Delhi District Court
Pritam Kumar Gupta vs Rajiv Dhawan on 22 May, 2025
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, DISTRICT
JUDGE-04,NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-011826-2022
CS No. 824/2022
In the matter of :-
Sh. Pritam Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Gulal Chand Gupta
R/o G-3/5, Model Town-III,
Delhi-110009.
..... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rajiv Dhawan
S/o Late Sh. T.D. Dhawan,
R/o D-15, Vijay Nagar,
Delhi-110009
.....Defendant
Date of Institution : 14.12.2022
Date of Ex. Parte Final : 22.05.2025
Arguments Heard
Date of pronouncement of : 22.05.2025
judgment
Final Outcome : Suit
Decreed
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
CS No. 824/2022 Pritam Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajiv Dhawan Page: 1 of 6
-:: 2 ::-
1.The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.90.0 lacs. Initially, the suit had been filed under Order 37 CPC, however, on the submissions of the counsel for the plaintiff, the present suit has been converted into an ordinary suit for recovery of money.
2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant was very close friend of the Plaintiff and hence both i.e. the Plaintiff and the Defendant were having very close family relationship between their family members. Being very close friend and having a family relationship, from time to time i.e. during the period August 2018 to July 2021, the defendant had approached the plaintiff at his residence which is situated at Model Town for taking friendly loan for making investment into his Family Business which is being run by the Defendant under the name & Style of M/s Novel Technoplast PVT. LTD. being one of the Directors thereof as represented by the defendant to the plaintiff at that time. Defendant offered to pay interest to the plaintiff upon the above said friendly loan amount at the rate of 15% p.a. After considering the requests of the defendant and after making arrangement of funds, from time to time during the period between August 2018 to July 2021, the plaintiff had lent a total sum of Rs. 90.0 lacs to the defendant as friendly loan by way of issuance of A/c Payee cheques in the name of the defendant on interest @ 15% p.a. as agreed by the defendant himself. At the CS No. 824/2022 Pritam Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajiv Dhawan Page: 2 of 6
-:: 3 ::-
time of borrowing above said loan amount from the plaintiff, the defendant had also issued receipt of above said loan amount from time to time and further promised and assured the plaintiff to repay the above said entire loan amount as & when the plaintiff would raise demand thereof. Surprisingly, earlier the defendant had paid the interest upto 30 November 2021 upon the above said principal loan amount of Rs. 90 lacs at the rate 15% per annum as agreed by the defendant himself, but thereafter abruptly stopped paying the interest to the plaintiff. At last, w.e.f. February 2022, the plaintiff has started raising continuous demand of repayment of above said entire principal loan amount from the defendant along with upto date interest thereon.
3. It is further averred that in order to absolve from his above said legal outstanding liabilities, the defendant had issued four A/c payee cheques for total sum of Rs. 90 lacs for repayment of above said entire principal loan amount in favour of the plaintiff i.e. cheque No.000087, 000124, 000096 & cheque No.000131, all dated 13.04.2022, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Gujrawala Town, Part-I, Delhi. When the plaintiff had presented all the aforesaid four cheques with his banker i.e. HDFC bank Ltd., Model Town Branch, Delhi for realization of money on 16 th April 2022, all the aforesaid four cheques were dishonored by the defendant's bank on account of "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque returning memos dated 16th April 2022. On 05 May 2022, the CS No. 824/2022 Pritam Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajiv Dhawan Page: 3 of 6
-:: 4 ::-
plaintiff was constrained to send legal notice through his counsel, but inspite of service of above said legal notice, defendant has failed to make the payments against the aforesaid four dishnoured cheques. Hence, the present suit.
4. The defendant could not be served by way of the ordinary processes. Ultimately, the defendant had been served by way of publication in newspaper Rashtriya Sahara dated 12.03.2024. Despite service of defendant by way of publication in the aforesaid newspaper, none appeared on behalf of the defendant. Hence, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.05.2024.
5. In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff/Pritam Kumar Gupta examined himself as PW-1 by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A, wherein he deposed on the lines of averments made in the plaint. Plaintiff has relied on the documents i.e. Certified copies of receipt issued by defendant Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4, true copy of cheques issued by defendant Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/8, Certified copies of bank return memos Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/12, Certified copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2022 Ex.PW1/13, Certified copies of postal receipts Ex.PW1/14, Certified copy of returned postal envelope Ex/PW1/15, Printout of delivery report of one legal ntoice CS No. 824/2022 Pritam Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajiv Dhawan Page: 4 of 6
-:: 5 ::-
Ex.PW1/16, Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/17.
6. I have heard ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully gone through the material on record.
7. In C.S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1964 AIR 962 it was held by the Apex Court that facts in the affidavit uncontroverted by opposite party can be deemed as admitted by the other side. Further, in Sushma Berlia & Ors. vs Kamal Kumar & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Testimony of PW-1 (Bharat Bhushan) has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the defendants for not contesting the suit on adjourned date and remaining ex- parte. There are no sound reasons to disbelieve the positive uncontroverted testimony of PW-1.
8. In the present case, as the defendant remained ex-parte, the testimony of PW1 remained unrebutted. As such this court has no reason to not believe the case of the plaintiff.
9. Since the defendant has remained exparte, it means he has admitted the case of the plaintiff to be true and correct. The CS No. 824/2022 Pritam Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajiv Dhawan Page: 5 of 6
-:: 6 ::-
testimony of PW1 being unchallenged and uncontroverted is to be believed as true and correct. This court further has no reason to not to believe the case of the plaintiff as presented and proved by the plaintiff/PW1. The suit of the plaintiff is well within the period of limitation and does not suffer from any legal infirmity or any other technical defect. However, plaintiff has prayed for interest @ 15% per annum on the amount claimed, but this court is of the considered opinion that same is exorbitant one and interest @ 6% per annum would meet the ends of justice.
Relief
10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of decretal amount.
11. The plaintiff is entitled to recover costs of the suit from the defendant.
12. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by KISHOR KISHOR KUMAR Announced in open KUMAR Date: 2025.05.22 16:53:51 +0530 Court on 22.05.2025 (Kishor Kumar) DJ-04, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi/22.05.2025 CS No. 824/2022 Pritam Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajiv Dhawan Page: 6 of 6