Delhi District Court
Om Prakash vs M/S M M Glass Works And Anr on 7 February, 2026
DLST010029772020
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNISH BANSAL,
DISTRICT JUGDE-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT),
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CS No.: 193/2020
In the matter of :-
Om Prakash,
S/o Sh. R.S. Daral,
R/o 283, Sector-23,
Gurugram.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. M M Glass Works
(A Partnership Firm)
Through its Partner
Smt. Asha Chhatwal,
At Shop no.S-1/2, Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave,
Opposite Green Park,
New Delhi-110029.
2. Smt. Asha Chhatwal,
At Shop no.S-1/2, Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave,
Opposite Green Park,
New Delhi-110029.
CS DJ 193/2020 Page 1 of 18
Also at:
House No.56, Ground Floor,
Left side Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-10029.
......Defendants
Date of Institution : 17.03.2020
Arguments heard on : 22.12.2025
Date of decision : 07.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.6,44,980/- with pendente-lite and future interest, filed by the plaintiff against defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Facts as epitomized in the plaint are that defendant no.2 is known to a friend of the plaintiff namely Shri Anil Kumar @ Toni and defendant No.2 through Shri Anil Kumar @Toni approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. The loan was requested to be extended to the defendant no.1, a partnership firm of which the defendant no.2 is a partner. Thereafter, at their request, the plaintiff transferred a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from his personal account to the account of the defendant no.1 on 10.04.2017 through RTGS from his bank account bearing No.xxxx3580 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sarvapriya Vihar, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi to the bank account of defendant No.1, bearing No.xxxx0761 at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Green Park Main CS DJ 193/2020 Page 2 of 18 Market, New Delhi-110016 on an interest @ 15% per annum, to the defendants and the amount of interest was mutually agreed which was to be paid on half yearly basis. Defendant No.2 assured/ undertook that the loan amount with interest will be returned to the plaintiff within a period of two years from the date of remittance of loan.
2.1 It is further averred that the defendants did not pay the interest as per the promised schedule, after six months of 10.04.2017 i.e. on 10.10.2017 and thus the plaintiff requested defendant no.2 to pay the interest, to which the defendant no.2 requested the plaintiff that the interest amount along with the principal amount shall be paid at the end of the two years as defendants were in some financial problems. It is averred that after 10.04.2019, on various occasions and lastly on 10.01.2020, the plaintiff requested defendant no.2 to return the aforesaid loan amount as well as interest @ 15% per annum, however, no heed was paid to aforesaid request of the Plaintiff. The defendants have failed to pay the amounts due and payable by them to the plaintiff. The defendants have been illegally withholding the legitimate dues of the Plaintiff.
2.2 When the defendants failed to pay the legitimate dues of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff got a legal notice dated 07.02.2020 issued to the defendants through his Advocate, calling upon them to pay the outstanding due amount of Rs.6,37,500/- as on 10.02.2020, which CS DJ 193/2020 Page 3 of 18 was inclusive of the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the amount of Rs.1,37,500/- accrued towards the interest at the stipulated rate of 15% per annum, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice sent by Speed Post was returned back with the remark of "refused".
2.3 It is further averred that by their act or conduct, the defendants have breached the trust reposed on them by the Plaintiff. That as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the following amounts:-
(a) Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) being the principal amount.
(b) Rs.1,44,980/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only) being the interest @ 15% per annum accrued upon the principal Loan amount till 16.03.2020.
(c) Pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum on the above said amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment.
2.4 It is averred that the cause of action arose when the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff became due and payable i.e. 10.04.2019. It further arose when the defendants failed to pay the principal amount with interest to the plaintiff and it finally arose when the plaintiff by way of his notice dated 07.02.2020 called upon the defendants to return the principal amount along with interest.
CS DJ 193/2020 Page 4 of 182.5 It is further averred that the defendants are having shop at Safdarjung Enclave which is situated at District South Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court where the entire cause of action has also arisen. The loan was released/ transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendants from his bank in District South Delhi to the bank of the Defendant No.1 which is also situated in District South Delhi. As such, this Hon'ble Court has the territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. The present suit is within the period of limitation. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:-
a) A decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of Rs.6,44,980/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only) to be recovered jointly and severally from both the defendants;
b) Award interest; pendente lite and future from the date of filing of the present suit till realization @15% per annum;
c) Award costs of the suit; and
d) Pass such order or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
DEFENDANT NO.1 (EX-PARTE)
3. Despite service of summons, neither any appearance has been entered on behalf of defendant no.1 nor any written statement CS DJ 193/2020 Page 5 of 18 was filed. Hence, defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.03.2022.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.2.
4. On service of summons upon the defendant no.2, written statement was filed on behalf of the said defendant denying all the allegations and averments contained in the plaint. However, subsequently on 03.12.2022 and 07.01.2023, none appeared on behalf of defendant no.2 and defendant no.2 was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 07.01.2023. Subsequently, vide order dated 10.08.2023, the said order proceeding ex-parte against defendant no.2 was set-aside.
4.1 In the written statement of defendant no.2, it is averred that the present suit has been erroneously filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,44,980/-. The defendant no.2 is the sleeping partner of the firm and that no specific liability accrues against her as sleeping partner is not liable for any day-to-day affairs of the firm.
4.2 It is averred that the present plaint lacks any cause of action, as the defendant is the sleeping partner and she has neither availed any loan in her personal capacity nor has any knowledge of day-to- day affairs of the company nor of whether any loan has been taken or not, as she has been made partner just for name sake being the CS DJ 193/2020 Page 6 of 18 elder lady in the family.
4.3 That the present suit has been filed incorrectly because of the inclusion of mis-joinder of Defendant No.2 as she is the sleeping partner in the firm and is unaware of the day-to-day activities happening in the firm and of non-joinder of Sandeep Chhatwal, who is an essential person as he used to run the concerned firm and because he went missing (for which police complaint has been lodged vide general diary no. 029A dated 21.09.2019), the defendant no. 2, for her survival, has to commence new business in the name of new MM Glass Works.
4.4 It is further submitted that defendant no.2 does not have any joint or several liability. The defendant no.2 is a sleeping partner of the firm and is not aware of day-to-day affairs of the firm and has no knowledge of any transaction between defendant no. 1 and plaintiff.
REPLICATION:
5. The Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement thereby denying all the contents of the written statement and reiterating and reaffirming the pleadings made in the plaint. Apart from the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff through the said replication has also averred that the objections of the defendant no.2 is vague and baseless and without any merits and material CS DJ 193/2020 Page 7 of 18 particulars. It is stated that defendant no.2 has dealt with the plaintiff for the transaction in dispute, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth to say that defendant No.2 is a sleeping partner of the firm. It is stated that the defendant No.2 be put to strict proof of the same. It is stated that every partner of the partnership firm are jointly and severally liable. Therefore, the defendant No.2 is still liable to repay the loan taken by the defendant No.1 firm. It is stated that the loan transaction was entered by the plaintiff with the defendant No.2; loan amount was transferred to the account of the defendant No.1 firm at the instance of the defendant No.2; and the defendant No.2 is an active partner of the firm. It is, thus, stated that the objections of defendant no.2 that she is not a necessary party to the suit or that Sh. Sandeep Chhatwal is necessary and proper party to the present proceedings are misconceived, meritless and liable to be rejected.
ISSUES
6. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2023:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.6,44,980/- from the defendants, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, as prayed for? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled on interest on such sum? If yes, at what rate and for which CS DJ 193/2020 Page 8 of 18 period? OPP
3. Whether no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.2? OPD2
4. Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-1/A and also relied upon the following document(s):-
Sr. No. Document Exhibited as
1 Original RTGS receipt dated 10.04.2017 Ex. PW-1/1
2 Certified copy of bank statement of Ex. PW-1/2
plaintiff of Oriental Bank of Commerce
for the period 01.04.2017 to 15.04.2017
3 Legal notice dated 07.02.2020 Ex. PW-1/3
4 Postal and courier receipts Ex.PW-1/4
(colly.)
5 Return envelopes Ex.PW-1/5
(colly.)
6 Plaint Ex. PX
7 Replication Ex. PY
The witness was cross-examined by counsel for the defendant.
CS DJ 193/2020 Page 9 of 187.1 Sh. Romesh Prakash Roshan, Manager from Punjab National Bank was examined as PW-2, who brought the summoned record i.e. account statement of plaintiff for period from 01.04.2017 to 30.04.2017 alongwith certificate under Banker's Books Evidence act which was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 (colly.).
The witness was cross-examined by counsel for the defendant no.2.
7.2 Thereafter, vide a separate statement of the plaintiff on 12.09.2024, PE was closed.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
8. Defendant no.2 Smt. Asha Chhatwal got herself examined as D2W1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. D2W-1/A and she relied upon copy of GD No.029A dated 21.01.2019 which is a police report lodged at PS Safdarjung Enclave which is marked as Mark A. She was duly cross-examined by counsel for the plaintiff.
8.1 Vide statement of defendant no.2 recorded on even date i.e. 26.11.2025, DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments were heard as advanced by Ld. Counsel for CS DJ 193/2020 Page 10 of 18 the plaintiff and counsel for defendant no.2.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS Issue No.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.6,44,980/- from the defendants, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, as prayed for? OPP
10. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
10.1 To decide the present issue, the first question to be decided is whether defendant no.2 is the partner of defendant no.1 firm. Plaintiff has alleged that loan of Rs.5 Lacs was given to the defendant no.1 firm at the behest of defendant no.2 who is a partner in the defendant no.1 firm. In the written statement and in the evidence affidavit Ex. D2W-1/A, defendant no.2 has stated and deposed that she is a sleeping partner in the defendant no.1 firm and is unaware of the day to day activities happening in the firm and that she was made the partner just for the name sake being elder lady in the family. In cross-examination, defendant no.2 has deposed that she and her sons namely Brijesh Chhatwal and Sandeep Chhatwal are the partners of defendant no.1 firm. She has also deposed that she cannot show any document in the Court file that she was a sleeping partner of the defendant no.1 firm. Thus, there is a categorical admission of defendant no.2 that she is a partner in the defendant no.1 firm.
CS DJ 193/2020 Page 11 of 1810.2 The next question to be considered is whether it is proved that loan amount of Rs.5 lacs was given to defendant no.1 firm by the plaintiff. In this regard, plaintiff has proved and relied upon original RTGS receipt dated 10.04.2017 Ex. PW-1/2 (which is also proved by PW-1 i.e. witness from the bank deposing that the said document was issued by his bank) and certified copy of bank statement of the plaintiff maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce for the period 01.04.2017 to 15.04.2017 Ex PW-1/2. The said bank statement tallies with and finds coherence with the account statement for the period of 01.04.2017 to 30.04.2017 alongwith certificate under Banker's Book Evidence Act Ex. PW- 1/2 (colly.) produced by the bank witness PW-2. Perusal of the said document shows that the amount of Rs.5 Lacs has been deposited/ transferred by the plaintiff to the account of defendant no.1 firm. Perusal of the written statement as well as evidence affidavit of defendant no.2 shows that deposit of Rs.5 Lacs by plaintiff in the account of defendant no.1 has not been denied by defendant no.2 and only explanation tendered is that defendant no.2 is a sleeping partner and she is not aware of the day to day proceedings of the firm. It is further to be noted that defendant no.1 firm was served through defendant no.2 as the partner of defendant no.1 firm and despite service, defendant no.2 appeared in the capacity as defendant no.2, but she did not appeared on behalf of the defendant no.1 firm as its partner and defendant no.1 firm was proceeded ex-parte. Thus, the factum of transfer of Rs.5 CS DJ 193/2020 Page 12 of 18 Lacs by the plaintiff in the bank account of defendant no.1 on 10.04.2017 stands unrebutted and unchallenged. Moreover, in the cross-examination, defendant no.2 has deposed as follows:
"Q. Is it correct that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- transferred to the bank account of defendant no.1 firm on 10.04.2017 was in respect of loan?
Ans. I cannot say.
Q. Can you show any document from the Court file
which shows that for what purpose the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred to the bank account of defendant no.1 firm.
Ans. No. *** Q. Can you bring the ITR for the year 2017 till 2020 and bank statement of defendant no.1 firm bearing account no. 1011380761 with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Green Park, Main Market, New Delhi for the month of April 2017? Ans. No."
10.3 From the aforesaid answers of defendant no.2 in her cross- examination, it is apparent that she has given evasive answers as to the transfer of amount of Rs.5 Lacs in the account of defendant no.1 firm and the said amount being a loan amount. Thus, in view of above, it stands proved that plaintiff has transferred amount of Rs.5 Lacs to the bank account of defendant no.1 on 10.04.2017 in CS DJ 193/2020 Page 13 of 18 respect of the loan.
10.4 Now, the next question that requires consideration for deciding the issue at hand is that whether defendant no.2 alongwith defendant no.1 is liable to pay back loan amount alongwith interest. Since defendant no.1 has been proceeded ex-parte, the averments in the plaint as well as the deposition made in the evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A has gone unrebutted and unchallenged so far as defendant no.1 firm is concerned. As regards defendant no.2, the only averments in the written statement and deposition in her evidence affidavit is that she is a sleeping partner and is not aware of the day to day proceedings and therefore, she is not liable for the acts of the defendant no.1 firm. In this regard, Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is relevant which is as under:-
"25. Liability of a partner for acts of the firm.- Every partner is liable , jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner."
10.5 From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the a partner is jointly and severally liable for any act of the firm done while he is a partner. In the present case, it stands proved that defendant no.2 is a partner of the defendant no.1 firm and therefore, she is jointly and severally liable with all other partners of all acts of the firm done while she is the partner. It is not the case of defendant no.2 CS DJ 193/2020 Page 14 of 18 that she has retired from defendant no.1 firm and therefore, no concession in the liability of defendant no.2 can be given simply on the ground that she is a sleeping partner.
10.6 It is to be noted that in the written statement defendant no.2 has stated that day to day affairs of the firm were taken care by her son Sandeep Chhatwal who is the other partner of the firm but never disclosed that her other son Brijesh was also the partner but in cross-examination, she discloses that she and the her abovenamed two sons are partners of the defendant no.1 firm. From the same, it is clear that her conduct is evasive and is with the intention to escape from the liability of the firm. In cross- examination, she has deposed that address of the defendants mentioned in the memo of parties and in the legal notice Ex. PW- 1/3 are correct. In her written statement and evidence affidavit, she has admitted that after her son Sandeep Chhatwal went missing, for her survival, she commenced new business in the name of new M.M. Glass Works. However, in cross-examination, she admits that she has not filed any documents to show that new M.M. Glass Works is not the same and not in continuation of the defendant no.1 firm. Thus, from the aforesaid testimony, it is clear that defendant no.2 has given evasive replies as on one hand, she has stated that she is a sleeping partner in the defendant no.1 firm and on the other hand, she has stated that she is now running the business of new M.M. Glass Works, for which no document have been placed on record by her.
CS DJ 193/2020 Page 15 of 1810.7 In view of above discussions, the plaintiff is able to prove the liability of defendants no.1 and 2 and thus, plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount of Rs.5 Lacs from the defendants who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the plaintiff. Issue at hand stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled on interest on such sum? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
11. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
11.1 Though plaintiff has claimed interest @ 15% per annum stating that same was agreed upon with defendant no.2 representing as partner by defendant no.1 firm, however, there is no written agreement between the parties or written assurance by defendant no.2. In cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that undertaking to repay the loan @15% per annum was not given in writing. Further, in cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that no interest payment was ever made by the defendants at any point of time during the term of loan. Thus, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the loan amount carried an interest @15% per annum nor the same can be reasonably inferred from the proven facts of the case. However, since the plaintiff has been deprived of his constructive use of money, this Court deems appropriate to grant CS DJ 193/2020 Page 16 of 18 interest @9% per annum from the date of disbursement/ transfer of the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by the plaintiff in the bank account of defendant no.1 firm till its realization. Issue stands decided accordingly in the above terms.
Issue no.3 Whether no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.2? OPD2
12. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
12.1 In view of the adjudication on the issues no.1 & 2, the plaintiff has been able to prove that he is entitled to relief sought in the present suit and therefore, it stands proved that a valid cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.2 and therefore, present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF
13. From the discussions, as adumbrated herein-above, plaintiff is entitled to following reliefs:-
a. Plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount of Rs.5 Lacs from the defendants who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the plaintiff.CS DJ 193/2020 Page 17 of 18
b. Plaintiff is also entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of disbursement/ transfer of the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by the plaintiff in the bank account of defendant no.1 firm till its realization.
c. The costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
14. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by MUNISH MUNISH BANSAL
Announced in the open Court BANSAL Date:
2026.02.07
on Dated: 07.02.2026 16:51:45 +0530
(Munish Bansal)
District Judge-03,
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CS DJ 193/2020 Page 18 of 18