Delhi District Court
Shiv Bathla vs M/S Manikaran Credit Leasing Co P Ltd on 18 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. : RCA DJ/71/2023
CNR No. : DLSW01-005790-2023
Date of Institution : 07.06.2023
Date of judgment : 18.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Shiv Bathla
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Bathla
R/o C-451, II Floor, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-110018
2. Vanita Bathla
W/o Late Vijay Bathla
R/o C-451, II Floor, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-110018
......Appellants
Versus
M/s Manikaran Credit & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Office at B-46/1, Naraina Industrial Area,
Phase-2, New Delhi-110028
........Respondent
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. This is a Regular Civil Appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2022, passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-02, South-West, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that written arguments have already been filed.
RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 1 of 16
3. Submissions heard on behalf of the respondent as well.
4. The appeal file has been considered and grounds of appeal perused.
5. Ld. Counsel for appellant has only placed written arguments on record and thereby restricted himself to the written arguments file on 24.01.2026.
6. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff company is a non-banking financial institution and presently having its office at B-46/1, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase 2, New Delhi - 110028. That the present suit was being filed through Sh. Paramveer Singh Narang, authorized representative of the plaintiff company.
7. That defendant no.1 is running the business under the name and style of M/s Bathla & Sons from Shop at C-4, Ground Floor, F-287, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 and is the sole proprietor of said business. That the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 (hereinafter also referred to as borrowers) approached the plaintiff in month of July, 2019 and obtained the short term loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for a period of 112 days, carrying an interest @ 3% per month approximately and the loan was repayable in 16 weekly installments, of Rs.21,000/- each.
8. That the defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 (hereinafter also referred to as guarantors) stood as a guarantors for defendant no.1. and defendant no.2 in the said loan. All the defendants are related to each other.
9. That plaintiff disbursed the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 through Bank account transaction and the receipt dated 17.07.2019 was duly RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 2 of 16 executed by the said defendants/borrowers and was duly witnessed by the guarantors. That the borrowers also issued 16 post dated cheques in favour of plaintiff for the repayment of 16 weekly installments of Rs.21,000/-each. The guarantors had basically undertaken to repay the balance amount in case of default in repayment by the borrowers.
10. That the borrowers have only paid 6 installments of Rs.21,000/- each, till date, to the plaintiff and defaulted in repaying the remaining 10 weekly installments of Rs.21,000/- each. The total amount due towards installments is thus, Rs.2,10,000/-.
11. That since the 10 cheques issued towards repayment of the weekly installments of Rs.21,000/- each, were returned dishonored, upon presentation, the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 17.02.2020 demanding the outstanding amount alongwith interest. That despite the notice, defendants failed to make the payment. Ultimately, defendant no.1 issued a cheque bearing no.402340 dated 18.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi - 110063 in favour of plaintiff. The said cheque was also returned dishonored with remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide bank memo dated 24.02.2020.
12. That, thereafter, plaintiff sent another legal demand notice u/s 138 NI Act dated 02.03.2020 to the defendant no.1, through Speed Post dated 03.03.2020 at defendant no.1's addresses. In spite of receipt of the said legal demand notice, the defendant no.1 failed to make the payment. Hence the present suit seeking recovery of the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- alongwith RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 3 of 16 pendente lite and future interest and other charges. The suit was decreed by the Ld. Civil Judge, after trial.
Grounds of Challenge
13. The appeal challenges the said judgment and decree, broadly, on the following grounds:
A. that the appellant/defendant in the present case had filed an Application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, after the conclusion of trial, seeking return of plaint. Office noting of the filing of the said application has been relied upon. It is claimed that without deciding the said application, the Ld. Trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2022. It is further claimed that the judicial file was, however, returned only in March 2023.
B. On merits of the claim in the said application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, it is contended that the plaint is based on a claim made by a Non Banking Financial Institution (NBFC) seeking recovery of a business loan. The dispute was thus, "commercial" within the meaning of the expression "Commercial dispute" as defined in Commercial Courts Act. It is, therefore, claimed that the judgment has been passed by a court having no subject matter jurisdiction.
C. Lastly, on merits of the claim in the suit, it is urged that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of the plaintiff's sole witness, properly and has passed the judgment in haste. The judgment is not based on proper reasoning and evidence.
Findings RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 4 of 16
14. Having perused the record and the case law on the subject, I am proceeding to decide the aforesaid grounds of challenge, raised before me.
15. I shall deal with ground A and ground B together i.e., the failure of the Trial Court to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC and whether the ground that the dispute was commercial or not, would have called for return of plaint.
16. It is a matter of record that the Trial Court had, after recording the statement of the counsels declaring closure of evidence, called for filing of written submissions vide order dated 19.07.2022. The matter was listed for 23.07.2022. On the next date, both proxy counsels had appeared and the direction for filing of written submissions was reiterated.
17. It is only, thereafter, when the matter was next listed for judgment/orders, on 08.08.2022, that in the interregnum the said alleged application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC was filed. That the matter was taken up on 08.08.2022 as well, and the Ld. Counsel for defendant had appeared on the said date, but order-sheet does not record that any such application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC was pressed for or brought to the notice of the court.
18. The Presiding Officer was on leave on 16.08.2022, i.e., the next date of hearing. The matter was listed for 17.09.2022. That the Ld. Civil Judge-02, Dwarka Courts was transferred as Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka on 16.09.2022 and had taken the file with her for pronouncement of judgment. None appeared for parties on 17.09.2022. Ultimately, on 11.10.2022, the impugned judgment came to be pronounced.
RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 5 of 16
19. From the aforesaid record, it is evident that, if any, application had been filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC before 08.08.2022, the same was never pressed for or brought to the notice of the Ld. Civil Judge-02, Dwarka Courts concerned between the period 08.08.2022 and 11.10.2022.
20. A perusal of the other subsequent notings and order- sheets passed after the pronouncement of judgment have also been considered.
21. It seems that the after passing of the judgment, an application was filed by the counsel for defendant claiming that his application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC was not found on record by him at the time of inspection. This fact was duly recorded in the order-sheet of 20.05.2023 by the Ld. Successor Civil Judge.
22. In these circumstances, it is doubtful, that the Ahlmad concerned had placed the said application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC before the Ld. Civil Judge concerned or even in the court file.
23. In these circumstances, the Ld. Civil Judge, cannot be said to have fallen in error in not having deciding the said application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, before the impugned judgment was passed.
24. Even as on date, the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC is not on record of the Trial Court file. However, grounds therein, so raised in the appeal, have been considered on merits.
25. The Commercial Courts Act was enacted to expeditiously deal with the commercial disputes. The RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 6 of 16 Constitution of Commercial Courts is governed by Section 3 of the said Act, which is quoted for ease of reference:
3. Constitution of Commercial Courts.--(1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:
[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level: Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.] [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.] (2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the concerned High Court specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court shall extend and may, from time to time, increase, reduce or alter such limits.
(3) The [State Government may], with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons having experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be the Judge or Judges, of a [Commercial Court either at the level of District Judge or a court below the level of a District Judge].
RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 7 of 16
26. It is noteworthy that the words "specified value" is defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act and is quoted for ease of reference:
2. Definitions.--(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(i) "Specified Value", in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 [which shall not be less than three lakh rupees] or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.
27. I would next refer to Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, which is also quoted for ease of reference:
12. Determination of Specified Value.--(1) The Specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application shall be determined in the following manner:--
(a) where the relief sought in a suit or application is for recovery of money, the money sought to be recovered in the suit or application inclusive of interest, if any, computed up to the date of filing of the suit or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining such Specified Value;
(b) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to movable property or to a right therein, the market value of the movable property as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining such Specified Value;
(c) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to immovable property or to a right therein, the market value of the immovable property, as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining Specified Value; 1 [and]
(d) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to any other intangible right, the market value of RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 8 of 16 the said rights as estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for determining Specified Value;
(2) The aggregate value of the claim and counterclaim, if any as set out in the statement of claim and the counterclaim, if any, in an arbitration of a commercial dispute shall be the basis for determining whether such arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction of a Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be.
(3) No appeal or civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as the case may be, shall lie from an order of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court finding that it has jurisdiction to hear a commercial dispute under this Act.
(emphasis supplied)
28. A conjoint reading of three provisions implies that only a suit, the value whereof, is more than Rs.3 lacs, shall fall within the purview of the Commercial Courts Act and will have to be filed before a Commercial Court. This view is fortified by the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Pankaj Rajivbhai Patel Trading as Rakesh Pharmaceuticals Vs. SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7013, which is quoted for ease of reference:
6. It becomes relevant to note that undisputedly the pecuniary jurisdiction of commercial courts in Delhi ranges from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 2 crores. Suits which are valued at above Rs. 2 crores are to be placed before the Commercial Division of this Court. It is also the admitted position that insofar as specified value under the CCA is concerned, that too has been notified as Rs. 3 lakhs. Thus, the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction and specified value of District Courts in Delhi is at par.
RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 9 of 16
29. Therefore, the present plaint which seeks recovery of Rs.2,10,000/- without any pre-litigation interest, from the defendant, cannot be said to be a dispute of the specified value, which had to be filed before the Commercial Courts. The present dispute is also not an Intellectual Property Right dispute, which is required to be originally brought before the Ld. District & Sessions Judge.
30. It is settled law that simple suits for recovery of money of value less than Rs.3 lacs have to be filed before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, who may retain the same or assign the same to any Civil Judge working in the District. Same has been done in the present case. Therefore, even if the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC was not decided, no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff in the present case on that count.
31. There is another view of looking at the matter. The application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC was filed at the fag end of the litigation i.e. after the evidence had been led by both the parties and the matter reserved for pronouncement of judgment. Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has come down heavily on the litigants, who moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC at the fag end of the trial. Of course, the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC on ground that the court does not have jurisdiction may be maintainable at any stage, but it would have to be seen what is the true intention in moving the said application.
32. In my view, considering that the ground raised in the said application, is ex-facie not maintainable, it seems that it was filed only with the sole view of prolonging and embarrassing the conclusion of trial and passing of the judgment by the Trial RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 10 of 16 Court. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in M/s Shree Balajee Enterprises & Anr Vs. M/s Mahashian Di Hatti (MDH) Pvt. Ltd., 2025:DHC:9778.
33. In my view, may be the Ahlmad of the Trial Court is responsible for the disappearance of the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC under mysterious circumstances, once he had made the notings on the file, but no fault can be found with the Trial Court having not decided the application, considering that it was neither brought to the notice of the Trial Court by the counsel concerned, nor the same was available on record. Both ground A and ground B are therefore, without any substance.
34. That takes me to the merits of the case i.e. ground C. I have noticed that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in detail. That the view taken by the Trial Court seems to be reasonable. It is a matter of record that the defendant had admitted in the written statement and I quote:
It is pertinent to mention herein that regular installments were being paid by the borrowers but in the month of December 2019, Plaintiff put acute pressure on defendants to arrange for the remaining loan amount and defendants returned the entire remaining loan amount to Plaintiff in December 2019 and Plaintiff despite taking entire loan amount did not return back the original blanks cheques and other documents despite requests and reminders of defendants. It is submitted that the chequescan be misused by plaintiff with malafide intensions to grab more money from defendants after receiving entire payment from defendants. ...
That the Plaintiff send a legal notice dated 31/10/2019 demanded amount of Rs. 2,32,000/- and there after again send a legal notice dated 17/02/2020 demanded amount of Rs.2,10,000/- even after receiving of entire payment from Defendants.
RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 11 of 16
...
That the Plaintiff got signed the loan
agreement papers which were blank and later on malafidely filled the loan agreement without the knowledge of answering defendants.
35. Therefore, the following admissions can be culled out from the written statement:
a. That the loan was duly taken by the defendants; b. That the loan agreement was signed by the defendants; c. That cheques had been issued by the defendants to the plaintiff; and d. That legal notice was received by the defendants, who had also replied to the same.
36. The main defence taken was that the loan agreement was blank when it was signed. That the interest rate of 10% was agreed to, but wrongly filled as 3% per month and the amount has been repaid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
37. Having considered the aforesaid admissions in the written statement, I would next turn to the issues framed in the present case. Only following issues were framed in the present case by the Trial Court vide order dated 14.03.2022:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,10,000/- as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, pendent-lite and future interest @ 36% p.a. as prayed for? OPP.
3. Relief.
38. Therefore, the defendant never pressed for framing of separate issues on the defence that blank signed documents were obtained by the plaintiff from the defendants or that the RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 12 of 16 agreement had been replaced or that the entire loan amount had been repaid.
39. Be that as it may, the onus to prove these aspects would have fallen on the defendant. It is noticed that the defendant had in the affidavit of evidence, which is Ex.DW1/2 deposed about all the aforesaid facts. Therefore, clearly, the defendant has led evidence on these aspects. Therefore, non framing of specific issue has become irrelevant. The parties have led evidence with the understanding that these aspects are being considered by the Trial Court and will be adjudicated upon. Now it would be for the court to see whether the defendant has been able to show from his evidence that the money was, in fact, returned or repaid to the plaintiff and secondly, that the documents were blank when they were signed by the defendants and thirdly, whether the security cheques have been misused.
40. The cross examination of the defendant no.4 Shiv Bathla/DW-1 is short and is being reproduced for ease of reference:
It is correct that the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was received by Shankar Bathla and Vijay Bathla from the plaintiff company. The documents exhibited PW1/4 (colly) bears my signatures in the capacity of guarantor and the same are at point X. Vol. The document exhibited PW1/4 (colly) are the blank documents. It is correct that defendant no.4 Smt. Vanita Bathla also signed the document Ex. PW1/4 (colly) as a guarantor. We have to pay approximately 16 installments on weekly basis of Rs.21,000/-. We have paid 6 to 8 installments through cheques to the plaintiff/company and the balance loan amount was repaid in cash in one go in the month of December 2019. I cannot tell the cash amount paid to plaintiff as my father i.e.Late Sh. Vijay Bathla was used to look after this transaction. Vol. the entire business of M/s Bathla & Sons was looked after by Late Sh. Vijay RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 13 of 16 Bathla. We have received the legal notice dt.31.10.2019 from the plaintiff company and thereafter we have repaid the loan amount in the month of December 2019. It is correct that thereafter a legal notice dt.17.02.2020 Ex.PW1/5 (colly) was received by me to, which I have given a legal reply dt.04.03.2020 Ex. PW1/9 (colly).
It is wrong to suggest that defendants have not repaid the arrears/outstanding loan amount of Rs.2,10,000/- to the plaintiff in cash or in any other form. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff company always received the installments amount through account transfer or via online modes. The Shankar Bathla and late Sh. Vijay Bathla do not hold any assets in their name according to my knowledge. I do not know whereabouts of Shankar Bathla as we are not in touch. It is wrong to suggest that I owe a legal liability of suit amount towards the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
(emphasis supplied)
41. From the aforesaid cross examination, it is evident that the defendants had signed on the documents as borrowers and guarantors. The witness has, for the first time, in the cross examination, disclosed the mode of repayment, i.e., 6 to 8 installments through cheques and the balance in cash in one go in December 2019. No such claim was made in the written statement or in the affidavit towards evidence. The witness could not tell what was the amount paid by cash. No receipt of deposit of amount has been placed on record or proved. The witness admitted the reply sent on behalf of the defendants, exhibited by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/9. Its contents are therefore, also admitted. It is a matter of record that the defendants herein had in the said reply Ex.PW1/9, not raised any claim that the agreement was signed blank or that the rate of interest agreed to was 10%. Only two grounds were raised therein:
a. that the amount had been repaid; and
RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 14 of 16
b. cheques were obtained blank.
42. It is claimed in the said legal notice that defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 had undertaken to repay any amount in case of default. Even in the said reply, no particulars of repayment have been given, but it is generally claimed that the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 had repaid the amount.
43. It is a matter of record that the original debtors are defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 and they never appeared in the present matter and have failed to prove that they repaid the amount to the plaintiff. The guarantors have never claimed that the amount was repaid by the guarantors. Therefore, the guarantors have failed to show, even on preponderance of probability that the plaintiff has been repaid the loan amount by any or all of the defendants.
44. It is settled law that facts admitted need not be proved. It was for the defendants to explain away the admissions already made in the written statement, which they have failed to do so in the present case.
45. In these circumstances, the testimony of the plaintiff's witness, even though, it was only on the basis of the documents, has to be accepted. The suit of the plaintiff must succeed. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly decided the issue of liability and the appeal must fail on the same.
46. Lastly, the rate of rate of interest granted by the Trial Court is also not on the higher side. Therefore, there is no error in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Judgment and decree is hereby upheld.
47. Appeal is dismissed with costs, as without any merits.
RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 15 of 16
48. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
49. TCR be sent back.
50. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by HARJYOTHARJYOT SINGH BHALLA SINGH Date:
BHALLA 2026.03.19 16:10:46 +0530 Dictated in the open court HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA on 18.03.2026 DJ-03, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA NEW DELHI RCA DJ 71/2023 Page no. 16 of 16