Delhi District Court
Kapil Dev vs Ss Engineers Through Its Ar on 10 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 68/2025
CNR No. DLSW010006042025
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. KAPIL DEV
R/o H.No. 167, Rohtak Karountha 70,
Rohtak, Haryana-124001
Presently at:- H.No. M-91, WZ-148,
Right Side, Jain Pakode Wala,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064 ... Plaintiff
Versus
SS ENGINEERS
Through its Authorized Representative
Sh. Sourav Tyagi,
Having Reg. Office at:
WZ-78, Om Vihar, Phase 4,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
Presently at:- H.No. 1/134, First Floor,
Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059 ... Defendant
RICHA Date of institution 21.01.2025
GUSAIN
SOLANKI Date of reserving judgment 10.10.2025
Digitally signed by
RICHA GUSAIN
SOLANKI
Date of pronouncement of judgment 10.10.2025
Date: 2025.10.10
04:16:44 +0530
JUDGMENT
This is a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of ₹ 19,00,000/- (Rupees Ninteen Lakhs only) along with pendente lite and future interest. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are:− CS DJ ADJ No. 68/2025 Kapil Dev v. SS. Engineers Page 1 of 4
1. The plaintiff states that the defendant firm, being managed and operated by Sh. Sourav Tyagi, used to take projects from the companies in exchange of consideration. In June 2019, the defendant approached the plaintiff and induced the plaintiff to invest in his IGL Project for good returns in the future. Accordingly, the plaintiff started working as Sub Contact Team Associate with the defendant in June 2019.
2. The plaintiff worked till August 2019 and also paid to plumber and other labour and material charges from his own pocket, apart from investing Rs. 6.5 lakhs in the said project.
3. The defendant not only failed not repay any of the expenses but also failed to pay the plaintiff any profit earned by the said project.
4. Later, the defendant gave another project named ANR Project to the plaintiff and believing upon the false claims of defendant, the plaintiff invested Rs. 7.5 lakhs in the same from September 2019 to December 2019.
5. In August 2021, the defendant took Rs. 4,00,000/- cash, as Digitally friendly loan from the plaintiff and assured to repay the same. signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.10 04:16:48 6. It is stated that calculated thus, Rs. 19,00,000/- became +0530 payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. However, the defendant kept on delaying the said payment, despite repeated reminders.
7. The defendant issued one cheque bearing No. 000260 dated 18.09.2023 of Rs. 19,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, E-17, South Extn., Part II, Delhi Branch, in favour of plaintiff. On 19.10.2023, when the plaintiff presented the said cheque, it was returned unpaid with the remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide return memo dated 19.10.2023.CS DJ ADJ No. 68/2025 Kapil Dev v. SS. Engineers Page 2 of 4
8. The plaintiff informed the defendant about the same and the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 000263 dated 04.01.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank, E-17, South Extn., Part II, Delhi branch, in favour of plaintiff. However, on 02.04.2024, this cheque also got dishonored with remarks "Funds Insufficient".
9. When the plaintiff informed about the dishonour of the second cheque, the defendant failed to give any satisfactory reply. Hence, the present suit.
10. Summons for appearance was served upon the defendant on 28.04.2025. The defendant entered his appearance on 17.05.2025 through his counsel, and for reasons mentioned in order dated 21.07.2025, the delay in filing of the same was condoned.
11. Subsequently, summons for judgment was served upon the defendant on 21.07.2025, however, no application for leave to defend was filed.
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that as the defendant has failed to file leave to defend within a period of 10 days from the date of service of summons for judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment, as per Order XXXVII CPC.
13. Considered.
14. This Court finds that with no leave to defend on record on Digitally signed by behalf of the defendant within the prescribed period, as per the RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
mandate of Order XXVII Rule 3(6) CPC, and therefore, the 2025.10.10 04:16:53 +0530 averments in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree forthwith for a sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest and costs.CS DJ ADJ No. 68/2025 Kapil Dev v. SS. Engineers Page 3 of 4
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in Satish Chand v. Bal Krishan, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11670 that in a summary suit, the Court cannot go into the merits of the matter because merits of the matter would have been gone into if the appearance had been filed and an application for leave to defend had been filed.
16. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of ₹19,00,000/- (Rupees Ninteen Lakhs only) from the defendant.
17. The plaintiff has also claimed interest on the above said amount. Keeping in view the prevalent rates of interest and Section 34 CPC, interest @ 5% per annum appears to be fair and just.
18. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing of this suit till the date the payment is made.
19. Costs of the suit also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
20. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
RICHA 21. File be consigned to record room only after due compliance GUSAIN SOLANKI and necessary action, as per Rules.
Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.10 04:16:58 +0530Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki) on 10th October, 2025 District Judge-02 South-West District Dwarka Courts: New Delhi CS DJ ADJ No. 68/2025 Kapil Dev v. SS. Engineers Page 4 of 4