Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Kamal on 28 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL
SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 232/2024
CNR No. DLNW03-000319-2024
In the matter of :
STATE BANK OF INDIA
constituted under State Bank of India Act,1955,
Having its corporate centre office at:
State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-440024
One of its Local Head Office at :
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-01
Having one of its Branch at:
Kanjhawala, Delhi and RACPC at
A-5, Pearl Best Height-I, Netaji Subhash Palace,
New Delhi
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Kamal
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o H.No. 190, Village Mubarakpur Dabas,
North-West, Delhi-110081
2. Smt. Birmati
W/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o H.No. 190, Village Mubarakpur Dabas,
North-West, Delhi-110081
....Defendants
Date of institution : 12.02.2024
Reserved for Judgment : 27.03.2026
Date of decision : 28.03.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 1 of 8
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,37,789/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine Only) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 10.40% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till realization along with cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a corporate bank constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955. Sh. Virender Kumar Handa, AR of plaintiff bank is posted as Manager in State Bank of India RACPC situated at A-5, Pearl Best Height-I, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi of the plaintiff bank. It is stated that on re- organization of set up of the State Bank of India, RACPC has been introduced/established by the Plaintiff Bank to deal exclusively with the non performing assets accounts of branches of State Bank of India situated within Delhi/New Delhi for restructuring of the borrower and recovery of the amounts due against the said borrowers etc., hence, the NPA Accounts of the Branches throughout Delhi including Kanjhawala, Delhi branch have been migrated to RACPC at A-5, Pearl Best Height-I, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi for the convenience of operation & execution which for practical purposes has become the plaintiff bank including the account in present suit. Hence, RACPC at A- 5, Pearl Best Height-1, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi in place of Kanjhawala, Delhi Branch, is filing the present suit, however, the Plaintiff remains the State Bank of India only.
2.1. It is stated that the defendant no.1 being a student and defendant no.2 as mother/co-borrower/guardian/guarantor of CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 2 of 8 defendant no.1, had approached and requested to the plaintiff bank at its Kanjhawala, Delhi branch for grant of financial assistance by way of education loan for higher studies of defendant no.1 for completion of four years course of B-Tech (IT) from Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology, New Delhi under State Bank's education loan scheme. After considering their proposal and economic viability, the plaintiff bank had processed and sanctioned to the defendants named above education loan amount to the tune of Rs.1,72,000/- on 12.02.2018 which the defendant no.1 and 2 have duly availed of as co-borrowers. It is stated that in consideration of above loan facility granted by the plaintiff, the defendants had executed various loan documents voluntarily and cautiously for repayment in favour of the plaintiff bank. It is further stated that the defendants had agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount @ 9.95% p.a. with monthly rest subject to rise and fall time to time as per banking guidelines. Defendants had also undertaken to repay the loan outstanding amount in 60 EMI of Rs.3,651/- each with interest in terms of agreement containing schedule therein till entire loan outstanding is liquidated.
2.2. It is averred that the loan amount is repayable after completion of course period plus one year moratorium or six months after getting job whichever is earlier. It is submitted that during course period defendant no.2/guardian shall continue to pay/deposit interest as per agreement. It is further submitted that repayment by EMI would start after completion of course period CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 3 of 8 (2016 to 2019) plus one year moratorium period i.e. year 2020 or six months after getting job.
2.3. It is stated that education loan account no.37536800471 was opened with the plaintiff bank in the name of defendants at Kanjhawala, Delhi branch of plaintiff bank who had made transactions in the said account. It is submitted that the defendants have failed to pay/deposit monthly loan installments in terms of loan agreement despite repeated demands, notices and personal visits of field staff of the plaintiff bank, hence, the loan account of the defendants has been classified as nonperforming asset on 15.10.2023, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay jointly and severally the suit amount with cost, interest and expenses. It is averred that on persistent defaults committed by defendants the loan was recalled by the plaintiff bank interalia by serving legal notice on dated 30.11.2023 upon defendants sent under Regd. A.D. cover but despite due and proper service the defendants failed to comply with the same. It is further averred that after giving credits for all the sums of money and paid by the defendants including part payment if any, in his education loan account, a sum of Rs.1,37,789/- is recoverable from the defendants jointly and severally as on date of filing the suit. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendants were served with the summons of the suit on 14.12.2024. Defendants appeared but failed to file WS within time stipulated by law, therefore, were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.09.2025 and the plaintiff was directed to bring ex-
CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 4 of 8 parte evidence.
4. Sh. Virender Kumar Handa, AR of the plaintiff bank examined as PW1 who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents :
1. True copy of gazette notification of SBI is Ex.PW1/1;
2. Photocopy of e-KYC certificate of defendant no.1 is Mark A;
3. Copy of PAN Card of defendant no.1 is Mark B;
4. Copy of Aadhar Card of defendant no.1 is Mark C;
5. Copy of college ID of defendant no.1 is Mark D;
6. Copy of e-KYC certificate of defendant no.2 is Mark E;
7. Copy of Aadhar Card of defendant no.2 is Mark F;
8. Copy of PAN Card of defendant no.2 is Mark G;
9. Certificate issued by Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology is Ex.PW1/2;
10. SBI Education Loan Application Form is Ex.PW1/3;
11. Arrangement letter dated 12.02.2018 is Ex.PW1/4;
12. Agreement for term loan under education loan scheme dated 12.02.2018 is Ex.PW1/5;
13. Annexure-1 (undertaking) dated 12.02.2018 is Ex.PW1/6;
14. Standing Instructions dated 12.02.2018 is Ex. PW1/7;
15. Office copy of legal notice is Ex.PW1/8;
16. Postal receipts are Ex.PW1/9 (colly);
17. Statement of account is Ex.PW1/10 (colly);
18. Certificate of accrued interest is Ex.PW1/11;
19. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/12.
CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 5 of 8
5. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.
6. Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff, it is important to note that in the present case, the defendants appeared but failed to file WS within stipulated time by law and were proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 20.09.2025. It is further noted that the Court is mindful of the fact that in cases where the defendants are ex-parte, the Court needs to be extra cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence and before passing the judgment, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff should be weighed carefully before arriving at the finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. The onus to prove the averments of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff who has to discharge the burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely is upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
7. PW-1 has proved on oath the allegations against the CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 6 of 8 defendant and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on unchallenged and un-rebutted. True copy of gazette notification of SBI is Ex.PW1/1; Photocopy of e-KYC certificate of defendant no.1 is Mark A; Copy of PAN Card of defendant no.1 is Mark B; Copy of Aadhar Card of defendant no.1 is Mark C; Copy of college ID of defendant no.1 is Mark D; Copy of e- KYC certificate of defendant no.2 is Mark E; Copy of Aadhar Card of defendant no.2 is Mark F; Copy of PAN Card of defendant no.2 is Mark G; Certificate issued by Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology is Ex.PW1/2; SBI Education Loan Application Form is Ex.PW1/3; Arrangement letter dated 12.02.2018 is Ex.PW1/4; Agreement for term loan under education loan scheme dated 12.02.2018 is Ex.PW1/5; Annexure-1 (undertaking) dated 12.02.2018 is Ex.PW1/6; Standing Instructions dated 12.02.2018 is Ex. PW1/7; Office copy of legal notice is Ex.PW1/8; Postal receipts are Ex.PW1/9 (colly); Statement of account is Ex.PW1/10 (colly); Certificate of accrued interest is Ex.PW1/11; Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/12.
8. The present suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation as per provisions of Limitation Act and the present suit has been instituted on 12.02.2024, hence the present suit is within limitation. As defendants have not filed WS within time stipulated by law and accordingly were proceeded ex-parte, the averments made in the plaint and the testimony of the plaintiff during PE remained unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelief the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and the documents relied upon CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 7 of 8 him. These documents coupled with testimony of the plaintiff prove the case of the plaintiff.
Relief
9. In view of the reasons given above and uncontroverted evidence brought on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and followings reliefs are granted in his favour and against the defendants:-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs.1,37,789/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine Only).
ii. Seeing the prevalent market conditions, pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff from the date of filing of present suit till the realization of the amount.
iii. Cost of the suit.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL Announced in the Open Court Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.28 15:15:52 +0530 on 28.03.2026 (Mayank Mittal) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi CS SCJ No. 232/2024 State Bank of India v. Kamal 8 of 8