Delhi District Court
Dinesh Wahi (Huf) vs Ajay Kumar And Co. And Ors on 2 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE -02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 980/2022
In the matter of: -
DINESH WAHI (HUF)
Through its Karta Mr. Dinesh Wahi
S/o Sh. Karan narain Wahi,
R/o A-324 B, Derawal Nagar, Delhi-110009
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.AJAY KUMAR & Co.
Through its Partners Sh. Anil Wadhwa & Sh. Ajay Kumar, Address: 566, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 E-mail [email protected]
2. Sh. Anil Wadhwa, Kothi No.56, Sector-15-A, Noida, U.P.-201301
3. Sh. Ajay Kumar, Majith Mandi, Amritsar, Punjab-143001 ....Defendants Date of Institution: 01.04.2022 Date of reserving the judgment: 24.05.2025 Date of Judgment: 02.07.2025 Final Judgment: Suit decreed.
JUDGMENT ON ADMISSIONS UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 C.P.C. AND ORDER UPON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 C.P.C.
Digitally
CS SCJ 980/2022 signed by
AAKASH
Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH SHARMA
Page No.1 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02
16:31:18
+0530
1. Matter is at the stage of orders on application under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the plaintiff as well as under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of defendant no.2. Arguments have already been heard previously on 24.05.2025.
2. Vide this judgment and order, I shall dispose off two applications (i) application under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and (ii) application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by defendant 2.
3. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in application under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. that the defendant no.1 is a partnership firm and defendants no.2 & 3 are partners. That the defendants no.2 & 3 approached the plaintiff HUF for financial help of Rs.1,50,000/- in December 2011 and the plaintiff HUF provided a friendly loan of Rs.1,50,000/- at nominal interest @13.8% vide cheque bearing no. 002175 dated 10.04.2011 drawn on Axis Bank. That the defendant used to pay interest at agreed rate and continue to pay till 31.03.2019. That the defendant have not returned the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- nor had paid the interest upto 31.03.2021. That the defendants after receiving the summons, filed their written statement before the Court. That the defendants have in their written statement admitted that a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- vide cheque no.002175 dated 10.04.2011 was taken by them from the plaintiff HUF and also stated that it was @13.8% the relevant part of the written statement is para 3(c) of preliminary submissions/objections of the written statement categorically admits the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff which is reproduced as under:-
CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally
signed by
Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA
Page No.2 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02
16:31:22
+0530
"(c) Pursuant to the needs of the defendant no.1 and believing the representation of Mr. Dinesh Wahi in good faith the defendant availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- cheque no.2175 dated 10.04.2011, at an exorbitant rate of 13.8% per annum".
That in para 3(d) of preliminary submission, the defendants admitted the payment of interest to the plaintiff till 31.03.2019, the relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"(d) thereafter the defendants regularly paid interest to Mr. Dinesh Wahi on the aforesaid loan and agreed rate of 13.8% at annual intervals till 31.03.2019".
That in para no.3(g), last two lines the defendants in their written statement stated as under:-
"subsequently the defendants ceased to repay the remaining loan amount and the interest in the light of this new fact".
That the defendants have admitted that they have not repaid the loan amount nor interest amount to the plaintiff. That there are categorical specific, clear, unambiguous admissions by the defendants in their written statement , hence the plaintiff is entitled to the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. That only defence which has been taken by the defendants in their written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is barred as the plaintiff has not registered itself under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938. That the provisions of Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act are not applicable in the present case, since the loan given to the defendants by the plaintiff is excluded from the definition of loan as given by the act and the provision of the act are not applicable to the loan in question as such the suit is not barred by the provision CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally signed by Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA Page No.3 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:31:26 +0530 of the act. That the loan amount admittedly has been given by cheque. That the defendants have not provided any details as to how the loan given to them falls within the ambit of Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act. The mandatory provisions of Order 8 C.P.C. mandates that the defendants must plead in their written statement the material facts and provide the details of the basis of which they are defending the suit. That in the present case, the defendants have not averred even a single as to how and on what basis they are alleging the plaintiff to be a professional money lender. That the defendants have made only a self serving bald statement in their written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act. That there is no defence and only a bogey thereof is raised. That it is very well established principle of law that a plea which on the face of it found by the Court to be untenable does not require the framing of any issue nor the matter is required to be put to trial. That it is settled law that while considering an application under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C., the Court can ignore vague and unsubstantiated plea and pronounce the judgment and the said judgment can be passed at any stage of the suit. That Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further held that under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C., a decree may be passed by the Court where the defence set up is such that it does not require evidence for determining of the issues. It is further held that vague, unsubstantiated and evasive pleas are sufficient ground to hold that there are admission in the pleading and a decree is liable to be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. in the present case. That the plea taken by the defendants are vague, admissions of the fact that the loan has not been rapid and the interest has been repaid till March 2019 call for a pronouncement of judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. That on the basis CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. signed by AAKASH Page No.4 of 12 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:31:30 +0530 of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the determination of any other question between the parties are not required and judgment deserves to be pronounced on the basis of the aforestated admission by the defendant and decree may be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.
4. That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Monika Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Subhash Tyagi @ Moolraj Tyagi & Ors., CS(OS) No. 230/2020 dated 17.12.2021 has held that:-
"23. While considering an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, no doubt, the law is that the powers are discretionary and further, that for the Court to exercise its powers under the said provisions, admissions should be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. However, a Coordinate Bench of this court in Rajeev Tandon v. Rashmi Tandon, 2019 sec OnLine Del 7336 had considered the pleas of the defendant raised in that case to find out whether it disclosed any meaningful defence or not. The absence of material particulars in the pleadings and presence of unsubstantiated pleas and vague averments were found sufficient to hold that there are admissions in the pleadings to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6. To reach such a conclusion, reliance had been placed on the decisions of the Division Bench of this court in Vijaya Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 828, Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P. Malik, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 292 and Sagar Gambhir v. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7305. 24. That Division Bench of this court in P.P.A Impex Pvt. Ltd (supra) after reference to T. Arivandandam V. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4SCC 467 observed as below:-
"9. it appears to us that the approach to be taken under Order XII Rule 6 is akin to what has been enunciated by the Supreme CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally signed by Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH Page No.5 of 12 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:31:43 +0530 Court in Mechalac Engineers & Manufacturers V. Basic Equipment Corporation, (1976) 4SCC 687, in the context of Order 37 of the CPC with regard to granting leave to defend a summary suit. This is that if a defence amounting to moonshine has been presented, it should be summarily dismissed by not granting leave to defend and by decreeing the suit forthwith. The courts are already groaning under the weight of bludgeoning and exponentially increasing litigation. The weight will unvaryingly increase if moonshine defences are needlessly permitted to go to trial." (emphasis added) It further went on to hold that if pleadings that were vague and were in the nature of total moonshine were taken note of, the provision of Order XII Rule 6 would be virtually annihilated."
It is prayed that judgment be pronounced under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. Reliance has also been placed by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the decisions in Rajat Jain Vs. Neetu Gupta dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi and in Rajeev Tandon & Anr. Vs. Smt. Rashmi Tandon dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
5. Reply on behalf of defendants no.1 and 2 has been filed to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2 that the defendant no.1 is a partnership firm and defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 are the partners of the firm. As the nature of business of the defendant no.1 was such that it required additional capital at short notice, both the defendants no.2 and 3 who are partners of the defendant no.1 approached Mr. Dinesh Wahi for seeking a loan at short notice who was informed to be involved in the said business. That Mr. Dinesh Wahi represented himself to be a registered money CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally signed by Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA Page No.6 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:31:48 +0530 lender and also claimed that he was regularly involved in the business of granting loans against interest to various persons. That pursuant to the business needs of defendant no.1 and believing the representations made by Mr. Dinesh Wahi in good faith, the defendants availed an unsecured loan of Rs.1,50,000/- vide cheque bearing no.002175 dated 10.04.2011 at an exorbitant interest rate of 13.8% per annum. That thereafter, the defendants regularly paid interest to Mr. Dinesh Wahi on the aforesaid loan at agreed rate of 13.8% till 31.03.2019 under the belief that he was a registered money lender. That sometime in the month of April, 2019, the defendants sought a copy of license issued to Mr. Dinesh Wahi permitting him to conduct the business of money lending for their records during an in-person meeting. However, Mr. Dinesh Wahi evaded such requests from the defendants herein on the pretext that it was not readily available with him at the time. The said request was again repeated on many occasions but Mr. Dinesh Wahi did not pay any heed to the same. That the loan in question squarely falls within the definition of a loan as defined under Section 2(8) of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938. That the plaintiff is not a registered money lender as admitted by plaintiff during cross- examination of PW-1 conducted on 08.02.2024. That the present suit is barred under Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938 as plaintiff never held a license for money lending nor did he ever apply to get the license. That the defendant stopped making the payment towards the loan after the plaintiff admitted to not having a license to conduct business as a money lender. It is submitted that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. be dismissed. It is further prayed that since the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law under Section 3 of the Punjab Registration CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally signed by Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA Page No.7 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:31:52 +0530 of Money Lenders Act 1938 as the plaintiff admitted during cross-examination on 08.02.2024 that he is not a registered money lender, accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is barred and is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C.
6. I have carefully perused the application, case file and heard the arguments.
7. Order 12 Rule 6 CPC reads as under:-
[Judgment on admissions (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.]
8. In Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors 2000 (VI) AD (Delhi) 356 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC confers almost sweeping powers on the Court to render a speedy judgment in the suit to save the parties from going through the rigmarole of trial. The only pre-requisite for this is that there must be admissions of facts arising in the suit, be that in the pleadings or otherwise or orally or in writing, such admission of fact must be clear and unequivocal, unconditional and CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally signed Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. by AAKASH SHARMA AAKASH Page No.8 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:31:56 +0530 unambiguous and may relate to the whole claim or part of it. These need not be made expressly or specifically and could be constructive admissions also. Whether or not such admissions arose in the suit would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. If it involves disputed facts, claims and counterclaims requiring evidence of the parties for determination of issues or where defence of the party touched the root of the matter a judgment could not be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC dispensing with the trial because the valuable right of going to trial could not be taken away from the party unless the claim was admitted.
9. It is settled that in a suit for recovery of money, the plaintiff has to establish that :
i) There is a relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties;
ii) That money was advanced as loan by the creditor to the debtor.
iii) That the debtor has failed to repay the loan amount.
iv) That there is no impediment in granting the recovery as per law.
10. The defendants in their written statement have admitted that a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- vide cheque no.002175 dated 10.04.2011 was taken by them from the plaintiff HUF and also stated that it was @13.8%. In para 3(c) of preliminary submissions/objections of the written statement, the defendants have categorically admitted the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff.
" Para 3(c) reads:- Pursuant to the needs of the defendant no.1 and believing the representation of Mr. Dinesh Wahi in good faith the defendant availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- cheque no.2175 dated 10.04.2011, at an CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. signed by AAKASH Page No.9 of 12 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:32:01 +0530 exorbitant rate of 13.8% per annum".
It also appears that in para 3(d) of preliminary submissions of the written statement, the defendants have admitted the payment of interest to the plaintiff till 31.03.2019.
"Para 3(d) reads:- Thereafter the defendants regularly paid interest to Mr. Dinesh Wahi on the aforesaid loan and agreed rate of 13.8% at annual intervals till 31.03.2019".
It also appears that in para no.3(g) of preliminary submissions of the written statement, the defendants have admitted that when Mr. Dinesh Wahi admitted to not having any authorization or license to conduct business as a money lender and pleaded that such information be kept confidential as earning interest on loans granted was his only source of income. Subsequently, the defendants ceased to repay the remaining loan amount and the interest in light of this new fact.
Therefore, creditor-debtor relationship has been admitted by the defendants. Also, the defendants have admitted that money was advanced as loan by the plaintiff to the defendants. Also, the defendants have admitted that the defendants have ceased to repay the loan amount having only paid the interest till 31.03.2019.
Now the question is whether there is any impediment in granting the recovery as per law. The defendants have pleaded that the loan in question squarely falls within the definition of a loan as defined under Section 2(8) of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938. That the plaintiff is not a registered money lender as admitted by plaintiff during cross-examination of PW-1 conducted on 08.02.2024. That the present suit is barred under Section 3 CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally signed by Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA Page No.10 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:32:05 +0530 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938 as plaintiff never held a license for money lending nor did he ever apply to get the license.
Section 2(8) (vii) of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938 specifically excludes an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined under the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, other than a promissory note from the definition of 'loan'. Defendants in their written statement have categorically admitted that they received the loan amount vide cheque no.002175 dated 10.04.2011 for Rs.1,50,000/- @13.8% rate of interest from the plaintiff. Thus, the loan was advanced on the basis of a negotiable instrument i.e. cheque and is therefore specifically excluded from the definition of loan as defined under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938. Accordingly, the fact admitted by the plaintiff on 08.02.2024 during his cross- examination as PW-1 that he is not a registered money lender under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938 gives no benefit to the defendants as there is no bar created by law upon the plaintiff to recover the loan amount since the loan advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants is not covered within the definition of loan under Section 2(8)(vii) of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act 1938. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the conditions to grant judgment on admissions stand fulfilled.
11. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC is allowed and disposed off accordingly. Whereas, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. filed on behalf of defendant no.2 is hereby dismissed and disposed off.
12. In the present suit, accordingly the following decree is passed in favour CS SCJ 980/2022 Digitally signed by Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA Page No.11 of 12 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:32:09 +0530 of the plaintiff and against the defendants:-
13. Relief.
In view of the above discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1, 2 & 3. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the due amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the same from the date of filing of the present suit 01.04.2022 till the date of realization.
Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room as per rules. Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.02 16:32:24 +0530 Announced in the open (Aakash Sharma) court today on 02.07.2025 Civil Judge -02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.CS SCJ 980/2022
Dinesh Wahi HUF Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.Page No.12 of 12