Delhi District Court
Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi vs Vijay Kumar Yadav on 2 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, NORTH-WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. : 79270/16
CNR No. : DLNW01-009570-2016
In the matter of:
Sh. Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi,
S/o Late J.P. Rajvanshi,
R/o A-157, Deepali,
Pitampura,
DelhI-110034.
........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Vijay Kumar Yadav,
S/o Late Sh. R.C. Yadav,
R/o A-1/173, IInd Floor,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-63.
....... Defendant
Date of institution : 29.11.2016
Date on which judgment was reserved : 24.08.2024
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 02.09.2024
CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 1 of 14
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.10,70,000/-
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as alleged by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff and the defendant were known to each other being friends. In June 2012, the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.20,00,000/-. The plaintiff agreed to lend Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant. On 15.06.2012, the plaintiff advanced this amount to the defendant without executing any written agreement in view of the previous relationship between the parties. The defendant issued a cheque, bearing no. 197034, dt. 15.12.2012, for a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, towards repayment of the said loan. He also assured the plaintiff that the said cheque shall be honored on presentation.
2. However, the defendant did not repay the loan. He also requested the plaintiff not to present the cheque as the funds were not available in his Account. Till 14.03.2013, no payment was made by the defendant. Thereafter, on 29.01.2014, upon the repeated requests of the plaintiff, the defendant made a part payment of Rs.2,50,000/- through cheque which was credited in the plaintiff's Account. Thereafter, on 05.02.2015 and 18.03.2015, the defendant made a payment of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff. However, the balance payment of Rs.10,70,000/- was not made. Hence, the plaintiff had no option but to present the cheque in his Account. But the same CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 2 of 14 was dishonoured being stale cheque. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.10,70,000/-.
3. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendant and he appeared and filed his WS. In his WS, the defendant admitted that he was friends with the plaintiff. However, he stated that he had not taken the loan of Rs.14,00,000/- from the plaintiff. He stated that he had taken an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff, at an interest of 18% per annum, in the last week of April 2012. He further stated that he had handed over a blank, unfilled, signed cheque to the plaintiff as security. Further, it is stated that he had already repaid the entire loan along with interest to the plaintiff, which has been admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint. He requested the plaintiff a number of times to return his cheque but, in vain. Further, he stated that the cheque was presented by the plaintiff without notice to him. Lastly, it was stated that as he had already repaid the loan he had taken from the plaintiff, he was not liable to pay any further amount to the plaintiff.
4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff reiterated the facts as alleged in the plaint and denied the facts as alleged by the defendant.
5. Issues were framed vide order dt. 18.05.2018 which are as under :-
(1) Whether the cheque bearing no. '197034' dated 15.12.2012 CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 3 of 14 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar, Delhi was issued blank by the defendant towards security of the loan of rs.2,50,000/-, as claimed? .... OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has given loan of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant on 15.12.2012, as claimed? ....OPP. (3) Whether the defendant has paid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cheque, 50,000/- in cash on 05.02.2015 and 30,000/- on 18.03.2015 towards discharge of part liabilities or towards repayment of loan of Rs.2,50,000/- as claimed by the defendant. .... Onus on both the parties.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.10,70,000/-, as claimed? .... OPP.
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount, as claimed? If so, at what rate and for what period? .... OPP (6) Whether the suit has been filed within limitation? .... OPP (7) Relief.
6. In his evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and rely upon the following documents:
(i) Cheque of Rs. 14 Lacs bearing no. 197034 dated 15.12.2012 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar Branch, Delhi is Ex.PW1/1.
(ii) Pay in slip/deposit slip of Cheque bearing no. 197034 dated 15.12.2012 is Ex.PW1/2.
(iii) Return memo of cheque bearing no. 197034 with remarks "instrument outdated/state" is Ex.PW1/3.
CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 4 of 14(iv) Canara Bank statement of plaintiff bearing account no. 3008101007502 is Ex.PW1/4 mentioning entry of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- at point A. PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for defendant and PE was closed vide order dated 21.07.2022.
7. In his evidence, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and relied upon his evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 was cross- examined by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff and DE was closed vide order dated 26.04.2024.
8. Arguments were advanced by Sh. Anil Pruthi and Ms. Rachna, Ld. counsels for the plaintiff and Sh. V.S. Yadav, Ld. counsel for the defendant. I have also gone through the record. My issue wise findings are as under :-
Issues No. 1 and 2"Whether the cheque bearing no. '197034' dated 15.12.2012 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar, Delhi was issued blank by the defendant towards security of the loan of Rs. 2,50,000/-, as claimed? .... OPD.
Whether the plaintiff has given loan of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant on 15.12.2012, as claimed? ....OPP."
9. The onus to prove the first issue was upon the defendant CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 5 of 14 and the onus to prove the second issue was upon the plaintiff. However, the issues being interconnected, the same are taken up together. In the present matter, as mentioned above, the plaintiff has alleged that he had advanced a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant in cash. This has been denied by the defendant and he has stated that he had taken a loan but, the same was to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- which is already repaid. Further, the plaintiff has alleged that for the repayment of the loan, the defendant had handed over a signed and filled cheque which is Ex.PW1/1 to him while the defendant has alleged that the same was blank and signed and the same was given as security to the plaintiff for the loan of Rs.2,50,000/-.
10. In the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned in para no. 2 that when he advanced the loan to the defendant on 15.06.2012, the defendant handed over the impugned cheque Ex.PW1/1 dt. 15.12.2012 to him, towards the repayment of the loan. As mentioned above, the defendant has not denied handing over the said cheque to the plaintiff. However, he has alleged that the same was towards security for a loan of Rs.2,50,000/-. Admittedly, there is no written agreement between the parties. At the time of the repayment of Rs.2,50,000/- also, no written agreement/receipt was executed between the parties. Hence, the only evidence before this court is the oral testimonies of both the parties. Both the parties entered into the witness box as PW-1 and DW-1 respectively and they reiterated their allegations on oath.
CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 6 of 14Further, they remained firm on their respective testimonies.
11. From the record, it is clear that as per the plaintiff's case, the alleged loan of Rs.14,00,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant in cash. It is admitted that no receipt or document was reduced into writing by the parties for this transaction. Now the plaintiff has alleged that this cheque was filled by the defendant and handed over to him, at the time of the taking of the loan, while the defendant has alleged that he had given a blank signed cheque to the plaintiff as security. None of the parties moved an application for verifying the signatures and the handwriting on the cheque with that of the plaintiff or the defendant. Hence, even this fact cannot be ascertained as to who had actually filled the impugned cheque.
12. Now, Ld. counsel for the defendant has argued that the onus to prove that the loan was advanced by the plaintiff was on the plaintiff. The Court is in agreement to the same. As the plaintiff has specifically alleged that he had advanced a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant, the onus to prove this fact is upon the plaintiff. In this regard, Ld. counsel for the defendant has argued that the plaintiff has not placed on record any such document to show that he had the capacity to advance such a huge amount to the defendant in cash. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a practicing Lawyer. His Bank Account Statement was placed on record by him and proved as Ex.PW1/4.
CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 7 of 14However, perusal of that statement shall shows that the balance which was maintained by the plaintiff was not more than Rs.1,00,000/- except on the date when the repayment of Rs.2,50,000/- was made by the defendant.
13. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiff has failed to show any such document that he had withdrawn the sum of Rs.14,00,000/- from any bank account. The plaintiff has not filed on record his income tax returns despite his asking in his cross-examination. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he had arranged this amount from his aunt/Bua. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that she had already expired in the year 2005 while the loan was advanced in the year 2012. Hence, it is submitted that in the absence of the same, considering that there is no written contract between the parties, the plaintiff has failed to prove on record that the loan amount which was advanced by him was to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/-.
14. Per-contra, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant admits that there was a monetary transaction between the parties. It is submitted that the cheque Ex.PW1/1 admittedly bears the signatures of the defendant. The defendant had also repaid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff towards part repayment of the loan. He also paid Rs.50,000/- on 05.02.2015 and Rs.30,000/- on 18.03.2015.
CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 8 of 14Hence, in case, the loan was advanced to the tune of only Rs.2,50,000/-, then why the defendant returned a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- to the plaintiff. It is submitted that this conduct of the defendant clearly shows that the loan was for Rs.14,00,000/- and not Rs.2,50,000/-, as alleged by the defendant.
15. Record perused.
16. As mentioned above, there is no written agreement between the parties, qua the amount of the loan. Ld. counsel for the defendant has rightly pointed out that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show his source of income, on the basis of which, it could be ascertained that he had the capacity to advance such a huge amount to the defendant in the year 2012. During the course of his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he had advanced this amount from the amount which he received from his aunty/Bua. Further, he stated during his cross-examination that his Bua had expired in the year 2005. Hence, it is not conceivable that he had received a sum of Rs,14,00,000/- from his Bua in the year 2005 and he retained the same for seven years which he then, advanced to the defendant.
17. Further, as mentioned above, he did not file his income tax returns despite his cross-examination on the same. Further, as pointed out by Ld. counsel for the defendant, the Bank Account CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 9 of 14 Statement of the plaintiff is on record which is Ex.PW1/4 as per which, it can be seen that he has not maintained a balance of more than Rs.1,00,000/- in his account for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2014 except for the entry when the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited by the defendant in the account of the plaintiff. Hence, in the opinion of the Court, Ld. counsel for the defendant has rightly argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had the capacity to advance a sum of Rs 14,00,000/- to the defendant in the year 2012.
18. The cheque Ex.PW1/1 does not aid the plaintiff in view of the absence of the proof to the effect that the same was filled by the defendant himself. Perusal of the cheque Ex.PW1/1 which is filed in original on the court record shows that the signatures and the other details are in different ink. Further, the perusal of the cheque also shows that the same was issued by the bank somewhere in 1900s and the date which is filled is 15.12.2012. Hence, naturally, the cheque was a stale/outdated cheque. However, the handing over of the cheque by the defendant is not in dispute. Hence, the Court shall not go into those details. However, as mentioned above, the signatures and the other details are in different ink. This has also been discussed above that none of the parties moved an application to ascertain as to whether the details in the cheque were filled by the defendant or not. As the onus to prove this issue that he had advanced a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant was on the plaintiff, the primary onus CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 10 of 14 to prove this fact remained on him. However, in the opinion of the court, the same has not been discharged.
19. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff had argued that the defendant has admitted in his cross-examination that he had taken a loan of Rs.14,00,000/-from the plaintiff. However, the Court is unable to find the said admission. Perusal of the entire cross-examination shows that the defendant has categorically denied again and again that the loan was for the sum of Rs.14,00,000/-. He has again and again reiterated that the loan was for Rs.2,50,000/-. Infact, the plaintiff had put a suggestion to the defendant which is as under:-
"It is correct that I made payment of Rs.50,000/- on 05.02.2015 and payment of Rs.30,000/- on 18.03.2015 to the plaintiff towards interest on the loan".
20. Perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has specifically alleged that the loan was interest free. However, by virtue of the said suggestion, the plaintiff admits that he had taken interest over the said loan which is corroborative to the averment of the defendant.
21. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, in the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had advanced a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant.
CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 11 of 14Hence, these issues are decided in the favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3"Whether the defendant has paid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cheque, 50,000/- in cash on 05.02.2015 and 30,000/- on 18.03.2015 towards discharge of part liabilities or towards repayment of loan of Rs.2,50,000/- as claimed by the defendant. .... Onus on both the parties."
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon both the parties. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant had repaid a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- to him towards partial discharge of the loan while the defendant has alleged that the said amount was paid towards the principal and interest of the loan of Rs.2,50,000/-. As discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had advanced a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant. Hence, the balance of probability in the present matter lies in the favor of the defendant and hence, from the facts of the case, it seems that the defendant had paid the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- to the plaintiff towards the repayment of the loan. Hence, this issue is also decided in the favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issues No. 4 and 5"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 12 of 14 Rs.10,70,000/-, as claimed? .... OPP.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount, as claimed? If so, at what rate and for what period? .... OPP"
23. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had advanced a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant, he is not entitled to the recovery, as claimed. Hence, these issues are also decided in the favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 6"Whether the suit has been filed within limitation? .... OPP"
24. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In the present matter, the plaintiff has alleged that he had advanced the impugned loan to the defendant on 15.06.2012 while the defendant has alleged that the loan was taken by him in April 2012. As discussed earlier, no written agreement was executed between the parties. However, it is a matter of record that the defendant had paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff on 29.01.2014 and subsequently, two other payments were made on 05.12.2015 and 18.03.2015. Even if the date of the advancement of loan is taken to be April 2012, as per the defendant, the payment towards the same by him to the plaintiff shall extend the period of limitation in view of CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 13 of 14 section 19 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the suit is within limitation. This issue is decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
25. In view of the finding as discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court by RUCHIKA
on 2nd September, 2024. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2024.09.02
16:37:33 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
Distt. Judge-03, North-West Distt.,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
This judgment contains 14 pages and each
page is checked and signed by me.
CS DJ 79270/16 Anuj Kumar Rajvanshi Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav Page 14 of 14