Delhi District Court
Sh. Manish Jain vs Sh. Akash Sharma on 1 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SCJ-CUM-RC (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
In the matter of :
CS No. 09/2019 CNR no. DLNE03-000009-2019
Sh. Manish Jain,
s/o Late Sh. Vinay Jain,
r/o A-4, IInd Floor, Gokul Dham,
West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi-110094. ....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Akash Sharma,
s/o Sh. Anil Sharma,
r/o C-6/50, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053. ...Defendant
Date of Institution : 04.01.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment : 01.11.2021
Date of Decision : 01.11.2021
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
(Suit for recovery of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only))
1. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendant have friendly relation with each other. As per the plaint, defendant on 25.12.2015 requested for friendly loan of Rs. 85,000/- from the plaintiff. Considering the financial problem of the defendant, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 85,000/- to the defendant which was to be returned within 4-5 days as assured by the defendant. In discharge of his liability, the defendant had issued a cheque bearing no. 013372 dated 31.12.2015 amounting to Rs. 85,000/- to the plaintiff, however, the same was returned with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 01.01.2016. The plaintiff contacted the defendant but the defendant avoided to pay the said amount on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 02.11.2018 but defendant did not pay heed. Hence, the present suit is filed CS No. 09/2019 Manish Jain v. Akash Sharma Page no. 1 of 4 by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 85,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of realization.
2. Defendant filed the written statement and took the plea that the present suit is barred by the Law of Limitation. It is stated that the alleged loan of Rs. 85,000/- had already been returned back to the plaintiff on 07.01.2016 in the presence of marginal witnesses. It is contended that the cheque was given by the defendant to the plaintiff only as a security and not against any legally enforceable liability and it was assured by the plaintiff that he will return the aforesaid security cheque to the defendant on receiving of Rs. 85,000/- but despite receiving the amount of Rs. 85,000/- the plaintiff did not return the aforesaid cheque to the defendant on pretext that the same has been lost somewhere in transit. That the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant, thus the suit deserves to be dismissed.
3. Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement filed by defendant remonstrating the contents of the written statement and reinforcing those of the plaint.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 12.02.2020:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 85,000/-
from along with pendentalite and future interest @ 18% per annum? OPP.
2. Relief.
CS No. 09/2019 Manish Jain v. Akash Sharma Page no. 2 of 4
5. The defendant did not appear before the court since 28.07.2020, hence, defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.11.2021 and the case was listed for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 by tendering his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and reiterated the same plea as taken in the plaint which is not reproduced for the sake of brevity. Plaintiff also relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex. PW1/A : Cheque no. 013372 dated 31.12.2015.
2. Ex. PW1/B : Cheque returning memo.
3. Ex. PW1/C : Legal notice dated 02.11.2018.
4. Ex. PW1/D : Postal receipt.
No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 01.11.2021.
7. Ex-parte final arguments were heard and all the material on record was perused.
8. Plaintiff has proved its case by oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no reason as to why the un-rebutted and un-controverted oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff should not be relied upon. The suit has already been held to be filed within the period of limitation vide order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and within the jurisdiction of this court.
9. In view of the above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of CS No. 09/2019 Manish Jain v. Akash Sharma Page no. 3 of 4 filing of the suit till realization of the amount. Costs of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VISHALVISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2021.11.01 16:09:49 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA) COURT ON 01.11.2021 SCJ-cum-RC North East District, KKD/DELHI Containing 4 pages all signed by the presiding officer.Digitally signed by VISHAL
VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2021.11.01 16:09:55 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) SCJ-cum-RC North East District, KKD/DELHI CS No. 09/2019 Manish Jain v. Akash Sharma Page no. 4 of 4