Delhi District Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Ajay on 13 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS DJ 856-22
BHUPINDER SINGH GANDHI
Through LRs
1. SH. DAVINDER SINGH GANDHI
Through Harpreet Singh (POA),
S/o Late Sh. Bhupinder Singh Gandhi,
R/o J-4/81, Flat No. 2, 2nd Floor,
Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
2. SH. HARPREET SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Bhupinder Singh Gandhi,
R/o 23 Sai Niwas UGF, Right Side,
Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
.....Plaintiffs
Vs.
MR. AJAY
S/o Sh. Sant Ram,
R/o 55/1,
Varun Kunj, Rithala, Delhi-85.
.....Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.09.2022
Date of Reserving judgment : 20.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,21,800/- comprising of Rs. 1,85,000/- as principle amount and Rs. 2,36,800/- as interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of advancing of the loan to the date of the filing of the suit and pendente lite and future Digitally CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay signed by Page No. 1 of 10 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:25:27 +0530 interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant and the plaintiff were known to each other since last more than 15 years as the defendant and his father used to buy grocery items from the plaintiff's shop. Defendant approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- in cash in first week of April, 2017. The defendant promised to return the said amount within one year and issued a cheque bearing No. 644441 drawn on Corporation Bank, Rohini Branch.
3. After the expiry of one year, the plaintiff followed up with the defendant for repayment of his loan. After various excuses, the defendant assured the plaintiff that he is about to get permanent in his Government job and the cheque may be presented in October, 2019.
4. When the plaintiff presented the said cheque through his banker, Canara Bank, Malviya Nagar, the same returned with return memo dated 16.10.2019 with the observation "account closed".
5. The plaintiff thereafter issued legal notice on 21.10.2019.
The defendant sent a vague and completely false and frivolous reply dated 19.11.2019. The plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On these grounds, the plaintiff has filed the present suit of a recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,21,800/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
6. Summons were issued to the defendant who appeared and filed his vakalatnama.
CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay Digitally Page No. 2 of 10
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13
15:25:37
+0530
7. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff expired and an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed which got allowed vide order dated 13.03.2023.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT:-
8. In his written statement, the defendant has denied the relationship between the plaintiff and his father as a customer and further denied that the defendant had taken any loan from the plaintiff. It is stated that there were some mutual transactions between the father of the defendant and the plaintiff. It is stated that after the demise of his father on 21.11.2014, when the defendant went to the house of the plaintiff, he was told that there was some outstanding of his father towards the plaintiff. As such, the defendant gave two blank cheques to the plaintiff which the plaintiff had misused to file the present case. The defendant in fact paid an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- in cash to the plaintiff but he did not return the signed blank cheques which have been misused in the present case.
9. The plaintiff filed his replication and had stated that the defendant has raised irrelevant issues which are not the part of this case. The factual averments of the plaint have been reiterated.
ISSUES:-
10.Based upon the pleadings, vide order dated 16.10.2023, following issues were framed:-
(i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of sum of Rs.4,21,800/- inclusive of principal amount and interest. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(ii) Relief.
Digitally CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay signed by Page No. 3 of 10 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:25:43 +0530
11.Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under section 10 CPC for stay of the present suit as a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was pending. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2023.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
12.Thereafter, the LR of the plaintiff led his evidence and relied upon the following documents:-
(i). Ex PW1/1 internet generated copy of Death certificate of Late Sh. Bhupinder Singh Gandhi. (marking of this document has been mentioned as Ex CW1/A in the affidavit).
(ii). Ex PW1/2 certified copy of cheque bearing No. 644441 of Corporation Bank, Rohini Branch.
(iii). Ex PW1/3 certified copy of cheque return memo dated 16.10.2019.
(iv). Ex PW1/4 certified copy of legal demand notice dated 21.10.2019.
(v). Ex PW1/5 and Ex PW1/6 certified copy of receipts of speed post.
(vi). Ex PW1/7 and Ex PW1/8 certified copy of delivery reports.
(vii) Ex PW1/9, SPA executed in favour of me by my elder brother Sh. Davinder Singh.
(viii) Ex PW1/10 (OSR) Copy of his aadhar card.
(ix) Ex PW1/11 Certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
13.In his cross examination, PW1 stated that he knew the defendant for the last 12-15 years. He stated that the grocery shop was run by his father and not by him. He further stated that he did not know whether the defendant was in any job when the said loan was taken.
Digitally
CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay signed by Page No. 4 of 10
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13
15:25:49
+0530
14.He stated that his father did not usually lend money but on the insistence of defendant, he advanced the loan to the defendant in April, 2017. He has stated that there is no written agreement and there was no agreement on interest. However, it is stated that the defendant volunteer that in case of any loss of money, he will reimburse the plaintiff. He stated that the cheque Ex PW1/2 was brought as a blank cheque which was filled by his brother in front of the defendant who thereafter signed the same after receiving the loan amount.
15.He further admitted that a complaint under section 138 NI Act was filed and the defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 2 lacs in the said case. He denied any transaction with the mother of the defendant. He also denied the suggestions regarding the factual averments made in the written statement.
16.On 16.05.2025, the LR of the plaintiff made a further statement that he has received an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- along with fine of Rs. 15,000/- on 24.04.2024 in the connected NI Act case. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence on 22.07.2024.
17.Thereafter, the defendant filed his affidavit in evidence, however, vide statement dated 16.05.2025, Ld. Counsel for defendant chose not to lead any evidence and closed defendant's evidence.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:-
18.Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the original plaintiff had given a loan of an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- to the defendant who had given a cheque to the plaintiff. The CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay Digitally signed Page No. 5 of 10 by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.11.13 15:25:55 +0530 loan amount was advanced in 2017 and cheque was to be presented in 2019. The cheque got dishonored in October, 2019. He has further submitted that a case under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was also filed by the original plaintiff and the defendant got convicted in the said matter and he was directed to pay the cheque amount along with fine of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- which has been received by the plaintiff.
19.Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the fine may be adjusted in the civil suit, however, the right to claim interest is still there and since the amount was paid in 2017 and was repaid in 2024, the defendant has used the amount for almost 7 years and appropriate interest on the said period is liable to be paid to the plaintiff.
20.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant has submitted that the defendant has already paid the loan amount and an extra amount of Rs. 30,000/-. He has submitted that as per the cross examination of the plaintiff, the cheque was brought blank and was filed by the brother of PW1. He has further submitted that there was no agreement of interest between the parties and only a nominal interest may be payable to the plaintiff. He further submits that this case is not maintainable as the cheque has been misused and the cheque amount has already been paid in the Negotiable Instruments Act.
ANALYSIS & REASONING:-
21.During the arguments, both the parties have submitted that the amount of cheque PW1/2 has been received by the LRs of plaintiff along with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. Further, only Digitally CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay signed by Page No. 6 of 10 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:26:00 +0530 the issue of interest is pending.
22.Plaintiff has claimed that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.
1,85,000/- to the defendant in April, 2017 and the cheque Ex PW1/2 was handed over to the plaintiff for return of the said amount. In his cross examination, PW1 on a suggestion of Ld. Counsel for defendant has denied that the original plaintiff, i.e. his father used to lend money on interest. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant promised to pay back the friendly loan within one year of April, 2017. He has further claimed that the cheque was issued at the time of payment of the friendly loan.
23.Although the defendant has filed his written statement, however, he did not lead any evidence. ISSUE No. 1:-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of sum of Rs.4,21,800/- inclusive of principal amount and interest. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
24.Once the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the defendant by leading evidence, presumptions under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff. As such, once the issuance of the cheque and its dishonor have been proved, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the cheque amount from the defendant.
25.Both the parties have submitted that the plaintiff has received an amount of Rs. 2 lacs from the defendant in complaint case No. 38865/2019 on 24.04.2024, which was based upon the same cheque Ex PW1/2.
26.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D. Purushotama Reddy Digitally CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay signed by Page No. 7 of 10 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:26:06 +0530 & Anr. Vs. K. Sateesh CA No. 4751/2008 as held as follows:-
"13. Evidently, a duty has been cast upon the civil courts to take into account the sum paid or recovered as compensation in terms of Section 357 of the Code. It is futile to urge that on the date on which the civil court passed the decree the appellants were not convicted. As noticed hereinbefore, the appeal is a continuation of the suit and in that view of the matter as the appellants had in total deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-, i.e. Rs. 2,10,000/- in the criminal proceeding and Rs. 1,90,000/- in the civil proceedings, out of which a sum of Rs. 3,09,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondent, the High Court was obligated to take the same into consideration. In other words, having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 357 of the Code, a duty was cast upon the High Court to take into account the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- had already been paid by the appellants to the respondent. Concededly, both the proceedings were maintainable. Law recognizes the same. The Parliament must have the situation of this nature in mind while enacting clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 357 of the Code and Sub-section (5) thereof."
27.Both the Ld. Counsels have fairly conceded that the amount paid in the criminal case has to be adjusted in the present case.
28.The cheque amount in the present case was Rs. 1,85,000/-
and the plaintiff had already received Rs. 2 lacs on 24.04.2024.
29.The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 24 per cent from the date of the loan till the filing of the suit and 18 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization of the amount.
30.As per the cross examination of PW1, he has stated that there was no agreement of interest between the parties, yet the plaintiff has sought interest at the rate of 24 per cent from the date of the loan till the filing of the suit and at the rate of 18 per cent thereafter.
Digitally signed by CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay RAHUL Page No. 8 of 10 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:26:12 +0530
31.The interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum was not agreed between the parties as evident from the statement of PW1 himself. Further, no basis of claiming interest at the rate of 24 per cent prior to filing of the case and 18 per cent after filing of the case has been brought forward by the plaintiff.
32.Ld. counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the defendant is liable to pay interest for the use of the amount which he has kept for more than 7 years. He has submitted that a reasonable interest as per the market conditions be granted to the plaintiff.
33.Since nothing has come on record that the parties agreed on any rate of interest, this Court is of the opinion that in the current interest rate scenario, justice will be served if simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum is paid to the plaintiff from the date of dishonor of the cheque till 24.04.2024 i.e. the date of repayment of the amount of the cheque.
RELIEF:-
34.Thus, based upon the above discussion, the plaintiff is found entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of dishonor of the cheque, Ex PW1/2 till 24.04.2024 i.e. the date of repayment of the amount of the cheque. Since the principal amount has already been paid, the plaintiff is found not entitled for recovery of the same.
The amount of the interest shall be reduced by Rs. 15,000/- i.e. the amount paid as fine over and above the cheque amount in the case under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
Digitally
CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay signed by Page No. 9 of 10
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.11.13
15:26:18
+0530
35.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
36.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedRAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA Announced in the open BHATIA 15:26:30 Date: 2025.11.13 +0530 Court on 13.11.2025 (RAHUL BHATIA) District Judge 01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ 856/2022 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Ajay Page No. 10 of 10