Delhi District Court
Deepika Goyal vs Mansi Pandey on 9 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-07, TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI
CS No. 1167/2022
CNR NO. DLWT010122292022
IN THE MATTER OF :
DEEPIKA GOYAL
W/o Sh. Rajesh Goyal,
R/o 40/3, Ist Floor,
East Patel Nagar,
Delhi-110008. ......Plaintiff
Versus
MANSI PANDEY
D/o Sh. Gopal Pandey,
R/o 10, Manroma Compound,
Sindu Nagar, Krishna Nagar,
Manasnagar Bakshi Ka Talab,
Lucknow UP-220023. ......Defendant
Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 1/11
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.7,04,712/- (RUPEES SEVEN
LAKH FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWELVE
ONLY) ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 24% PER ANNUM TILL
THE DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT.
Date of institution of the Suit : 21.12.2022
Date of Judgment was reserved : 15.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 09.04.2025
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.The present suit has been filed by plaintiff against defendant seeking recovery of friendly loan of Rs.7,04,712/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its disposal.
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 was approached by the defendant through her father, Mr. Gopal Pandey who was working as a Sales Head (Uttar Pradesh Region) in the business entity namely M/s AARYAVRAT India Limited (formerly known as M/s AARYAVRAT Products India Products Private Limited) and plaintiff's husband is the director of the company.
2.2. The defendant developed friendly relationship with the Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 2/11 plaintiff by using her father's employment and by using these relations, the defendant started asking for financial assistance by citing several financial hardships and difficulties.
2.3. The plaintiff initially hesitated and was reluctant to advance any sort of friendly loan to the defendant but due to repeated requests and persuasions by her, she agreed to help her financially and the defendant also agreed to repay the friendly loan within the agreed period.
2.4. The plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.7,04,712/- as friendly loan to the defendant at various occasions from 20.07.2021 to 11.05.2022 through UPI and the bank statement of plaintiff reflects the said payments made by her to the defendant and it was agreed between them that the defendant shall repay the friendly loan within a span of three months.
2.5. As the plaintiff was in urgent requirement of funds for marriage in her family, so she demanded repayment of the loan amount from the defendant but the defendant tried to avoid her liability and finally stopped answering her calls.
2.6. The plaintiff sent a legal demand notice of demand dated 22.11.2022, which was duly served upon the defendant, but despite that she did not relent and till today not even a single paisa has been repaid by her.
Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 3/11
3. Summons for settlement of issues of the present suit were issued for the service of the defendant. However, despite being served on 04.04.2023, neither the defendant appeared in person or through her counsel nor filed here written statement, hence, her defence was struck off and she was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.07.2023.
4.EX-PARTE PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
4.1. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 in her examination-in-chief.
4.2. In her evidence, PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Bank statement reflecting the payments made by her to defendant as Ex.PW-1/A;
B. Photocopy of legal notice dated 22.11.2022 as Ex.PW-1/B; C. Original postal receipts such as courier receipt, speed receipt and registered post as Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/E, D. The report of postal receipts as Ex.PW-1/F to Ex.PW-1/H;
and E. Photocopy of screen shot of whatsapp messenger dated 29.11.2022 vide which legal notice was sent as Ex.PW-1/I Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 4/11 to Ex.PW-1/K.
5. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff.
Accordingly, ex-parte plaintiff's evidence was closed.
6. I have heard Ld. counsel for plaintiff and also gone through the record as well as evidence on record.
7. At the very outset, it needs to be highlighted that 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.
8. In the present suit, the plaintiff who appeared as PW-1 has deposed that she came into contact with the defendant through her father, who was working as Sales Head in the company namely M/s AARYAVRAT India Limited (formerly known as Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 5/11 M/s AARYAVRAT Products India Private Limited), wherein her husband is one of the director and gradually they became friends. PW-1 has further deposed that citing several financial hardships, the defendant requested her for some assistance and acceding to her demand, she advanced her a total sum of Rs.7,04,712/- in several instalments through UPI, in between 20.07.2021 to 11.05.2022. PW-1 has further deposed that she was assured by the defendant that the money would be repaid within three months, however, when she demanded the repayment of the aforesaid friendly loan, the defendant evaded her liability on one pretext or the other and finally she stopped taking her calls and upon this, the legal notice Ex.PW-1/B was issued, which was duly served upon the defendant, duly reflected by the postal receipts including courier receipt, speed post receipt and registered post Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/E. PW-1 has deposed that the defendant is liable to make payment of suit amount of Rs.7,04,712/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum to her.
9. Firstly, the plaintiff has pleaded that she is the resident of East Patel Nagar which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and it is a settled principle of law that a suit for recovery is maintainable at the address / residence of the plaintiff in terms of the common law principle of " debtor must seek the creditor" which means that unless the contract specifies otherwise, the debtor is obligated to find and pay the creditor, and the creditor can sue the debtor at the place of his residence or business. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 6/11 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Arcelormittal India Private Limited Vs. JSC OGCC KAZSTROY SERVICE, CS (COMM) 592/2022, dated 30.05.2023.
10. Secondly, the plaintiff has alleged that the loan in question was advanced to the defendant during the time period from 20.07.2021 to 11.05.2022 and it is a matter of record that the present suit seeking recovery of the same has been filed on 21.12.2022, which is well within the period of limitation of three years as prescribed by The Limitation Act, 1963.
11. So, prima facie, the present suit is legally maintainable in the eyes of the law.
12. Now, coming to the merits of the present case. This is a well settled position of law that 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. In a nutshell, 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.
13. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.7,04,712/- from the defendant by taking the plea that the said amount was advanced to her as friendly loan in numerous instalments and for establishing the aforesaid transactions with the defendant, the plaintiff has relied upon the Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 7/11 statement of accounts Ex.PW-1/A wherein she has highlighted certain transactions, through which the loan amount was allegedly paid to the defendant through UPI transactions.
14. It is a matter of record that though the plaintiff has pleaded that she advanced the suit amount to the defendant as friendly loan, however, she has not placed on record any document for establishing the alleged advancement of loan in question to the defendant.
15. Moreover, the statement of accounts Ex.PW-1/A does not reflect the name / identity of the recipient and consequently, it does not establish at all that the UPI transactions highlighted in the statement of accounts Ex.PW-1/A are the payments made to the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff.
16. In the opinion of this Court, the statement of accounts Ex.PW-1/A alone cannot establish the plea of the plaintiff to the effect that she advanced the suit amount to the defendant through the UPI transactions reflected in Ex.PW-1/A.
17. Even otherwise, Ex.PW-1/A, the only document relied upon by the plaintiff in support of her claim is a computer generated document and it is a well settled position of law that an electronic evidence / computer generated document is inadmissible in law unless the same is supported by a certificate under Section 65B The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Reference can be made to the Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 8/11 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court categorically observed that Section 65B IEA begins with a non-obstante clause and it is a complete code in itself governing the law on the point of admissibility of the electronic evidence and an electronic evidence / electronic record is inadmissible in law unless supported by a duly issued certificate under Section 65B IEA.
18. So, in light of the aforesaid legal position, the statement of accounts Ex.PW-1/A is per se inadmissible in law. Moreover, while dealing with a suit for recovery filed at the instance of a bank in M/s ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Kamini Sharma and Anr., RFA No. 297/2015, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that account statements are inadmissible in law unless supported by a duly issued certificate under Section 65B The Indian Evidence Act.
19. Besides the abovementioned position of law, it is also well settled that a statement of account is inadmissible in law unless the same is accompanied by a certificate under Section 4 The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891.
20. In the present case, it is apparent from the record that no certificate under Section 4 of The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 has been filed in support of the statement of accounts Ex.PW-1/A. Hence, it is clear that Ex.PW-1/A is inadmissible in Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 9/11 law.
21. Briefly stating, the only document Ex.PW-1/A filed by the plaintiff in support of her claim is inadmissible in law due to non-compliance of the mandate of Section 65B The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 4 of The Bankers Books Evidence Act.
22. Besides the aforesaid omission on the part of the plaintiff, it is also a matter of record that the plaintiff has choose not to examine any witness either from her bank for establishing the authenticity of statement of accounts Ex.PW-1/A or from the bank of defendant for establishing the receipt of the alleged loan amount.
23. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that after the exclusion of Ex.PW-1/A from the consideration, there is no material available on record for corroborating the plea of the plaintiff that the suit amount was paid to the defendant through UPI transactions, as alleged by her in the body of the plaint and it is a well settled position of law that bald assertions of facts made by parties to the suit are of no use unless supported by admissible evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.B. Govardhan Vs. P. Ragothaman, Civil Appeal no.9975-76 of 2024.
24. So, it can be safely concluded that there is no admissible Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 10/11 evidence / material on record which could establish the plea of the plaintiff that she advanced a sum of Rs.7.04.712/- to the defendant as friendly loan through several UPI transactions.
25. Accordingly, in light of the discussion hereinabove, the claim of the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.7,04,712/- from the defendant stands dismissed.
26. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
27. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
28. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by MANOJ MANOJ KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.09 SHARMA 16:06:50 +0530 Announced in the open Court (MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) on 9th April, 2025. DJ-07/WEST/THC/DELHI Deepika Goyal Vs. Mansi Pandey Page: 11/11