Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Vinod Kumar on 13 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MILAN GOEL
CJ-08, CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS SCJ NO. 987/25
CNR NO. DLCT03-003294-2025
RAJESH KUMAR
S/O-SH. PREM CHAND
R/O. 1439, GALI ARAYA SAMAJ,
SITA RAM BAZAR, CHAWARI BAZAR,
NORTH DELHI-06 .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR
S/O RAJ KUMAR
R/O WZ-274, BASAI DARA PUR,
NEW DELHI-110015
MOB NO. 8920072386,
9354834875 .....DEFENDANT
INSTITUTION OF SUIT: 29.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13.03.2026
Digitally signed
MILAN by MILAN
GOEL
GOEL Date:
2026.03.13
14:13:45 +0530
CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 1/8
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 53,750/-
EX-PARTEJUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs.
53,750/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT
2. The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other and share friendly relations and are also on visiting terms. Both the parties are employed as housekeeping staff in the DEMS Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), West Garden, New Delhi-110027. In the month of May 2024, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to extend financial assistance of ₹50,000/- for his personal needs, assuring the plaintiff that the said amount would be repaid within a stipulated period without any delay or default. Relying upon the friendly relations between the parties and the assurance given by the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to help him financially and advanced a friendly loan of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the defendant in the month of May 2024.
3. That after receiving the said amount, the defendant failed to repay the loan within the agreed period. Upon being contacted by the plaintiff, the defendant sought further time to repay the amount. Believing the CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 2/8 Digitally signed MILAN by MILAN GOEL Date: GOEL 2026.03.13 14:13:49 +0530 assurances of the defendant, the plaintiff granted him additional time. However, despite repeated requests and the lapse of several months, the defendant failed to return the loan amount and continued to avoid repayment on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, upon persistent demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 014960 dated 26.08.2024 drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the plaintiff towards discharge of his liability, assuring the plaintiff that the said cheque would be honoured upon presentation.
4. That acting upon the said assurance, the plaintiff presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment through his banker, State Bank of India. However, the cheque was returned dishonoured with the remarks "Outdated/Stale", and the dishonoured cheque was returned to the plaintiff by his banker. Thereafter, the plaintiff again contacted the defendant and demanded payment of the loan amount, but the defendant avoided the plaintiff and failed to make payment.
5. That finding no other alternative, the plaintiff through his counsel issued a legal demand notice dated 13.01.2025 to the defendant calling upon him to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice. The said notice was sent through Speed Post and courier to the defendant at his last known correct address and was duly served upon him on CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 3/8 Digitally signed MILAN by MILAN GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.03.13 14:13:53 +0530 15.01.2025. Despite service of the notice, the defendant neither replied to the same nor made payment of the cheque amount.
6. Accordingly, the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 2,99,112/-
along with interest.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
7. Initially the suit was filed under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. However, upon the statement of the Counsel for the Plainitff, the same was converted to an Ordinary Suit on 30.05.2025. During the proceedings, summons of the suit were issued to the defendant and he was served through his niece on 26.06.2025 as reflected in order dated 05.08.2025. However, the defendant failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 08.10.2025.
8. As per Order VIII Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the absence of denial of the allegations made in the plaint, the Court may presume the facts to be admitted. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that facts admitted need not be proved. However, both the provisions empower the Court to require proof of admitted facts. Order VIII Rule 10 CPC also vests discretion in the Court either to pronounce judgment or to pass such other order as it deems fit in the absence of a written statement.
CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 4/8 MILAN Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.13 14:13:58 +0530
9. In Balraj Taneja & Anr. v. Sunil Madan & Anr. [(1999) 8 SCC 396], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot act blindly or mechanically. In exercise of the said powers and as a matter of caution, this Court required the plaintiff to prove its case by leading evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
10.In support of its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
S.No. Description of Exhibits/Marks Remarks Documents
1. Aadhar Card of the PW1/1 (OSR) plaintiff 2. Original cheque PW1/2 dated 20.08.2024 bearing no. 014960 3. Copy of return Mark PW1/3 memo 4. Legal notice dated PW1/4 13.01.2025 5. Postal receipts PW1/5 6. Copy of track Mark PW1/6 consignment
11.PW-1 was duly examined and discharged. Thereafter, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 06.12.2025.
CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 5/8 Digitally signed MILAN by MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.03.13 14:14:02 +0530 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
12.I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the record.
13.It is settled law that in the absence of cross-examination, the testimony of a witness remains unrebutted and can be relied upon. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Eco Lab Inc. v. Eco Labs Ltd., 2011 (185) DLT 664, wherein it was held that when the defendant fails to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, the evidence led by the plaintiff is liable to be taken as correct.
14.Since the defendant failed to appear despite service, the averments made in the plaint as well as the evidence adduced by the plaintiff have gone unchallenged.
15.The documents exhibited and proved by the plaintiff stand admitted and unrebutted. The original cheque bearing No. 014960 dated 20.08.2024 exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2, the copy of return memo marked as Mark PW-1/3, the legal notice dated 13.01.2025 exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4, the postal receipt Ex. PW-1/5 and the tracking report Mark PW-1/6 duly support and corroborate the case of the plaintiff. The Aadhar Card of the plaintiff exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) establishes the identity of the plaintiff. The testimony of PW-1 has remained unrebutted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same.
CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 6/8 MILAN Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL Date: 2026.03.13 GOEL 14:14:05 +0530
16.From the evidence led on record, it stands proved that the defendant had issued the cheque in question towards discharge of his liability arising out of the friendly loan of ₹50,000/- advanced by the plaintiff, which cheque was dishonoured upon presentation.
17.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that both the plaintiff and the defendant were working in the DEMS Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), West Garden, New Delhi, and the loan transaction took place between the parties at the said place. Accordingly, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
18.As regards limitation, the cheque in question is dated 20.08.2024 and the legal notice was issued on 13.01.2025 after dishonour of the cheque. The present suit having been filed thereafter is well within the prescribed period of limitation.
RELIEF
24. In view of the above discussion and findings, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 53,750/-
25. The plaintiff is also entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 7/8 MILAN Digitally signed by MILAN GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.13 14:14:10 +0530
27. File be consigned to the Record Room.
(This judgment contains 8 pages and each page has been signed by me.) Announced in the open court 13.03.2026 Milan Goel CJ-08 (Central) THC, Delhi Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN Date:
GOEL GOEL 2026.03.13 14:14:14 +0530 CS SCJ No. 987/25 Rajesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Page no. 8/8