Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar vs Ram Kumar Katariya on 3 July, 2024
Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN - II, DJ-02,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.: 68/2017
In the matter of--
Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Harbir Singh
R/o E-28, Gali no.2,
Ashok Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-93.
...PLAINTIFF
versus
Ram Kumar Katariya
S/o Sh. Bishan Swaroop
R/o 125/4, Near Shukar Bazar Chowk,
Mother Dairy, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-93.
...DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of suit : 27.01.2017
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of total sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- (i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- towards the principal amount and Rs. 70,000/- towards the interest from August 2014 till December 2016 @ 12% p.a. ) along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24 % per annum.
Page 1 of 11Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya Brief facts:-
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff and defendant were having friendly relations for the last 8-10 years; that the defendant borrowed the money as a friendly loan from the plaintiff several times which was returned by the defendant in time, so the plaintiff started to have trust upon the defendant and never hitch to give the money as a loan.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in the month of August, 2014, the defendant asked the plaintiff to arrange sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for some urgent work; that at the request of the defendant, plaintiff arranged a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from his all sources because he used to trust upon the defendant and gave him the same on 19.08.2014 through cheque bearing No.15453 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and on 20.08.2014 through cheque bearing No.15454 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a cash of Rs.30,000/- in the presence of marginal witnesses; that the said cheques were encashed in the account of the defendant but at the time of receiving the said loan of Rs.2,50,000/- through cheques and a cash, the defendant executed the pronote dated 20.08.2014 in presence of the marginal witnesses and assured to return the money up to 10.02.2016 and also issued two post dated cheques bearing No.417169 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.417179 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 10.02.2016 drawn Page 2 of 11 Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya from Indian Bank, Hardevpuri, Delhi with the assurance that as and when the cheques are presented, the same shall be encashed.
4. It is further mentioned in the plaint that in the second week of January, 2016 the plaintiff contacted the defendant and informed the defendant that the date of repayment is due on 10.02.2016 so the defendant should arrange the money for repayment of loan and the plaintiff also requested the defendant to execute a receipt in respect of the said loan on the stamp paper; that on 13.01.2016 the defendant executed the receipt on E-Stamp paper in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the above said loan amount.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 10.02.2016 the plaintiff asked the defendant about the presentation of the above said cheques on their due date but the defendant showed inability and told the plaintiff to present the same in the middle of March, 2016 accordingly the plaintiff presented the said cheques in his banker i.e. IDBI Bank, East Jyoti Nagar, Delhi after 15.03.2016 but the same were returned back without encashment with the returning memos dated 19.03.2016 containing remarks "Funds Insufficient"; that thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked to pay the cheques amount but the defendant assured to pay the same within 10 to 15 days but the defendant did not pay heed to the request of the plaintiff and thereafter on 12.04.2016 the plaintiff again asked the defendant to re-pay the loan amount but the defendant still not paid the said amount to the plaintiff; that the Page 3 of 11 Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 13.04.2016 to the defendant and the said legal notice was also served upon the defendant but despite that no payment was made to the plaintiff by the defendant. Hence, this suit.
Proceedings:-
6. That the instant suit was initially filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC, but vide order dated 28.01.2017 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, the present suit was treated as an ordinary suit and thereafter, pursuant to the issuance of the summons, the defendant appeared and filed his WS.
7. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues are framed by Ld. Predecessor Court on 07.07.2017:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3.2 lacs along with interest as prayed for in the suit ? OPP
2. Whether the defendant proves that there was no such transaction and that he is not liable to pay any sum ? OPD
3. Relief.
8. Thereafter the matter was listed for PE.
9. Plaintiff has led his evidence and stepped in the witness box as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
Page 4 of 11Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya S. No. Exhibit Document number or Mark
1. Ex. PW1/1 Pronote-cum-receipt.
2. Ex. PW1/2 Separate receipt.
3. Ex. PW1/3 Certified copies of the proceedings in criminal ( colly. ) cases.
10.PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant on 29.11.2017.
11.Plaintiff Witness no. 2 Sh. Rajesh had also led his evidence and stepped in the witness box as PW-2. PW-2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. PW-2 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant on 09.02.2018 and on the same day, the PE was also closed. Thereafter, the matter was listed for DE.
12.Defendant has led his evidence and stepped in the witness box as DW-1. DW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon Aadhar Card Ex.DW1/1. DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 29.08.2018 and thereafter, the DE was closed on the very same day.
13.Final arguments heard from both the sides.
Page 5 of 11Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya Plaintiff's submissions:-
14.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has paid a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant by way of cheque amount of Rs. 1 lakhs on 20.08.2014 in the bank account of the defendant and that the further amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was not credited in the bank account of the defendant but it was withdrawn by the plaintiff through self cheque from his account and thereafter the plaintiff had given the cash amount to the defendant and in this regard the defendant has duly executed one pronote Ex.PW1/1 dated 20.08.2014 in the presence of two witnesses including PW2 Rajesh Gupta whereby the defendant acknowledges the receipt of amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the plaintiff with the liability to re-pay the same to the plaintiff along with interest @ 1% p.m. on demand. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs. 3.2 lakhs along with interest from the defendant.
Defendant's submissions:-
15.On the other hand it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that the defendant had only taken loan of Rs. 1 lakhs from the plaintiff on 20.08.2014 and in lieu of the same the plaintiff had taken two blank signed security cheques and one blank pronote signed by the defendant as security from the defendant and one pronote was filled by the plaintiff in his handwriting dated 20.08.2014 mentioning the security cheque no.
Page 6 of 11Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya 015454. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that the defendant had duly repaid the said amount to the plaintiff pursuant to which the plaintiff had torned the said pronote and gave it back to the defendant.
16.It is lastly submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that despite receiving the entire loan amount, the plaintiff has filed the present false suit against the defendant by misusing the blank signed security cheques and pronote issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as security towards loan amount of Rs. 1 lakhs and that the plaintiff has malafidely concealed the said torned pronote from this Court so as to succeed in his nefarious designs and oblique motives and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff on the ground of supression of material facts from the Court.
Findings:-
Issue no. 1
17.It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has given loan amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- by way of cheques in the bank account of the defendant and paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of cash to the defendant on the request of the defendant.
18.Later in the proceedings and during the arguments on application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant, the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff fairly conceded on 25.04.2024 before the Page 7 of 11 Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya Court that the said amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was not credited in the bank account of the defendant but it was withdrawn by the plaintiff through self cheque from his account and thereafter the plaintiff had given the same to the defendant by way of cash. However, the plaintiff had not led any evidence to show the receipt of the said cash amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- in favour of the defendant.
19.The plaintiff has relied upon one pronote dated 20.08.2014 Ex.PW1/1 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and one receipt on e- stamp paper as Ex.PW1/2 so as to corroborate his averments in the present suit. However, in the cross-examination of PW-1 it has come that plaintiff does not know who had written the pronote Ex.PW1/1 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The plaintiff has further stated in his cross-examination that the said pronote Ex.PW1/1 was already filled by the person accompanying the defendant and that neither he knew the said person nor he got the signature of the said person as witness to the pronote.
20.During the cross-examination of PW-1, the defendant had confronted the plaintiff with another pronote executed on the same date i.e. 20.08.14 for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh which was Ex.PW1/D1 and the plaintiff has admitted that the said pronote Ex. PW1/D1 is in his handwriting.
21.It is also pertinent to note that the another witness i.e. PW-2 namely Sh. Rajesh Gupta has stated in his evidence that only one Page 8 of 11 Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya pronote was executed in his presence, which took about 20-25 minutes and the defendant signed the pronote in his presence which was filled up by the plaintiff and that no other witness had signed the said pronote. Whereas, in the evidence of PW-1, the plaintiff has denied to have filled up the pronote Ex.PW1/1 on which he is relying for his claim in the instant suit and has rather admitted to fill another pronote Ex.PW1/D1 produced by the defendant during the cross-examination of PW-1.
22.Even perusal of Ex.PW1/1 shows that the witness Sh. Rajesh Gupta i.e. PW-2 has been mentioned as witness no.2 and the witness no.1 to the said pronote is one Mr. Deepak Kumar who has not been examined by the plaintiff in the present suit, which further contradicts the version of PW-2 to the extent where he stated in his evidence that no other witness had signed the pronote except him.
23.PW-2 has further stated in his evidence that he did not have any knowledge whether plaintiff had given any loan to any person or not.
24.Further, in the cross-examination of DW-1, the defendant has denied his signatures on Ex.PW1/2 at points A, B & C and in this regard the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove the signatures of the defendant on Ex.PW1/2 nor proved the fact as to in whose handwriting the same was prepared.
Page 9 of 11Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya
25.In view of the above, this Court finds probabilities in the defence raised by the defendant that the entire transaction between the defendant and the plaintiff is only for Rs. 1 lakh and the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him in proving the pronote Ex.PW1/1 and the receipt Ex.PW1/2, and also failed to prove his entitlement to recover any pre-suit interest from the defendant as no such interest rate is mentioned on the pronote Ex.PW1/D1 which was admittedly executed between the parties on 20.08.2014.
26.Accordingly, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 2
27.In view of the findings given above, this Court holds that since the defendant has admitted the loan transaction of Rs. 1 lakh with the plaintiff and has also not been able to prove the fact that he has returned the said loan amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff by filing any documentary proof in support of the same, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover only Rs. 1 lakh from the defendant. Further, the plaintiff has also sought pendente-lite and future interest @ 12 % p.a. However, this Court deems that interest of justice would be served if the plaintiff is allowed interest @ 8% p.a. over the amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the date of filing the present suit till its realization from the defendant.
Page 10 of 11Civil Suit no.: 68/2017 Anil Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar Katariya
28.Accordingly, the issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief :-
29.In view of the findings given on the issues as above, the plaintiff is entitled to recover only Rs. 1 lakh along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of filing the present suit till its realization from the defendant.
30.The suit is partly decreed along with the costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
31.Let a decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
32.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in Open Court on this 3rd day of July, 2024.
(ANKUR JAIN-II) DISTRICT JUDGE - 02, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI Page 11 of 11