Delhi District Court
Naresh vs Rajeev Kumar Jain on 11 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE-01, (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No.376/2024
CNR NO. DLET01-DLET010039362024
In the matter of :-
Mr. Naresh
S/o Mr. Shyam Lal
R/o 23/462, Block 23, Trilokpuri
Delhi-110091
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain
S/o Mr. Shatya Prakash Jain
Office Address: Through Admin,
NTRO, H.Q.
Government of India,
Block III, Old JNU Campus, Delhi-110067
Also at: Through Admin,
C.P.C. Centre,
NTRO,
Government of India,
Block III, Old JNU Campus, Delhi-110067
.....Defendant
CS No. 376/24 Naresh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Jain Page no. 1 of 7
Digitally signed
HEM by HEM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 16:48:05 +0530
2026.03.11
Date of Institution : 22.07.2024
Date of Reserving Order : 07.02.2026
Date of Decision : 11.03.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.6,00,000/- (SIX LAKHS) ALONG WITH
INTEREST
JUDGMENT
(I) BRIEF FACTS :- a) The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the defendant. b) It is the case of the plaintiff that he had advanced a friendly loan
of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant in the year 2021. The said loan was not repaid by the defendant. It is further alleged that in the year 2023, the defendant again approached the plaintiff and sought a further loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff again advanced another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and an agreement dated 02.05.2023 was executed between the parties.
c) As per the said agreement, it is recorded that the plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant in the year 2021 and the defendant undertook to repay the said loan in equal monthly installments of Rs. 15,000/- starting from June 2023. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant issued four cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each in partial discharge of his liability. However, two of the said cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement" and the remaining two cheques became invalid due to the merger of the concerned bank with CS No. 376/24 Naresh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Jain Page no. 2 of 7 Digitally signed HEM by HEM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.11 16:48:11 +0530 another bank. The plaintiff also issued a legal notice dated 27.04.2024 calling him upon to make the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-, however, despite service of the said legal notice defendant failed to repay the loan amount.
d) On the basis of these facts, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- along-with interest and cost of the suit, from the defendant.
e) Summons of suit were served upon the defendant. However, despite service, defendant neither appeared in the court nor filed any Written Statement and as the statutory period for filing the same had lapsed, his right to file the same was closed vide order dated 08.10.2024 (II) ISSUES:-
From the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 08.10.2024:-
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs. 6 lakhs from defendant as prayed? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- as prayed in prayer C? OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? OPP
iv) Relief.
(III) EVIDENCE:- a) In order to substantiate its case, plaintiff himself stepped in
witness box as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/1, PW-1 has reiterated the facts CS No. 376/24 Naresh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Jain Page no. 3 of 7 Digitally signed HEM by HEM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.11 16:48:15 +0530 averred in the plaint and has placed reliance on the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 (colly)- Agreement dt. 02.05.2023 along- with receipt.
Ex.PW1/2 (colly)- Certified copy of cheques. Ex.PW1/3- Certified copy of cheques (de-exhibted and marked as Mark A).
Ex.PW1/4- Certified copy of Return Memo (de- exhibted and marked as Mark B).
Ex.PW1/5- Legal notice.
Ex.PW1/6- Postal receipt.
Ex.PW1/7- Tracking report (de-exhibted and marked as Mark C).
Ex.PW1/8- Text messages of defendant to plaintiff along-with certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Ex.PW1/9 (OSR)- True copy of bank account statement.
Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff dated 03.04.2025, PE was closed.
b) No evidence in defense led by the defendant.
(IV) Final arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
(V) FINDINGS :- a) The plaintiff claims that he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs.
3,00,000/- to the defendant in year 2021, which was not repaid. In 2023, CS No. 376/24 Naresh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Jain Page no. 4 of 7 Digitally signed HEM by HEM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.11 16:48:20 +0530 the defendant again approached the plaintiff and allegedly obtained another loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-. An agreement dated 02.05.2023 was executed between the parties, wherein the earlier loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was acknowledged and the defendant agreed to repay it in installments of Rs. 15,000/- starting from June 2023. The defendant also issued four cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each towards partial discharge of his liability. However, two cheques were dishonored due to "exceeds arrangement" and the remaining two became invalid due to the merger of the bank with another bank.
b) To prove his case plaintiff has relied upon agreement dated
02.05.2023 and payment receipt and exhibit the same as ExPW1/1. Despite service of summons of the suit none appeared before the Court to contest the case. From the evidence on record, the plaintiff has successfully proved the execution of the agreement dated 02.05.2023. It is the case of the plaintiff that said agreement was executed in respect of the earlier loan. A perusal of the agreement - Ex-PW1/1 would also reflects that it is mentioned therein that defendant has taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.05.2021 and he will repay the said amount within 24 months from the date of said agreement in equal monthly installments of Rs. 15,000/- starting from June, 2023. However, the plaintiff has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish that a second loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was advanced to the defendant in the year 2023.
c) The contention of the plaintiff that the receipt executed along with the agreement dated 02.05.2023 pertains to the second loan of Rs.
CS No. 376/24 Naresh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Jain Page no. 5 of 7
Digitally signed
by HEM SINGH
HEM Date:
SINGH 2026.03.11
16:48:24
+0530
3,00,000/- is not tenable. A perusal of the said receipt clearly shows that it was executed in furtherance of the agreement dated 02.05.2023. The agreement itself records the earlier loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- advanced in the year 2021. Thus, the said receipt cannot be treated as proof of advancement of a second loan.
d) Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had advanced a second loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant.
e) However, the plaintiff has successfully proved that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant in the year 2021 and that the agreement dated 02.05.2023 was executed between the parties wherein the defendant acknowledged and undertook to repay the said loan in installments of Rs.15,000/-. At the time of recording of evidence plaintiff has stated that during pendency of the present suit the defendant has repaid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff.
f) Plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the actual realization of the entire loan amount, however, he did not lead any evidence to prove his entitlement for such rate of interest during pendency of present suit. Hence, this court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the plaintiff is granted simple interest @ 6% per annum which is equivalent to the prevalent bank fixed deposit rates.
CS No. 376/24 Naresh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Jain Page no. 6 of 7 Digitally signed HEM by HEM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.11 16:48:29 +0530 Relief:
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- from the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount.
Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. Plaintiff is also entitled for cost of the suit as per rules.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Announced in the open
Court on 11.03.2026 (Hem Singh)
District Judge-01
(East)/KKD/Delhi
CS No. 376/24 Naresh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Jain Page no. 7 of 7
Digitally signed
HEM by HEM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.03.11
16:48:34
+0530