Delhi District Court
Santosh Kumar vs Hosilal Prasad on 17 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV SHARMA
JSCC-CUM-ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE, EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS/DELHI
CNR No. DLET03001645-2019
Civ Suit No. 1017/19
Santosh Kumar
S/o. Shri Bhupender Ojha
R/o. Post and Village Ghiwadhar
Ward No. 2, PS Harsidhi,
East Champaran, Bihar. ......Plaintiff
Versus
Hosilal Prasad
S/o Sh. Vishwanath Prasad
R/o: Plot No. 71 & 72, Block R-III/A-II
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi. ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 25.11.2019
Judgment reserved on : 27.02.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 17.05.2025
JUDGMENT
17.05.2025
1. Suit Dismissed.
2. The plaintiff case is seen to be rather fantastical and not rooted in reasonable reality. His cross examination brought home that point only, laying open his case unsure and uncertain, in view of which he is held disentitled to the relief sought.
Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.1 of 12
3. Pithily put, the case of the plaintiff is that he and the defendant both, were friends being taxi drivers and having cordial relations. It is averred that in the month of June 2018, defendant approached the plaintiff and demanded Rs.2,60,000/- from him for purchasing a Bus with an undertaking to return the money within a year. However, the plaintiff was unable to pay such a big amount in one go but in good faith, made payment of Rs.2,59,900/- to the defendant from 08.06.2018 to 19.09.2018 from his bank i.e. Bank of Baroda, Branch Mayur Vihar, Delhi at short intervals, as mentioned in plaint. It is further claimed that in the month of June- July 2018, the defendant purchased one Ashok Leyland Bus bearing no. UP 17T 9009 by financing the same from Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. However, in the month of November 2018 the abovesaid bus was stolen and under false suspicion the defendant made a complaint against plaintiff. In April, plaintiff asked the defendant to return the said amount of Rs. 2,59,900/- and defendant assured him of payment in August, 2019. On 06.08.2019, the plaintiff approached the defendant when he issued a cheque bearing no. 000024 dt. 06.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- drawn on Bank of India towards discharging his part liability. The said cheque was however dishonored vide returned memo dt. 08.08.2019 with remarks 'kindly contact drawer' and upon inquiry from Bank, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had issued an old/outdated cheque. Plaintiff attempted on several occasions to meet defendant for return of his loan but to no avail. Plaintiff served a legal notice dt. 27.08.2019 upon the Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.2 of 12 defendant through Speed Post which was duly replied vide reply dt. 04.09.2019 and in reply of the same, plaintiff filed back another reply dt. 28.09.2019 which was also served upon the defendant vide speed post dt. 01.10.2019. Payment however having not been made ultimately, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,59,900/- came to be filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
4. Summons of the suit were issued and WS came to be filed. It is stated in the WS that the present suit is not maintainable as it has been filed on the basis of false story and plaintiff himself is suppressing material facts and therefore, present suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that plaintiff himself owes an amount of Rs.2,13,800/- which was to be paid till 30.05.2019 (as per the written note dt. 13.10.2018) to the nephew of the defendant namely Anuj Kumar in full and final settlement of all disputes/ claims but not a single penny was paid by plaintiff. Further, it is claimed that the plaintiff is also known by the name of Sonu Kumar and he has put his signature on the aforesaid written note dt. 13.10.2018 by the name of Sonu Kumar, acknowledging his liability. Further, it was also averred by the defendant that so far as the cheque in question is concerned, it was taken long back as blank signed security cheque by one Mr. Sunil Yadav for taking a loan from M/s. Home Credit and depositing the same with the lender and it appears that M/s. Home Credit did not accept the cheque being out dated and instead of returning the same, plaintiff has tried to misuse the same. It is further stated that defendant is not under any debt or liability of the plaintiff and as such he is not liable to pay any Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.3 of 12 amount to him as claimed. In fact, it was stated that the plaintiff was under the debt and liability to pay an amount of Rs.50,800/- as on 25.10.2018, Rs.1,63,000/- as on 30.05.2019 and Rs. 2,13,800/- to Mr. Anuj Kumar (nephew of defendant) in terms of the settlement/ compromise dt. 13.10.2018 as per above said written note. Hence, defendant contended that the present suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
5. Pleadings being as such, vide order dated 18.01.2022, following issues came to framed by Court :
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for sum of Rs.2,59,900/- as prayed for ? OPP
ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable on account of concealment of material facts by the plaintiff and in view of some written note dated 13.10.2018 ? OPD.
iii) Relief.
6. After framing of issued as aforesaid, matter was fixed for Plaintiff Evidence. Plaintiff/PW1 was examined as the sole witness and he relied upon the following documents: -
(i). Cheque bearing no. 000024 dt. 06.08.2019:Ex.PW-1/1.
(ii). Returning Memo : Ex.PW-1/2.
(iii).Bank Statement of Bank of Baroda (Colly) : Ex. PW-1/3.
(iv).Copy of Plaintiff's passbook of Bank account : Ex.PW-1/4.
(v). Legal Notice dt. 27.08.2019 : Ex. PW-1/5.
(vi). Reply to the Legal Notice dt. 04.09.2019 : Ex.PW-1/6.
Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.4 of 12
(vii). Reply dt. 28.09.2019 to reply of Legal Notice : Ex.PW-1/7.
(viii). Copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff : Ex.PW-1/8.
(ix). Postal Receipt (Colly) : Ex. PW-1/9.
7. Thereafter, plaintiff was duly cross examined as well and PE was closed.
8. Defendant failed to lead any DE despite opportunity and right in that regard was closed vide order dt. 09.12.2024.
9. Final arguments were thereafter advanced and matter was reserved for orders.
10.Case file perused. Submissions considered.
11. Cross examination of the plaintiff was telling and highlighted various aspects of the case, which did not receive satisfactory answers. The plaintiff was enquired in specifities. He was questioned about some names, such as one Mukesh, Anuj Kumar and Naresh Shah. The plaintiff denied knowing any of them. He was in fact put pointed circumstances qua such persons by the defendant. With regards Mukesh, it was asked of the plaintiff whether he had introduced him with the defendant as he was of his native village. The plaintiff denied such claims. Even with regards the work of the plaintiff, when he had stated that he was running an electric shop in the name of M/s Panditji Electronics besides doing farming, the witness was also asked about running a shop by the name Sonu Electronics, which again, he declined. Such denials on part of the plaintiff to the pointed details offered by the Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.5 of 12 defendant made the plaintiff case look, if not anything else, but a bit doubtful at least as he offered no explanation or any background facts in contrast.
12.Further, during cross examination of the plaintiff, he admitted that the defendant was known to him since last four years from before the date of the transactions in question pertaining to the alleged loan since both of them were taxi drivers. As for the plaintiff owning the taxi and an auto, suggestions put to him that both of them had actually been disposed off already were denied by the witness. Such line of questioning, as was seen later, was a prelude to the defendant attempting to impugn the capacity of the plaintiff to advance the loan in question itself, in which, the defendant proved successful to make the case set up by the plaintiff look not exactly convincing. On being asked as to what was the monthly income of the plaintiff at the time when the loan in question was being granted to the defendant, he stated that it was around Rs. 30,000-40,000/- p.m. He also deposed that at such time, he was residing in a rented accommodation in Delhi paying rent of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and sharing such accommodation with two other occupants also. Not only that, the plaintiff also stated that he had already sold off his taxi and auto rickshaw before the imposition of lockdown due to corona outbreak, i.e. before 2020, though he did not recall clearly as to when and how much before such lockdown he had left for his native village. At the time when the evidence was recorded, the plaintiff deposed that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. The plaintiff even denied having filed any income tax returns on record to show that he was earning as Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.6 of 12 such as was being claimed and denied the suggestions that his statement in that regard was not correct.
13.As against the above cross examination, the plaintiff himself stated in his evidence affidavit that he had advanced an overall loan of Rs. 2,59,900/- to the defendant and the same was paid as follows :
On : Rs.
08.06.2018 : 25,000/-
10.06.2018 : 31,500/- (Rs. 10,000 +
16,000/- + 500/- + 5,000/-)
11.06.2016 : 5,000/-
19.06.2018 : 1,500/-
24.06.2018 : 1,000/-
June Total : 64,000/-
10.07.2018 : 98,000/-
12.07.2018 : 60,000/-
13.07.2018 : 20,000/-
28.07.2018 : 7,000/
July Total : 1,85,000/-
07.08.2018 : 8,000/-
09.08.2018 : 2,000/-
19.08.2018 : 900/-
August Total : 10,900/-
Overall Total : 2,59,900/-
14.Given the above payment schedule, it is extremely surprising if not impossible altogether, that a person such as the plaintiff, who was earning Rs. 30,000 - 40,000/- p.m. only at the time when he had lent money to the defendant, who was paying rent for his own accommodation of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.7 of 12 and sharing a house with two other occupants, was despite all such constraints, paying the defendant amounts as high as Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 1,85,000/- a month. And that also, when by his own admission, the plaintiff had even sold off his vehicles before or near about the same time due to covid pandemic and the nation wide lockdown imposed at the time. Capacity of the plaintiff to lend such amounts of money is seriously put into question given the fact that he himself had stated his monthly income otherwise at much low levels. How and under what circumstances therefore could such money have been lent is something that the plaintiff really needed to explain and establish, cogently and clearly. But not to be. If that be so, the plaintiff case at the outset comes into jeopardy from the very beginning.
15.With regards the payments made to the defendant nevertheless, the plaintiff contended that all such payments were made through bank, with regards which account statement has also been filed. To that also however, the defendant put a plausible counter narrative. It was suggested that the payments shown to be made by the plaintiff from his bank account to the defendant were actually not his money, but the money of the defendant accrued on account of bookings done for the seats of the bus on behalf of the defendant. Such a scenario seems to be perfectly in line with the defense taken by the defendant that he had purchased a bus and him taking bookings through the plaintiff at that time, both of them being known to each other belonging to the same native village, cannot be taken to be entirely Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.8 of 12 unreasonable. In fact, regular and consecutive payments made by the plaintiff, at times multiple payments also in a day as well in a single month, do tend to suggest that such payments may well have been on account of bus ticket bookings for the defendant since the plaintiff case, that such payments represented the loan amount being lent looks unlikely. This is so since why would a lender, as hard pressed for his own needs, earning not as handsomely and even sharing a house on rental basis, would lend to defendant, amounts as high as Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 1,85,000/- each in successive months and Rs. 31,500/-, 98,000/- and 60,000/- in a single day. The likelihood of the said payments being towards bus booking appears to be more, than representing amounts paid as loan for purchase of the bus. In fact, the timeline also favors the defendant case as the plaintiff has admitted that during this time period only, i.e. in June-July 2018, the defendant had indeed purchased the bus. The defendant even suggested that the plaintiff had become dishonest and was responsible for getting the bus of the defendant stolen also in cahoots with one Brijesh and Rupesh, regarding which some complaint was also made at Dwarka Courts, though nothing came out of it finally. Considering the same, despite the fact that payments sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff were through bank account, based on preponderance of probability, the defendant was successful in casting a long shadow of doubt on the plaintiff version by contending a scenario that seemed to be far more compelling than the version of the plaintiff, and against the same, no proper explanation could be offered.
Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.9 of 12
16.The defendant also put to the plaintiff that he was also known by the name of Sonu Kumar and that he had owed his nephew Rs.2,13,800/- represented by document Ex. PW1/D1, put to him during cross examination. The plaintiff denied his name to be anything else but only Santosh Kumar and also denied executing document Ex. PW1/D1 or it containing his signatures as Sonu Kumar. Such version of the defendant again, is seen to have raised a probable defense in favor of the defendant and put question marks over the plaintiff case. Apart from offering mere denials, the plaintiff is seen to have come out with no counter background facts to dispel any notion of doubt that arose from the defendant version. On the touchstone of preponderance of probability, this court is of the view therefore that the defendant has indeed been able to raise cloud over the plaintiff case in this context as well that the parties may have had some prior dealings also, perhaps through the nephew of the defendant, and were not like what has been alleged by the plaintiff.
17.Finally, even with regards the cheque in question also, the defendant has claimed that the same was never given for discharge of any liability to the plaintiff. It was instead put to the plaintiff that such cheque was given to one Sunil Yadav by the defendant long ago, much before the same was presented for encashment by the plaintiff. It was contended by the defendant that due to such cheque having been handed over quite a while ago to some third person, the same was dishonored being outdated with the remarks 'kindly contact Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.10 of 12 drawer', proving the defendant case that the cheque was not valid at that time. On this count as well, the defense raised appears to be believable given the fact that not only details were given by the defendant regarding him having some other dealings with a third person vis a vis the cheque in question but also, as to the reason of its dishonor. For the both the said aspects, the plaintiff was unable to reason anything to the contrary. Moreover, the plaintiff could not explain as to why the said cheque was issued for an amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- whereas the total amount due was Rs. 2,59,900/- as per the plaintiff own case. Taken together, the plaintiff case was again demonstrated to be weak footed and rather shaky having no precise counter argument.
18.Individually and collectively therefore, this Court is of the view that the defendant was indeed able to raise valid doubts over the inherent veracity of the plaintiff case and the onus of proof having shifted back on the plaintiff, he was not able to discharge the same this time round. It is true that the defendant did not lead any evidence in his favor but having cross examined the plaintiff in the manner as aforesaid, the plaintiff case itself was established to be incoherent and unreliable to an extent, sufficient to enure to the benefit of the defendant. As such therefore, the plaintiff has not been able to prove its case.
19.In view of the above, Issue wise findings may be noted as follows :
Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.11 of 12
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for sum of Rs.2,59,900/- as prayed for ? OPP Finding : The plaintiff has not been able to prove that he is entitled to a recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,59,900/-. In view of the same, Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant.
ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable on account of concealment of material facts by the plaintiff and in view of some written note dated 13.10.2018 ? OPD.
iii) Relief.
Finding : The defendant has indeed been able to raise doubt over the plaintiff version showing that the plaintiff has something to hide and has not disclosed all relevant details. Considering the same, Issue No. 2 is decided in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff RELIEF :
In view of the discussion as aforesaid, A. Suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 2,59,900/- is hereby Dismissed.
B. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.17
Announced in the open Court 16:42:08 +0530
on 17.05.2025 (Gaurav Sharma)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
17.05.2025
Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad
pg no.12 of 12