Delhi District Court
Avneet Kaur vs Shanti Prasad on 16 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - 02
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET: NEW DELHI
CS No.211919/2016
CNR No. DLSE01-009895-2016
Mrs. Avneet Kaur
W/o Mr. Harinder Singh Pannu
R/o E-166, G.K.-II,
New Delhi-110048.
(Through Attorney Holder Mr. H.S. Pannu)
............. Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Shanti Prasad
S/o Sh. Ram Preet
Proprietor of M/s. Shanti Traders
R/o 131, Yusaf Sarai Village,
New Delhi-110016.
R/o H.No.56, CSP Flats,
East of Kailash, New Durga Mandir,
New Delhi-110056.
............ Defendant
Date of institution : 17.12.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 11.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2025
CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 1 of 21
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16
16:24:00
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.77,07,082/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
Pleadings:
2. Facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is running her own construction business under her proprietorship in the name and style of M/s. Karma Contractors & Developers for the last several year; that plaintiff is also supported & supervised by her husband and attorney Harinder Singh Pannu in her business dealings; that defendant was running his proprietorship concern from T-16, Main Market, Green Park, New Delhi when he was introduced to the plaintiff, now defendant is operating his business from his residence; that defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by one Mr. Gaurav Chauhan, who was employee in a company namely M/s. Medcraft International Pvt. Ltd. of the family friend of the plaintiff; that defendant during the introduction meeting had given the business proposal of fast moving consumer goods trading business. Defendant further demonstrated that he had vast CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 2 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:24:09 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket experience in that business but due to paucity of funds was unable to excel and induced the plaintiff by giving business proposal with the assurance of huge profit; that plaintiff under the defendant's inducement accepted the proposal and accordingly, MoU dated 12.09.2014 was executed between the defendant and the plaintiff; that after passage of some time, the defendant further had given offer to the plaintiff to rent out her basement situated at E-166, G.K.-II, New Delhi for the purpose of keeping their exclusive stock as well as for office purpose and accordingly, rent agreement dated 16.02.2015 was executed between the parties whereby defendant agreed to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as rent in advance subject to increase of 10% rent over year; that defendant paid only two months' rent and thereafter, with malafide intentions, defendant stopped paying rent despite repeated demand of rent by the plaintiff; that defendant had informed the plaintiff that due to slow recovery of outstanding amount from the market, he was not in a position to pay the rent for a couple of months and further assured that he would pay up to date rent in month of July, 2015 along with interest @ 18% per annum; that plaintiff keeping in mind their relations with the defendant, allowed him to stay in the premises; that in the meantime, the plaintiff felt cheated at the hands of the defendant when the plaintiff became conscious about the profitability, despite investment of huge sum in the business proposal on the defendant's assurance. It was CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 3Digitally of 21 signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:24:17 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket further divulged regarding all joint venture goods sold to various customers on credit that defendant had collected the entire payment from them and appropriated the same, which amounted to cheating and breach of trust and therefore, it was decided that the MoU would come to end from December 2015 onwards; that defendant further requested for some time to settle down the accounts in terms of MoU dated 12.09.2014 including the monthly rent of the basement which he had not paid for last several months; that defendant had kept the said basement in his possession till second week of February 2016 and thereafter, defendant handed over the possession of the basement to the plaintiff and also tendered the cheque bearing no. 468720 dated 25.02.2016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Green Park Branch, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards rent for the last 10 months; that on the assurance of the defendant, plaintiff deposited the said cheque, but the same was returned unpaid and dishonored with the remarks "Funds Insufficient"; that consequently, plaintiff issued the legal demand notice dated 21.03.2016 through her counsel which was duly received by the defendant but he failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and therefore, criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed against him which is pending before the Court of learned M.M. concerned; that in the second week of February, 2016, defendant himself assessed approximately sum of Rs.15,99,900/- as assured return CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 4 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:24:25 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket @ 2% per month on the investment amount of Rs.60,10,000/- from September, 2014 to June, 2015 after adjustment of NEFT payment made by the defendant in October, 2014; that defendant, for the balance assured return on investment of the plaintiff, issued the cheque bearing no. 476917 dated 25.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- along with damaged/expired goods worth Rs.1,00,000/- and further calculated sum of Rs.2,41,000/- as his share of contribution towards the expenses in terms of clause no.3, 6 & 7 of the MoU dated 12.09.2014 and tendered cheque bearing no. 476993 dated 20.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque bearing no. 468719 dated 25.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,41,000/-; that both the aforesaid cheques no. 476993 and 468719 were duly encashed; that as per defendant's assurance, when plaintiff deposited the cheque no. 476917 dated 25.02.2016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Green Park Branch, New Delhi for the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- into her account, the same was returned unpaid and dishonored with the remarks "Funds Insufficient"; that immediately on the same day, legal demand notice dated 21.03.2016 was issued by the plaintiff through advocate which was duly received and replied by Mr. Ayyub Ahmad; that thereafter criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed against the defendant which was pending for adjudication before the Court of learned M.M.concerned; that the plaintiff repeatedly requested, orally as well as by deputing representative at a considerable CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 5 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:24:33 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket cost of time and money, for rent cheque amount in terms of lease deed as well as assured return, but in vain; that as per the Books of Accounts being maintained by the plaintiff in normal and ordinary course of business, a principal sum of Rs.77,07,082/-as mentioned in para 15 of the plaint, is outstanding and due from the defendant to the plaintiff, hence the suit.
3. The defendant could not file written statement as his right to file written statement was closed and defense was struck off vide order dated 03.04.2017. The application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by defendant was dismissed vide order dated 14.09.20218. Thereafter, defendant moved application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement and another application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of order dated 03.04.2017 but both the said applications were also dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2019 and matter was listed for plaintiff's evidence.
Plaintiff's Evidence:
4. Plaintiff got examined Sh. H.S. Pannu as PW-1 who deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and Sh. Himanshu Randhawa (JJA/Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. Nishat Bangarh, the then learned M.M.-02, N.I. Act, CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 6 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:24:42 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket S.E., Saket) as PW-2.
Examination-in-chief of Sh. H.S. Pannu (PW-1):-
5. Sh. H.S. Pannu got examined himself as PW-1 on 17.10.2019 and relied upon the documents i.e. copy of Passport of Ms. Avneet Kaur Mark-Z; SPA in his favour Ex.PW-1/B; MoU dated 12.09.2014 Ex.PW-1/C; rent agreement dated 16.02.2015 Ex.PW-1/D; copy of cheque issued by defendant for sum of Rs.5 Lacs alongwith returning memo Mark-A1 & MarkA2; copy of legal demand notice dated 21.03.2016 Mark-B; copy of reply to the legal notice dated 21.03.2016 Mark-C; copy of cheque bearing no. 476993 dated 20.02.2016 and cheque no. 468719 dated 25.02.2016 for sum of Rs. 1 lac and Rs.2,41,000/- Mark-D & Mark-E; copy of cheque no. 476917 dated 25.02.2016 for sum of Rs.15 lacs alongwith returning memo Mark-F1 & Mark F-2; copy of legal demand notice dated 21.03.2016 and copy of reply to demand notice dated 05.04.2016 Mark G; cheque no. 606881 dated 15.09.2014 for sum of Rs.15 lacs, drawn on Andhra Bank, Green Park Ex.PW1/H1; cheque no. 606880 dated 15.10.2014 for sum of Rs.15 lacs, drawn on Andhra Bank, Green Park Ex.PW-1/H2; cheque no. 606882 dated 15.11.2014 for sum of Rs.20 lacs, drawn on Andhra Bank, Green bank Ex.PW-1/H3; cheque no.468784 dated 20.03.2015 for sum of Rs.7,07,082/-, drawn on Andhra Bank, Green Park Ex.PW-1/H4;
CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 7 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:24:51 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket statements of accounts for rent principal and interest ledger account and trading account Ex.PW-1/I (colly); legal demand notice dated 21.03.2016 along with postal receipt and reply Ex.PW-1/J1 to Ex.PW-1/J3; copy of legal notice dated 02.02.2017 issued by defendant to plaintiff Ex.PW-1/K; reply to legal notice dated 02.02.2017 by plaintiff dated 06.02.2017 Ex.PW-1/L and postal receipts dated 08.02.2017 and 14.02.2017 in respect of reply to legal notice dated 06.02.2017 Ex.PW-1/M and Ex.PW-1/M2.
6. Sh. H.S. Pannu (PW-1) further got examined himself on 11.04.2022 and relied upon documents i.e. certificate under Section 65B I.E. Act Ex.PW-1/N; certified copy of complaint titled as "Karma Contractor Vs. Shanti Prasad" dated 30.04.2016 Ex.PW-1/O (colly);
certified copy of cheque bearing no. 476917 dated 25.02.2016 alongwith returning memo dated 26.02.2016 Ex.PW-1/P (colly); certified copy of legal demand notice dated 21.03.2016 alongwith reply dated 05.04.2016 Ex.PW-1/Q (colly) (running in 10 pages); certified copy of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. alongwith statement of CW1 and cross-examination, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Shanti Pd./defendant Ex.PW-1/R (colly) (running in 12 pages); certified copy of complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act bearing CC No.632197/2016 Ex.PW-1/S (colly) (running in 5 pages); and certified copy of cheque bearing no.468720 dated 25.02.2016 with returning CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 8Digitally of 21 signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:25:00 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket memo, legal demand notice dated 21.03.2016, reply notice dated 05.04.2016, statement of CW1 and cross-examination Ex.PW-1/T (colly) (running in 19 pages).
Cross-Examination of Sh. H.S. Pannu (PW-1):-
7. Sh. H.S. Pannu (PW-1) was cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant. During his cross-examination conducted on 11.04.2022, PW-1 admitted that he had to invest Rs.60 Lakhs as per Agreement dated 12.09.2014 Ex.PW-1/C. He denied the suggestion that he had invested more than Rs.60 Lakhs as per the MoU Ex.PW1/C. PW-1 further stated that he started work of consumer good after executing MoU Ex. PW-1/C. Further he had issued few invoices of consumer goods to some other persons. He voluntarily stated that the goods under the invoice which he executed were never received by him and the same were delivered from one customer to another customer directly by the defendant. On further cross-examination PW-1 admitted that the liability for godown space for stocking the goods was upon him as per clause 7.
PW-1 further stated that the cheques mentioned in para 5 of MoU Ex. PW-1/C were given by the defendant at the time of execution of agreement as a security towards investment and those cheques were not presented in the bank for encashment. He further admitted that the cheque mentioned at S. No. 6 of para 15 of the plaint was also not CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 9 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:25:10 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket presented in the bank for encashment. PW-1 denied the suggestion because the said cheques were not presented in the bank, no cause of action has arisen. On further cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he filed a complaint case before the court of Sh. Paras Dalal, Ld. M.M. under N.I. Act vide complaint Ex. PW-1/O pertaining to cheque No. 476917 which was dismissed. He voluntarily stated that he preferred an appeal against the said order. He further admitted that defendant had filed a case against him to recover the amount of Rs.63 lakhs. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was not duly authorized to depose before this court or that his SPA was not as per law. He further denied the suggestion that he had not invested the amount as mentioned in the plaint or that he had given Rs.30 lakhs against the consumer goods to the defendant and in return he received goods of more than Rs.63 lakhs. All other suggestions were also denied by PW-1.
Examination-in-chief of Sh. Himanshu Randhawa (PW-2):-
8. Plaintiff also got examined Sh. Himanshu Randhawa (PW-2), JJA/Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. Nishat Bangarh, the then Ld. M.M.-02, N.I. Act, South-East, Saket, New Delhi, who produced the summoned record of complaint case bearing no. 632197/2016 titled as M/s. Karma Contractors & Developers v. Mr. Shanti Prasad under Section 138 N.I. Act Ex.PW-1/S, cheque bearing no. 468720 dated 25.03.2016 for a sum CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 10 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:25:18 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket of Rs.5 Lakhs, drawn on Andhra Bank, Green Park Branch Ex.PW-2/1 and ledger statement Ex.PW-1/I. Cross-Examination of Sh. Himanshu Randhawa (PW-2):-
9. PW-2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant.
During his cross-examination conducted on 16.03.2023, PW-2 stated that the summoned record had been disposed off and the accused in the case was acquitted.
Final Arguments:
10. I heard arguments advanced by Sh. Lalit Kumar and Sh. Suraj Kanojia, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Ayyub Ahmad and Sh.
Sajid Ali, learned counsel for the defendant.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Pandurang Jivaji v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., 1981 AIR 2235; judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1398-1399 of 2011, titled as Mehmooda Gulshan v. Javaid Hussain Mungloo; Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra, (2009) 7 SCR 977; judgment dated 07.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in R/First Appeal No. 5228 of 2019, titled as Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 11 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:25:26 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Kumar Bajranglal Somani v. Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd. and judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in S.A. No.15 of 2014, titled as Junnu Rain & Ors. v. Raj Kishore and Anr.
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendant lured the plaintiff to invest huge amount and assured returns on profits. He also took premises of plaintiff on rent but defaulted in making payments of rent. He issued cheques to discharge his liability which on presentation were dishonored. He had collected money from the customers and misappropriated the same, causing loss to the plaintiff.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that plaintiff misused the cheque which the defendant had given to the plaintiff at the time of execution the agreement dated 12.09.2014. The defendant had not taken any premises from the plaintiff on rent and the rent agreement was prepared only for showing in MCD as the area of the plaintiff was residential one and plaintiff wanted to do commercial activity in the said premises. Further, the defendant had not invested the amount as mentioned in the plaint and had taken the goods from the defendant amounting to Rs.63,40,385/- and against the said goods, the plaintiff had made payment of Rs.30,00,000/- to the defendant. As plaintiff failed to pay remaining payment against the goods supplied by the defendant therefore, defendant filed a civil suit for recovery of CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 12 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:25:36 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Rs.33,40,385/- which is pending disposal in Saket Court. Plaintiff manipulated the documents, misused the security cheques and filed the present suit on the basis of manipulated documents.
14. Both the parties also filed written arguments.
Analysis and Findings:
15. Having heard the submissions and perused the record, I am not satisfied with the contentions of learned counsel for the plaintiff. In my considered opinion, suit is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:-
(A) Non-examination of plaintiff and No evidence of transactions:
16. As per settled propositions of law as laid down in Vidhyadhar v.
Manikrao, 1999 (3) SCC 573, if a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box, state his case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him os not correct.
17. Similarly, the evidentiary value of the depositions of attorney holders was considered in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., 2005 (2) SCC 217. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are as under:
CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 13 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:25:45 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket "Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts" employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of "acts" done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross- examined.
18. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, it is evident that the plaintiff Avneet Kaur filed the present suit through SPA holder Sh. H.S. Pannu, her husband, however, she did not enter into witness box to depose. Admittedly, plaintiff Avneet Kaur is proprietor of M/s Karma Contractor and Developers, which was termed as company in SPA Ex PW1/B however, in covenant (1) thereof, authorization to enter into any contract / MoU / agreement on behalf of company was written by hand without any endorsement by the executant plaintiff.
19. On perusal of record, it would also be revealed that MoU Ex CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 14 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:25:57 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket CW1/C executed between plaintiff and defendant was signed by Sh. H.S. Pannu in the capacity of authorized signatory as well as in the capacity of proprietor. It is worthy to note here that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the said MoU Ex CW1/C was executed by Sh. H.S. Pannu being authorized signatory of the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not sign the said MoU Ex CW1/C in any capacity. Similarly rent agreement Ex CW1/D was executed between plaintiff and defendant but the same was not signed or witnessed by Sh. H.S. Pannu in any capacity. In the given circumstances, it is not clear whether plaintiff Avneet Kaur had any knowledge about the said MoU or Sh. H.S. Pannu had any knowledge about the said rent agreement.
20. During the course of cross examination, Sh. H.S. Pannu (PW-1) stated that as per agreement dated 12.09.2014 Ex PW1/C, he, and not plaintiff, had invested Rs. 60 lacs. It be noted that reference to Ex PW1/C in cross examination is in fact reference to MoU Ex CW1/C. However, PW-1 denied the suggestion that he invested more than Rs. 60 lacs as per said MoU. He further admitted that he, and not plaintiff, had started work of consumer goods after executing the said MoU and he had issued few invoices of consumer goods to some other persons. He voluntarily stated that goods under the invoices which he had executed, were never received by him and same were delivered from one customer CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 15 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:26:06 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket to another customer directly by the defendant.
21. During further cross examination, PW-1 admitted that the liability for godown space for stocking goods was upon him as per clause 7 of said MoU. Further, PW-1 stated that cheques mentioned in para no. 5 of Ex PW1/C (i.e.,CW 1/C) were given by the defendant as security towards investment and were not presented in bank for encashment. He further admitted that cheque mentioned at Sl. no. 6 of para 15 of the plaint was also not presented for encashment though, he denied the suggestion that the said cheques were not presented in the bank as no cause of action had arisen. Admittedly, Criminal complaint Ex PW1/O in respect of cheque bearing no. 476917 was dismissed by the Court concerned. PW-1 further admitted that defendant had filed a case to recover a sum of Rs. 63 lacs. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that he was not duly authorized to depose before the Court as SPA was not as per law. He further denied the suggestion that he had given Rs. 30 lacs to the defendant against consumer goods and in return he had received goods worth more than Rs. 63 lacs. All other suggestions were denied by him.
22. It is thus apparent that Sh. H.S.Pannu (PW-1) did not depose in the capacity of holder of power of attorney/ authorized signatory but he deposed as if he was the plaintiff.
CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 16 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:26:14 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
23. In the aforementioned circumstances, deposition of plaintiff Avneet Kaur was material one, however, she chose to not enter into witness box. On her non-examination, reliance placed by learned counsel for the plaintiff upon Pandurang Jivaji Apte (supra), Mehmooda Gulshan (supra) and Junnu Rain (supra) judgments is of no help to the plaintiff as deposition of plaintiff was crucial in the given facts and circumstances. The cited judgments are distinguishable on facts of the present case.
(B) Uncorroborated Ledger entries:-
24. The settled propositions of law regarding evidentiary value of ledger under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, were elaborated in Jay Ambe Industries (supra) case, also relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, to the effect that ledger has no evidentiary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence and there must be corroboration of entries which can be supplied by proving the transaction or by proving the entries in Daily cash book or Roznama.
25. On careful perusal of plaint, testimony of PW-1 and the documents relied upon by plaintiff, it is revealed that there are neither pleadings nor evidence to make out how much money, and in what CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 17 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:26:25 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket manner, was invested by the plaintiff. Plaintiff only averred that huge amount was invested in business proposal. As per Rent Account Ledger and Principal and Interest Account Ledger Ex.PW-1/I (colly.) running into four pages, total outstanding towards defendant was Rs. 77,07,082/- (Rs.5,00,000/-on account of rent + Rs.15,00,000/- on account of interest + Rs. 57,07,082/- on account of investment), however, all the entries except two entries dated 18.09.2014 and 22.09.2014 amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-, were shown as paid in cash. Then, entry dated 20.02.2016 reflect a sum of Rs.2,41,000/- towards expenses of loading/unloading/cartage. No evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove when and in whose presence, such cash transactions took place.
Similarly, not a single document evidencing loading/unloading/cartage was placed on record by the plaintiff. It appears that the whole energy of PW-1 was spent in preparing the aforementioned ledger account but not in leading substantial evidence to corroborate the said entries. In the absence of any independent evidence and any daily cash book, the entries made in Ledger Ex.PW-1/I (Colly) remained uncorroborated and no reliance can be placed thereon.
(C) Defective Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act,1872:
26. Another noteworthy point is that the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Ex PW1/N is a defective one which CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 18 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:26:38 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket does not fulfill the requirements as stipulated in sub section (4) of the said section which are as under:-
"65B. Admissibility of electronic records.- (1) to (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things that is to say,-
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 19 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:26:47 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it."
27. Interestingly, the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Ex PW1/N is in respect of computer printouts of statement of account, emails/letters however, there are no emails/letters communicated between plaintiff and the defendant nor any emails/letters were filed or relied upon by the plaintiff. Moreover, the term 'statement of account' mentioned in the certificate was not explained if the same refers to statement of any bank account or ledger account or any other account. It is also evident that particulars of any device involved in production of aforesaid electronic record were not mentioned in the Certificate Ex.PW-1/N.
28. Therefore, the computer print outs of Rent Account Ledger and Principal and Interest Account Ledger Ex. PW-1/I (colly.) running into four pages, could not be proved as per law and cannot be taken into consideration.
Relief:-
29. In the afore-discussed facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, plaintiff miserably failed to prove that she invested any sum so as to be entitled to seek recovery thereof from the defendant on his CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 20 of 21 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16 16:26:57 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket failure to return the same. In view of categorical admissions as culled out in cross-examination of PW-1 regarding liability for godown space for stocking the goods being on the plaintiff, no question arises to claim rent of the premises from the defendant. As observed above, testimony of plaintiff was material one but she failed to enter into witness box to render herself for cross-examination. Not a single whisper was averred as to why the plaintiff could not come for her deposition, thus adverse inference has to be drawn against her. Plaintiff also failed to corroborate the entries of ledger account by leading substantial evidence and could not prove the ledger account as per law.
30. Accordingly, suit filed by the plaintiff is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs.
31. Decree-Sheet be prepared accordingly.
32. File be consigned to Records after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
Pronounced in the Open Court on NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16
this 16th day of December, 2025 16:27:06
+0530
(Kuldeep Narayan)
District Judge - 02,
South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi/sk
CS DJ No.211919/2016 Avneet Kaur Vs. Shanti Prasasd Page No. 21 of 21
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.16
16:27:13
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket