Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Prithvi Raj Soneja on 2 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL
SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 957/2020
CNR No. DLNW03-001646-2020
In the matter of :
STATE BANK OF INDIA
constituted under State Bank of India Act,1955,
Having its corporate centre office at:
State Bank Bhawan, Madam Kama Road,
Mumbai-440024
One of its Local Head Office at :
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-01
Having one of its Branch at:
SBBJ, New Rohtak Road, Delhi and RACPC at
A-1/24, Janakpuri, Nazafgarh Road,
New Delhi-110058
......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Prithvi Raj Soneja
S/o Sh. Hari Ram
R/o F-221, 1st Floor, Rishi Nagar,
Rani Bagh, Saraswati Vihar,Delhi-110034
......Defendant
Date of institution : 29.10.2020
Reserved for Judgment : 02.02.2026
Date of decision : 02.02.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,41,613/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen Only) along CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 1 of 8 with pendentelite and future interest @ 09.95% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till realization along with cost.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a corporate bank constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955. Sh. Deepak Sharma, AR of plaintiff bank is posted as Manager in State Bank of India situated at RACPC at A-1/24, Janakpuri, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi of the plaintiff bank. It is stated that on re-organization of set up of the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Centre has been introduced/established by the Plaintiff Bank to deal exclusively with the non performing assets accounts of branches of State Bank of India situated within Delhi/New Delhi for restructuring of the borrower and recovery of the amounts due against the said borrowers etc., hence, the NPA Accounts of the Branches throughout Delhi have been transferred to RACPC at RACPC at A-1/24, Janakpuri, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi for the convenience of operation & execution which for practical purposes has become the plaintiff bank including the present suit. Hence, RACPC at A-1/24, Janakpuri, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi in place of SBBJ, New Rohtak Road(Erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) Branch, Delhi is filing the present suit. However, the Plaintiff remains the State Bank of India.
The Plaintiff being one of the scheduled Banks of the Nation has been engaged in the business of Banking whereas Mr. Prithvi Raj Soneja, defendant as borrower approached the Plaintiff at its SBBJ, New Rohtak Road(Erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) Branch, Delhi for grant of financial assistance by way of Auto/Car Loan for the purchase of Alto 800 LXI M BS CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 2 of 8 IV Car under SBI Auto/Car Loan Scheme. The defendant had submitted his identification, residence & income proof etc. to the plaintiff in order to avail such facility.
Considering the proposal, requirement & financial feasibility & viability of the defendant, the Plaintiff Bank after processing his criteria sanctioned sum of Rs.2,90,000/- on 27.07.2013 for purchase of the said desired vehicle for which defendant availed as borrower returnable with agreed EMI per month to the Plaintiff Bank.
It is averred that as per terms & conditions for grants of the said auto/car loan facility, the defendant consciously & voluntarily executed various securities document and created various securities in favour of the Plaintiff Bank for repayment with applicable expenses & interest pertaining to the said car loan facility. Defendant had agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount at the effective rate of interest 10.40% p.a. monthly rests subject to revision from time to time as per banking guidelines and penal interest over the applicable interest rate to be charged for the overdue amount for the period of default. The defendant had undertaken & agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 EMI of Rs. 6,219/- in terms of agreement containing schedule therein. All the documents were voluntarily and consciously signed by the defendant after understanding the implication of the same and delivered the same to the Plaintiff Bank.
It is stated that defendant duly availed the above mentioned car loan facility under car loan scheme from the Plaintiff Bank by opening car loan account no. 61194391133 but CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 3 of 8 defendant has committed defaults in repayment of loan amount as a result of which the said loan account of the defendant became irregular as the defendant has failed to improve his account position despite availing the desired credit facility.
Defendant failed to repay the EMI per month against the said car loan, in the given car loan account no. 61194391133 satisfactorily and the same has been grossly out of order for a considerable period. This message was conveyed repeatedly to the defendant being borrower. Having no response from the side of the defendant, the Plaintiff Bank had to declare & classify the said loan account as NPA on 01.04.2017 due to non-depositing of stipulated EMI/Interest and not adhering to the sanction terms.
Legal Notice dated 08.06.2020 vide speed post seeking recovery of Rs.99,802.89/- as on 31.05.2020 was also served upon defendant, whereby the said loan was recalled but the said notice failed to evoke any response from the defendant.
It is averred that statement of account reflecting a debit balance of Rs. 99,802.89/- as on 30.09.2020 exclusive of interest & expenses which the defendant herein being borrower is unable to pay to the plaintiff with updated interest & expenses thereupon. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant was served with the summons of the suit by way of publication on 20.05.2025. However the defendant failed to appear despite service, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.12.2025 and the plaintiff was directed to bring ex- parte evidence.
CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 4 of 8
4. Sh. Deepak Sharma, AR of the plaintiff bank examined as PW1 who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents :
1. Gazette Notification is Ex.PW1/A;
2. Originals of loan application and proposal forms etc. are Ex.PW1/B (colly);
3. Copies of document qua intended car loan is Ex.PW1/C (colly);
4. Original loan cum hypothecation agreement signed and submitted by defendant is Ex.PW1/D;
5. Original arrangement letter is Ex.PW1/E;
6. Original statement of assets and liabilities is Ex.PW1/F;
7. Other related documents including vehicle information and payment receipt is Ex.PW1/H (colly);
9. Copy of notice u/s 13(2) is Ex.PW1/I;
10. Copy of legal notice alongwith original postal receipt are Ex.PW1/J(colly);
11. Copy of loan statement of defendant is Ex.PW1/K (colly);
12. Original of certificate u/s 2A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/L;
13. Original certificate of accrued interest is Ex.PW1/M.
5. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.
6. Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff, it is important to CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 5 of 8 note that in the present case, the defendant has never appeared and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 08.12.2025. It is further noted that the Court is mindful of the fact that in cases where the defendant is ex-parte, the Court needs to be extra cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence and before passing the judgment, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff should be weighed carefully before arriving at the finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. The onus to prove the averments of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff who has to discharge the burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely is upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
7. PW-1 has proved on oath the allegations against the defendant and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on unchallenged and un-rebutted. Gazette Notification is Ex.PW1/A; Originals of loan application and proposal forms etc. are Ex.PW1/B (colly); Copies of document qua intended car loan is Ex.PW1/C (colly); Original loan cum hypothecation agreement signed and submitted by defendant is Ex.PW1/D;
CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 6 of 8 Original arrangement letter is Ex.PW1/E; Original statement of assets and liabilities is Ex.PW1/F; Other related documents including vehicle information and payment receipt is Ex.PW1/H (colly); Copy of notice u/s 13(2) is Ex.PW1/I; Copy of legal notice alongwith original postal receipt are Ex.PW1/J(colly); Copy of loan statement of defendant is Ex.PW1/K (colly); Original of certificate u/s 2A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/L; Original certificate of accrued interest is Ex.PW1/M.
8. The present suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation as per provisions of Limitation Act and the present suit has been instituted on 29.10.2020, hence the present suit is within limitation. As defendant has not turned up despite service and accordingly was proceeded ex-parte, the averments made in the plaint and the testimony of the plaintiff during PE remained unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelief the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and the documents relied upon him. These documents coupled with testimony of the plaintiff prove the case of the plaintiff.
Relief
9. In view of the reasons given above and uncontroverted evidence brought on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and followings reliefs are granted in his favour and against the defendant:-
CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 7 of 8 i. Decree for a sum of Rs.1,41,613/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen Only).
ii. Seeing the prevalent market conditions, pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff from the date of filing of present suit till the realization of the amount.
iii. Cost of the suit
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MAYANKAnnounced in the Open Court MAYANK MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.02.02
on 02.02.2026 16:12:44 +0530
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,
North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi
CS SCJ No. 957/2020 State Bank of India v. Prithvi Raj Soneja 8 of 8