Delhi District Court
Ram Sarup Taneja vs Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia on 30 March, 2026
CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJEET NARAYAN
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
DLSE030017532023
CS No. 945/2023
CNR No. DLSE030017532023
RAM SARUP TANEJA
S/O: LATE SH.K.L. TANEJA
R/O: B-67, DAYANAND COLONY,
LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW DELHI- 110024 ...Plaintiff
VERSUS
GIRISH SUNEJA @ VICKY RASOIA
R/O: K-48, SECOND FLOOR,
OLD DOUBLE STOREY LAJPAT NAGAR-IV,
NEW DELHI-110024 ...Defendant
Date of Institution : 17.08.2023
Date of Reserving Judgment : 24.03.2026
Date of Judgement : 30.03.2026
Final order : Suit Dismissed.
Page No. 1 of 14
CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,00,000/- (RUPEES THREE LAKHS ONLY)
ALONGWITH PENDENTE-LITE INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the instant civil suit filed by Ram Sarup Taneja (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') against Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) along with interest @ 18% per annum.
PLAINTIFF'S VERSION
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant are living in the same locality for the last so many years and defendant was having friendly terms with the son of plaintiff namely Tarun Taneja as the son of the plaintiff and the defendant are doing the business of outdoor catering and the defendant used to visit at the residence of the plaintiff frequently. It is further submitted that the defendant had been taking friendly loans from the plaintiff from time to time and used to return the same within the agreed time. In the year of 2021 the defendant approached to the plaintiff and requested him for a financial help of Rs.3,00000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and keeping his previous conduct, the plaintiff had agreed to give said amount to defendant and the plaintiff gave a total sum of Rs. 3,00000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the defendant on various dates and defendant assured to return the said amount of Rs. 300000/-in the month of February, 2022. The plaintiff approached to the defendant in the month of February, 2022 for return of his loan amount of Rs. 300000/- (Rupees three lakhs only), then the defendant in discharge of his legally enforceable Page No. 2 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia liability had issued a cheque bearing No. 021453 dated 16.03.2022 of Rs. 300000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) drawn on Axis Bank ltd. having its branch at Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, in favour of the plaintiff with the assurance that same shall be en- cashed at the time of presentation. After some time before presenting the said cheque, the plaintiff approached the defendant and the defendant asked plaintiff to wait for some time to present the said cheque. After waiting the reply of defendant after three months, the plaintiff having no other option, has presented the said cheque in his banker i.e., Indian overseas Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi but the same was returned unpaid with remarks "instrument stale" on the pay-in-slip of the cheque. It is further submitted that after the return of the cheque unpaid from the banker, plaintiff several times contacted the defendant but every time the defendant made false promises to return the said cheque amount and finally flatly refused to pay the amount of cheque to the plaintiff. That having no other option, the plaintiff sent a legal demand notice through his counsel on 27.02.2023, but despite service of the legal notice, the defendant failed to make payment of the cheque amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) along with interest @ 18% per annum.
DEFENDANT'S VERSION
3. The defendant appeared before the court pursuant to service of summons. Thereafter, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant wherein the defendant denies all allegations made by the plaintiff, contesting the suit. It is stated that the suit is entirely misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant with malafide intentions Page No. 3 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia and ulterior motive and the allegations levelled by the plaintiff, in the present suit are completely false and frivolous and the same are made merely with the intention to harass the defendant. It is further submitted that in the year 2015, the Plaintiff's son and the Defendant were in the same business and in the year 2015, the defendant had borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the Plaintiff's son namely Tarun Taneja and as a security, the defendant had handed over two cheques bearing no. 021452 and 021453, drawn on Axis Bank to the Plaintiff's son. It is further stated that both the cheques were blank, without any date, name, or amount.
3.1 It is further stated that in the year 2015, the Plaintiffs son had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the Defendant, titled as "Tarun Taneja v. Girish Suneja" CS SCJ No. 185 of 2015 before Ld. JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The said suit was settled and the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the son of the Plaintiff and vide Order dated 30.07.2015 of the Ld. JSCC-ASCI-GJ, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi was pleased to dismiss the matter as withdrawn. Thereafter, the defendant demanded back the other cheque bearing No. 021453, from the plaintiff's son. However, the Plaintiff's son refused to hand over the same to the Defendant. It is further stated that the Defendant's account bearing no. 910010047711212 with the Axis Bank, Branch Lajpat Nagar- II, New Delhi, pertaining to which the aforementioned cheques were drawn, was closed on 02.09.2015 itself. Therefore, the matter of issuing the alleged cheque No. 021453 in the year 2022 does not arise. It is therefore, safe to conclude that the said cheque was given in the year 2015 for the amount which was taken by the Defendant in the year Page No. 4 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia 2015. It is stated that the said amount was duly paid and settled between the Defendant and the Plaintiff's son and present suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Replication has not been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant in this case.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the present suit has been filed under Order XXXVII CPC, however the same has been converted into the ordinary suit vide order dated 05.02.2024.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 23.12.2024: -
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with cost of the suit as well as interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amount? OPP.
(ii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Original cheque dated 16-03-2022 and pay-in-slip dated 21-06-2022 is Ex.
PW1/1.
(ii) Copy of legal notice dated 27.02.2023 is Ex. PW1/2.
(iii) Original Postal receipt dated 27.02.2023 is Ex.PW1/3.Page No. 5 of 14
CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia
8. PW-1/plaintiff was duly cross-examined by Sh. Vaibhav Saini, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 15.09.2025.
9. Defendant has examined himself as DW-1, but has not relied upon any document, thereafter he was cross examined by counsel of plaintiff and DE was closed on 06.02.2026 and the matter was put up for final arguments. After hearing the final arguments, matter was fixed for judgment.
FINDINGS
10. I have heard the final arguments and perused the record carefully. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under: -
ISSUE NO. 1(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with cost of the suit as well as interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amount? OPP.
11. The burden of proving the issue no. 1 lies upon the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant are living in the same locality and defendant was having friendly relation with the son of the plaintiff namely Tarun Taneja, and the defendant had been taking friendly loan from plaintiff from time to time and used to return the same. It is further submitted that in the year 2021, the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial help of Rs.3 Lakhs, plaintiff has handed over a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs to the defendant on Page No. 6 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia various dates and the defendant assured the plaintiff to return the said amount in the month of February 2022. Thereafter, when the plaintiff approached the defendant for return of loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, then the defendant had issued a cheque in question bearing no. 021453 dated 16.03.2022 of Rs. 3 Lakhs, drawn on Axis Bank, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi, with assurance that same shall be encashed. Thereafter, when the plaintiff presented the said cheque, same was returned un-paid with remarks, 'instrument stale' on pay-in- slip of cheque in question. Thereafter the plaintiff contacted the defendant several times, however the defendant has refused to pay the loan amount to plaintiff. Thereafter the present suit has been filed.
Per contra, it is the case of the defendant that plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and present suit is filed on concocted story made by the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that the defendant does not owe any amount to plaintiff. It is submitted that in the year 2015, the defendant has borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/-, from the son of the plaintiff namely Tarun Taneja and as a security, the defendant had handed over two cheques bearing no. 021452 and 021453 (021453 being the cheque in present case), drawn on Axis Bank to son of the plaintiff and both the cheques were blank without any date, name and amount. Thereafter, in the year 2015, son of plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3 Lakhs against the defendant titled as Tarun Taneja vs. Girish Suneja, CS SCJ No. 185/2015 before the Court of Ld. JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East, where the said case was filed for cheque bearing no. 021452. The said suit was settled for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the matter was disposed off as withdrawn.
Now, it is the case of the defendant that when the defendant demanded back the other cheque bearing no. 021453 (for which the present suit has been Page No. 7 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia filed) from the plaintiff's son, plaintiff's son refused to hand over the same to defendant and now the same cheque has been misused by the plaintiff by filing the present case. It is further the case of the defendant that the account of the defendant was closed on 02.09.2015 itself, therefore, the present cheque bearing no. 021453 being issued in the year 2022, does not arise and it can be concluded that the said cheque was also given in the year 2015 as security, for the amount which was taken by defendant in the year 2015 and the said amount was duly paid and settled between the parties.
It is an admitted case between both the parties that there was an earlier suit bearing no. CS SCJ 185/2015, between son of plaintiff namely, Tarun Taneja and defendant and the said suit was filed for cheque bearing no. 021452, drawn on Axis Bank and same was settled between the defendant and the son of plaintiff. Now, it is the case of defendant that in the earlier suit the defendant has handed over cheques bearing no. 021452 (pertaining to the earlier suit) and 021453 (cheque in the present case ) as security cheques, but after the settlement in the earlier case, the defendant forgot to get back the cheque bearing no. 021453, that is the cheque in question in the present suit and now cheque has been misused.
However, the defendant has not filed any document on record to prove the said contention that the cheque in question was also handed over as security cheque to son of plaintiff when the earlier suit was filed and the said cheque has been misused now. Coming to the cross-examination of DW-1, it is admitted by DW-1 that he has not filed any written communication/letter to son of plaintiff asking him to return cheque no. 021453 and he has also not filed any police complaint against the same. Now there is no direct evidence to substantiate the assertions made by the defendant that the cheque in question in Page No. 8 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia the present suit was also given along with the cheque in the earlier suit between the defendant and son of plaintiff, as security cheque, which is misused now by the plaintiff. The only argument given by the defendant is that since it is admitted by plaintiff that the earlier suit bearing no. CS/SCJ 185/2015 pertains to cheque bearing no. 021452 and it pertains to the year 2015, therefore, the cheque in question in the present case i.e. cheque bearing no. 021453 being in the same series, must have been issued at that time only, and it is not possible that the present cheque has been handed over in the year 2022 by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is further argued that plaintiff is taking benefit of bonafide mistake done by the defendant as he has not asked for cheque bearing no. 021453 from the son of plaintiff or plaintiff. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove the said contention by way of any independent and direct evidence that the present cheque has been issued in the year 2015 along with the earlier cheque as security and same has been misused.
12. Now, it has to be ascertained as to whether the plaintiff has proved the fact that plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 3 Lakhs along with interest. Plaintiff has only filed original cheque bearing no. 021453, a pay-in-slip of bank and legal notice dated 27-02-2023.
As per Section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, a presumption shall be raised that the said cheque was made or drawn for consideration. Sections 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act lay down certain presumptions which are presumed by the Court with regard to negotiable instruments. In other words, these are presumed to exist in every negotiable instrument and the same need not be proved. The presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be applied between parties to the instrument or those Page No. 9 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia claiming under it. Before the presumptions can be drawn, execution of the instrument must be proved. If there is a denial of the execution by the opposite party, the plaintiff (who bases his claim on the instrument) must prove the execution. As soon as execution is proved Section 118 helps the plaintiff to shift the burden of proof to the defendant and latter has to prove with adequate proof or circumstantial evidence that the promissory note was not supported by adequate or valid consideration. If he is successful in this, the burden again shifts to the plaintiff.
In the present case, execution of cheque in question is not denied. It is not the case of the defendant that cheque does not bear his signature. Now the onus to prove that the said cheque was not drawn for consideration and was given as a security lies upon the defendant, but, the said fact is not proved by the defendant by any direct evidence, however it is settled that the said presumption under Section 118 (a) Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by circumstances also on preponderance of probabilities. If the defendant is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a consideration or liability, or can create doubt on the story of plaintiff, presumption can be rebutted.
Coming to the case of the plaintiff, there are some material weaknesses in the case of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not mentioned the dates of advancement of loan of Rs. 3 lacs in his plaint, also he has not stated the mode of advancement of loan also. Plaintiff has only stated that said amount was given to the defendant on various dates in year 2021 and defendant assured to return the loan in month of February 2022. There is no documentary evidence like written agreement, receipts, bank account statement on record filed by plaintiff to show that he has advanced the said loan to the defendant. Also, plaintiff has Page No. 10 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia not examined any witness in whose presence, the loan has been given by plaintiff. Plaintiff in his cross examination also mentions that he does not remember the exact month when cheque in question was given by defendant. Now coming to the most important weakness in the case of plaintiff is that it is admitted position between both the parties that the earlier suit bearing no. CS/SCJ 185/2015 between son of plaintiff and defendant, pertains to cheque bearing no. 021452 of the Axis bank, which was settled between parties, now the present cheque in question bearing no. 021452 of the same bank has been allegedly issued from same account of defendant. Hence, both the cheques forms part of same cheque book series and the earlier cheque was admittedly issued in year 2015 during the transaction between son of plaintiff and defendant, which was later on settled. Also, perusal of cheque in question shows that name of payee and the date of cheque has been written in a completely different ink and handwriting, which shows that name of payee and date of cheque has been written subsequently filled. If according to the version of plaintiff, defendant has issued the cheque in question in discharge of his liability in February 2022, he should have issued completely filled cheque in his handwriting, but perusal of cheque shows that two different handwriting and inks have been used on cheque for writing name of payee and the date. There is no reason why defendant will issue the blank cheque at that time, when cheque has been issued in discharge of his liability. Further, in this case, plaintiff has filed a pay-in-slip for showing that when cheque in question presented before the bank, it was returned with remarks, instrument stale and the same was not dishonored as such, hence there is no such return memo on record. However, perusal of pay-in-slip shows that there is no seal of the concerned bank and also the serial number of cheque mentioned, is different from cheque in question.
Page No. 11 of 14CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia Although plaintiff has filed affidavit regarding mistake in the number of cheque in pay in slip, however, same is not sufficient and plaintiff could have called the bank witness to prove the same. But no bank witness has been called to prove the same.
Further, plaintiff has not stated the source of funds or filed any documents for proving his financial capacity in his plaint or in his cross examination, because if large amount of money is advanced as a loan and considering the surrounding circumstances, then, the person who has purportedly advanced the loan must also show the solvency to the extent of loan either through bank account or through other means. Hence, the version of plaintiff does not inspire confidence. All of this does cast doubt over the version of plaintiff and the defence taken by defendant seems probable in view of the materials brought on record by the parties, and with reference to the circumstances of the case. It is very much possible that cheque in question might have been issued in 2015 along with the earlier cheque as security with respect to the earlier transaction with the son of plaintiff. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, along with other surrounding circumstances, defence of defendant seems plausible and he has been able to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff.
13. Now the burden shifts on the plaintiff to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt and whether plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 3 Lakhs along with interest. Now in this case, plaintiff has relied only upon original cheque. Apart from the cheque, there is no document on record to prove the advancement of loan by the plaintiff, as defendant has completely denied the existence of any loan by plaintiff. In the present case, there is doubt over exact dates of Page No. 12 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia advancement of loan, mode of advancement of loan, exact date of handing over the cheque in question. Admittedly, there is no written document regarding loan. Plaintiff has also failed to examine any witness in whose presence the loan was allegedly advanced. Hence, in the absence of any written agreement regarding advancement of loan, no exact date of advancement of loan, any receipt, any witness to loan transaction, or lack of suitable explanation regarding source of funds, the version of plaintiff is very doubtful and cannot be relied upon. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to prove his case that he has advanced the loan of Rs. 3 lakhs to the defendant and that he is entitled to recovery of said amount along with interest.
Now even considering the case of defendant, that there is no direct or independent evidence to substantiate the assertions made by the defendant that the cheque in question in the present suit was also given along with the cheque in the earlier suit between the defendant and son of plaintiff, as security cheque, which is misused now by the plaintiff, but defendant has created doubts over the version of plaintiff. However, even otherwise, it is established tenet of law that the initial burden of proof is on the plaintiff to substantiate his case, and if he fails to discharge the same, the weakness in the defence cannot be the basis to grant relief to the plaintiff and burden cannot be shifted on the defendant.
In view of the same, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
RELIEF
14. In view of findings on the issue stated above, it is held the plaintiff is Page No. 13 of 14 CS SCJ 945/2023 Ram Sarup Taneja Vs. Girish Suneja @ Vicky Rasoia not entitled for the relief of recovery of sum of Rs.3 lakhs, as prayed for in the plaint. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Digitally
signed by
Ajeet narayan
Ajeet Date:
Announced in the open court narayan 2026.03.30
16:27:08
today i.e. 30-03-2026. +0530
(Ajeet Narayan)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ: South-East
Saket Courts: Delhi
Page No. 14 of 14