Delhi District Court
Ganpat Rai vs Kewal Krishan Kumar on 19 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA :
DISTRICT JUDGE-07, TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI.
CS No. 449/2019
CNR NO.DLWT010049262019
IN THE MATTER OF :
SHRI GANPAT RAI
S/o Late Sh. Lalji Mal
R/o 17, West Avenue Road,
Vashish Kumar Gulla Marg,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. ......Plaintiff
Versus
SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN KUMAR
At 1101-1103, Pears Business Park,
Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034. ......Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.18,30,000/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 12% P.A.
Date of institution of the Suit : 01.07.2019
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar
Page: 1/20
Date of Judgment was reserved : 25.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.09.2025
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the following reliefs :
A. Recovery of Rs.18,30,000/- alongwith pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.06.2019 till the date of actual realization of decree; and B. Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as litigation cost.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT The necessary facts for the adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under :
2.1. The plaintiff and defendant are having friendly relations with each other for the last more than ten years.
2.2. In the mid of November, 2014, the plaintiff was approached by the defendant seeking financial assistance to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- by citing an urgent need for money and he also agreed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of the receipt till the final repayment.
2.3. Upon the assurance of the defendant, the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant on 28.11.2014 through two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- and the said amount was duly Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 2/20 acknowledged by the defendant by executing two corresponding promissory notes dated 28.11.2014 of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-. The defendant also issued a post dated security cheque bearing no.186766 dated 03.04.2019 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on AXIS Bank Limited, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 in favour of plaintiff.
2.4. The defendant was punctual in paying the interest at the agreed rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff and on 16.06.2017, he made payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff through a cheque as part payment of the aforesaid loan amount, which got duly encashed in his bank account.
2.5. On 12.07.2017, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the plaintiff as interest on the remaining loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and thereafter, he completely stopped making payment of any interest upon the loan amount to the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to repay the remaining loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith the agreed rate of interest @ 12% per annum from August, 2017 till date.
2.6. As per the assurance of the defendant, plaintiff presented the cheque of Rs.25,00,000/- on 04.04.2019 with his banker, which got dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque returning memo dated 05.04.2019 and the said fact was timely intimated to the defendant and he was again requested to repay the remaining loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest from Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 3/20 August, 2017 till date but the defendant flatly refused to repay the same and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences.
2.7. Upon this, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 24.04.2019 seeking refund of the outstanding loan amount alongwith the agreed interest, which was duly served upon the defendant.
3. Despite several attempts, the defendant could not be served with the summons for causing his appearance under Order XXXVII CPC, so ultimately he was served with the summons of the present suit by way of substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC on 15.03.2023 as an ordinary suit. However, none appeared on his behalf nor any written statement was filed, so consequently the defence of defendant was struck off and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.2023.
4. EX-PARTE PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
4.1. In support of his case, plaintiff examined the following witnesses :
A. Sh. Ganpat Rai, plaintiff himself as PW-1; B. Sh. Rahul, Assistant Manager, AXIS Bank Limited as PW-2; and C. Sh. Vivek Kumar Singh, Service Manager, State Bank of India as PW-3.
PW-1 tendered his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/X in his examination-in-chief.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 4/20 4.2. In his evidence, the PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Photocopy of passbook of Ganpat Rai and Swaran Lata of State Bank of Patiala, Model Basti of Account No.55010823716 as Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR);
B. Original promissory notes signed and issued by defendant for Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, both dated 28.11.2014 as Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3;
C. Original cheque bearing no.186766 dated 03.04.2019 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on AXIS Bank Ltd in favour of Ganpat Rai as Ex.PW-1/4;
D. Photocopy of bank statement of Ganpat Rai and Swaran Lata of State Bank of Patiala, Model Basti of Account No.55010823716 as showing the entry that defendant paid Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque Mark A;
E. The cheque returning memo dated 05.04.2019 reflecting the endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' as Ex.PW-1/6; F. Office copy of legal notice dated 24.04.2019 as Ex.PW-1/7; G. Postal and courier receipts as Ex.PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/9 respectively; and H. Copies of POD receipts, download from the concerned official websites as Ex.PW-1/10 (Colly - 2 pages).
4.3. In his evidence, the PW-2 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Certified copies of statement of account no.5880100005043 pertaining to Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar / defendant for the Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 5/20 period 20.11.2014 to 29.11.2014, 10.04.2015 to 15.04.2015, 01.08.2015 to 15.08.2015, 01.12.2015 to 10.12.2015, 01.03.2016 to 30.04.2016, 10.07.2016 to 15.07.2016, 01.10.2016 to 15.10.2016, 10.01.2017 to 20.01.2017, 10.06.2017 to 20.06.2017, 10.07.2017 to 20.07.2017, 01.04.2019 to 15.04.2019 as Ex.PW-2/A (Colly - 13 pages); and B. Certificate issued under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-2/B. After seeing the record, PW-2 stated that on 29.11.2014 three cheques in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000 and Rs.15,00,000/- were credited into the bank account of defendant.
4.4. In his evidence, PW-3 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Bank statement in respect of account bearing no.55010823718 in the joint name of Sh. Ganpat Rai and Smt. Swaran Lata for the period 20.11.2014 to 29.11.2014, 10.04.2015 to 15.04.2015, 01.08.2015 to 15.08.2015, 01.12.2015 to 10.12.2015, 01.03.2016 to 30.04.2016, 10.07.2016 to 15.07.2016, 01.10.2016 to 15.10.2016, 10.01.2017 to 20.01.2017, 10.06.2017 to 20.06.2017, 01.04.2019 to 15.04.2019 as Ex.PW-3/1 (Colly - 18 pages); and B. Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 as Ex.PW-3/2.
5. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff.
Accordingly, ex-parte plaintiff evidence was closed.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 6/20 the material / evidence available on record.
7. In a nutshell, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of the balance amount to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 01.06.2019, out of Rs.25,00,000/- lent to the defendant on 28.11.2014 through two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- each.
8. Before getting into the appreciation of evidence led by the plaintiff, the following two fundamental principles of law needs to be highlighted :
A. Firstly, it is a well settled position of law that even in the cases where the defendant is ex-parte, responsibility of plaintiff to prove his case does not get diluted and on the contrary, on the defendant being ex-parte, the onus is more on the plaintiff to prove his case as when the defendant is contesting the suit, the matters which are not disputed by the defendant are deemed to be admitted and need not be proved. However, when defendant fails to appear, there is no scope of admission on his part and the plaintiff is required to prove his entire case in accordance with law. Reference can be made to the judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain, 2009 (109) DRJ 126 and Sh. Sunil Dang Vs. Dr. R.L. Gupta, CS(OS) 1617 (2007) decided on 13.01.2009; and B. Secondly, the case of the plaintiff should stand on its own legs and it cannot harp upon the weakness of the case of the defendant, defendant being ex-parte in the present case.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 7/20 Briefly stating, in general, the burden of proof always lies with the plaintiff, who must substantiate his / her claim with admissible and credible evidence, independent of the weakness of the defendant's case. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Adiveppa and Ors Vs. Bhimappa and Anr., Civil Appeal No.11220 of 2017 dated 06.09.2017.
9. Now, coming to the case set up by the plaintiff.
10. In support of his case, the plaintiff Sh. Ganpat Rai stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that he and the defendant are having friendly relations and known to each other for last more than 14 years and in November, 2014, the defendant approached him for a friendly loan of Rs.25,00,000/- by citing an urgent need of money and it was also agreed between them that the defendant would pay interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid loan from the date of receipt till repayment and in pursuance thereof, he lent a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant on 28.11.2014 through two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, which is reflected in his passbook Ex.PW-1/1. PW-1 has deposed that the aforesaid loan amount was also acknowledged by the defendant by executing two promissory notes dated 28.11.2014 Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 and he also handed over a post-dated cheque Ex.PW-1/4 bearing no.186766 dated 03.04.2019 for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as security. PW-1 has deposed that the defendant was regularly paying the interest at the agreed rate of 12% per annum as per their arrangement and on 16.07.2017, he paid a Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 8/20 sum of Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque as a part payment out of the total loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, which is reflected in his statement of account Mark A. PW-1 has deposed that for the last time on 12.07.2017, the defendant paid interest to the tune of Rs.45,000/- on the remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and thereafter completely stopped making payment of the agreed interest despite his repeated requests.
11. PW-1 has deposed that when he presented the security cheque dated 03.04.2019 Ex.PW-1/4 for encashment, the same got dishonoured with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient' vide cheque return memo dated 05.04.2019 Ex.PW-1/6.
12. PW-1 has deposed that a legal notice Ex.PW-1/7 was also issued calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount, but all in vain.
13. PW-1 has deposed that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.18,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.06.2019 till the date of actual payment.
14. So far as the documentary evidence brought on record on behalf of the plaintiff for establishing his claim regarding lending a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant is concerned, he has brought on record two promissory notes Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, both dated 28.11.2014 reflecting the admission of the defendant regarding his liability towards the plaintiff for Rs.25,00,000/- alongwith the security Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 9/20 cheque Ex.PW-1/4 allegedly issued by the defendant in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the repayment of the loan amount in question and at this stage, this Court has no basis / reason to doubt / question the genuineness of all the three aforesaid documents.
15. However, this Court is of the opinion that before getting into the merits of the claim of the plaintiff regarding the liability of the defendant towards him to make payment of the suit amount, it is incumbent / mandatory to consider the issue of limitation as Section 3 of The Limitation Act, 1963 clearly prescribes and casts a duty upon the Court to dismiss every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the expiry of the prescribed period even though the issue of limitation has not been set up as a defence.
16. Briefly stating, it is the duty of the Court to adjudicate the issue of limitation even if not set up as a defence against the claim of the plaintiff.
17. Now coming to the issue of limitation.
18. It is a well settled position of law that The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of three years for instituting a suit at the instance of the creditor against the debtor for the recovery of amount lent to him.
19. So far as the relevant legal provision is concerned, Article 19 of The Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes a limitation period of Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 10/20 three years for filing a suit which commences from the date when the loan was made and as per Article 20, if the lender has given a cheque for the money lent, the limitation period of three years commences from the date when the cheque is paid while Article 21 provides that if the loan is under an agreement to the effect that it would be payable on demand, the limitation period of three years commences from the date when the loan is made.
20. In the present case, the plaintiff has pleaded that the principal loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid to the defendant through two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, both dated 28.11.2014, which got encashed / credited in the bank account of defendant on 29.11.20214. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the present suit is governed by Article 20 of The Limitation Act which prescribes a time period of three years for filing the suit for recovery and the limitation period would be calculated from the date when the cheque was paid / encashed, which is 29.11.2014 in the present case and any case filed beyond that period is barred by law of limitation.
21. It is a matter of record that the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff on 01.07.2019, so prima facie, the present suit for recovery of the outstanding loan amount to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- lent on 29.11.2014 is barred by law of limitation.
22. However, during the course of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as the claim of the plaintiff is premised upon the cheque Ex.PW-1/4 dated 03.04.2019, issued by the defendant as a Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 11/20 security cheque at the time of the receipt of the loan amount, which got dishonoured upon presentation vide cheque return memo dated 05.04.2019 Ex.PW-1/6, so the present suit is not time barred and the period of limitation would be calculated from the date of the said cheque i.e. 03.04.2019.
23. So far as the legal position is concerned, it is well settled that under Section 25(3) of The Indian Contract Act 1872, the issuance of a cheque to pay a time barred debt constitutes a written promise that creates a legally enforceable debt and this exception to the rule requiring consideration makes the promise to pay the time barred debt valid and binding, despite the fact that the claim against the original debt has become time barred by the law of limitation.
24. Section 25(3) of The Indian Contract Act 1872 is reproduced herein below for better appreciation:
"25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered or is a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law: - An agreement made without consideration is void, unless--
(3) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits."
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 12/20
25. In other words, a cheque issued for the discharge of the loan liability is in the nature of an admission made by the defendant qua an outstanding liability constituting a fresh contract in terms of Section 25(3) of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 thereby entitling the plaintiff for the recovery of the original loan amount. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sudhir Jain Vs. Sarla Mittal and Others, CS(OS) 777/2001 dated 04.08.2023.
26. At this stage, it is important to highlight that the plaintiff himself has pleaded that the cheque Ex.PW-1/4 was a post-dated cheque, issued as security by the defendant at the time of receipt of the principal loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on 28.11.2014.
27. Hence, a moot question arises, having a decisive impact upon the issue involved herein as to whether the claim of the plaintiff is salvaged by the aforesaid position of law regarding the applicability of Section 25(3) The Indian Contract Act, 1872 upon a time barred debt as the plaintiff has deposed that the cheque Ex.PW-1/4 was issued by the defendant on 28.11.2014 itself as the post-dated security cheque.
28. This Court has purposely laid stress on the date of issuance of the cheque in question Ex.PW-1/4 as at that time, the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant for the suit amount was not time barred. Hence, it fails to fulfill the pre-requisite of the principle of law incorporated under Section 25(3) of The Indian Contract Act regarding making a fresh promise qua a time barred debt.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 13/20
29. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the cheque Ex.PW-1/4 cannot be treated as a fresh contract in terms of Section 25(3), a promise made in the writing and signed by the debtor to pay the debt, the recovery of which has become barred by law of limitation.
30. Accordingly, the contention of plaintiff regarding commencement of fresh limitation period for the claim in hand from the date of the cheque Ex.PW-1/4 stands rejected.
31. Besides the aforesaid discussion, there are two other aspects of the present case which needs to be looked into for concluding the discussion on the issue of limitation in the present suit. Firstly, the alleged payment of the interest made by the defendant on the principal loan amount at the rate of 12% per annum till July, 2017 and secondly the alleged part payment of Rs.10,00,000/- out of the total loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- made through a cheque on 16.07.2017.
32. Section 19 of The Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when payment was made. Provided an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of or in the writing signed by the person making the payment.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 14/20
33. The record reflects that the plaintiff has brought on record the statement of account of the defendant as Ex.PW-2/A for establishing the remittance of Rs.25,00,000/- as loan and the subsequent payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid loan amount made to him.
34. A bare perusal of Ex.PW-2/A reveals the following entries/ payments made from the account of the defendant to the plaintiff bank account :
A. Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.04.2015; B. Rs.75,000/- on 07.12.2015; C. Rs.75,000/- on 06.04.2016; D. Rs.75,000/- on 12.07.2016; E. Rs.75,000/- on 10.10.2016; and F. Rs.75,000/- on 17.01.2017.
35. At the very outset, it is pertinent to highlight that neither in his plaint nor in the evidence affidavit, the plaintiff has mentioned the details including the quantum and dates of the payments received by him in the form of interest @ 12% per annum on the principal loan amount from the defendant. Furthermore, he has also not pointed out/ specified the transactions / entries recorded in the statement of accounts of the defendant Ex. PW2/A, as the interest payment received by him on the principal loan amount. Hence, there is no clarity regarding the alleged payment of interest amount by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 15/20
36. Moreover, it is a matter of record that the loan amount in question was advanced to the defendant by way of two cheques dated 28.11.2014, which credited in the account of the defendant on 29.11.2014 and the plaintiff has pleaded in his legal notice Ex.PW-1/7 as well as in para 7 of his evidence affidavit that the defendant was punctual in making payment of the interest amount at the agreed rate of 12% per annum on the principal loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the date of advancement till 16.06.2017, the date on which he paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque as part payment of the aforesaid loan amount and thereafter in the month of July, 2017, he paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- as interest on remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.
37. So, if simple Maths is applied to the transaction in question and the interest is calculated on the principal amount of Rs.25,00,000/- @ 12% per annum as claimed by the plaintiff, it comes to Rs.3,00,000/- per year.
38. However, the aforementioned payment schedule reflects transfer of a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- only to the bank account of the plaintiff till December, 2015 from the account of the defendant, which is approximately 50% of the alleged liability of the defendant if the interest is calculated @ 12% per annum upon the principal amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, which is not in consonance with the claim made by the plaintiff regarding receipt of agreed interest from the defendant on regular basis till 16.06.2017.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 16/20
39. Moreover, the entries / payments in the bank statement of the defendant Ex.PW-2/A do not indicate that the defendant was making payment @ Rs.25,000/- per month to the plaintiff, which renders the claim made by him dubious to the effect that he received regular payments of the agreed interest amount from the defendant till 16.06.2017.
40. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish receipt of interest from the defendant on the principal loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- till 16.06.2017.
41. Besides the aforesaid discussion regarding the alleged payment of interest upon the principal loan amount, the plaintiff has also pleaded that on 16.06.2017, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to him through a cheque as part payment of the loan amount in question.
42. However, the bank statement of the defendant Ex.PW-2/A does not reflect any such transaction whereby a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was received by the plaintiff.
43. Furthermore, the plaintiff has pleaded that the aforesaid alleged part payment of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the defendant is established by the bank statement Mark A. However, firstly, the only transaction dated 16.06.2017 in Mark A is in the sum of Rs.10,62,500/-, credited in the bank account of the plaintiff and not of Rs.10,00,000/- as Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 17/20 alleged by him. Moreover, from the document Mark A itself, it cannot be established/ discerned that the aforesaid payment was made by the defendant as part payment of the loan amount in question and secondly the document Mark A / photocopy of the plaintiff's bank account is per se inadmissible in law and cannot be taken into consideration by this Court while adjudicating the issue involved herein as Indian Evidence Act, 1872 categorically provides that photocopy of a document is a secondary evidence and the same is admissible in legal proceedings only under specific circumstances outlined in Section 65 of the Act and the record reveals that the plaintiff has not pleaded any of the grounds mentioned therein.
44. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that not only the document Mark A fails in establishing the alleged part payment in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the defendant to the plaintiff out of the total loan amount but also the document Mark A is per se inadmissible owing to the non-compliance of Section 65 of The Indian Evidence Act.
45. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that there is a complete absence of admissible evidence on record which could establish either the alleged payment of interest amount made by the defendant upon the principal loan amount in question or part payment of Rs.10,00,000/- made on 16.06.2017 out of the total loan amount, which could have qualified the case of plaintiff to claim the exemption of limitation period as provided under Section 19 of The Limitation Act.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 18/20
46. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the present suit instituted by the plaintiff on 01.07.2019 seeking recovery of part of loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- advanced to the defendant through two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- which got encashed in his bank account on 29.11.2014, is hopelessly time barred.
47. Before concluding the discussion, it is pertinent to highlight the unexplained delay on the part of the plaintiff in initiating steps for the recovery of the outstanding loan amount as he himself has pleaded that the last installment of interest in the sum of Rs.45,000/- was received on 12.07.2017 and the record of the present case reflects that he remained silent / idle till 24.04.2019, the day on which the legal notice Ex.PW-1/7 was issued seeking repayment of the outstanding loan of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith the interest for the last 21 months. This Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid inordinate delay / lack of promptness raises a doubt / question on the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff regarding the alleged liability of the defendant towards him.
48. RELIEF.
48.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed.
49. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
50. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 19/20
51. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by MANOJ MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.19 16:55:29 +0530 Announced in the open court (MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) on 19th September, 2025. DJ-07/WEST/THC/DELHI.
Shri Ganpat Rai Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar Page: 20/20