills, which clearly indicates that the attempt to produce the said documents at a belated stage was an afterthought.
33. Moreover, the said application was not allowed by the Trial Court; consequently, the said plea does not lend any support to the defence of the defendant.
Result:-
34. The grounds of appeal raised by the Defendant are devoid of merit. The defendant failed to substantiate his defence despite adequate opportunity, failed to discharge the burden of proof resting upon him.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion and the observations made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant/appellant is hereby dismissed, with the observations recorded in this judgment.
Page no. 12 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta
36. Copy of this judgment along with TCR be sent back to the Trial Court.
37. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open SHAGUN by Digitally signed SHAGUN Court on 06.02.2026 SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 16:36:32 +0530 (SHAGUN SHARMA) District Judge-12, Central Distt. Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 06.02.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signedSHAGUN SHARMA by SHAGUN SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 16:36:36 +0530 (SHAGUN SHARMA) District Judge-12, Central Distt.
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 06.02.2026 Page no. 13 / 13 CS DJ No. 26/2024 Shri. Salil Gupta Vs. Shri Bharat Kumar Gupta