7/13/25, 10:29 PM Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025

Mobile View

Free features Premium features Case removal

Search
Warning on translation Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer Download Court Copy
Select Language
Powered by Translate

Select the following parts of the judgment

Facts Issues Petitioner's Arguments Respondent's Arguments

Analysis of the law Precedent Analysis Court's Reasoning Conclusion

For entire document

Mark above structure Remove all markings Learn how

View how precedents are cited in this document

Mark all precedents View only precedents Select precedent ... Remove precedent markings Learn how

Filter precedents by opinion of the court

Relied by Party Accepted by Court Negatively Viewed by Court No clear sentiment

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches
your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.

Delhi District Court

Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025
DLST010081172019

In the Court of Sh. Munish Bansal,

District Judge-03, South District,
Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi.

CS DJ No. : 727/2019

Sh. Ashwani Garg,

S/o Sh. H.L. Garg,
R/o 2/27, First Floor,
Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi- 110017. .... Plaintiff

Versus

Sh. Kewal Krishan Garg,

S/o Late Sh. Banarsi Dass Garg,
R/o L-79, Sushant City,
Kalwar Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. .... Defendant

Suit presented on : 05.12.2019

Arguments Concluded on : 25.03.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 27.03.2025

Suit no. 727/2019 Digitally signed Page no. 1 of 20

by MUNISH
BANSAL
MUNISH Date:
BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:18:55
+0530
SUIT FOR RECOVERY

JUDGMENT

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101380655/ 1/7
7/13/25, 10:29 PM Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) for recovery of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) along with pendente lite and future interest against the defendant.

2. Facts in brief are that the defendant is relative/ maternal uncle of the plaintiff and was having regular meeting terms with
plaintiff being in close relation since childhood of plaintiff. In September 2008, the plaintiff approached the defendant and
requested the defendant to lend a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with an assurance to return the same within two years. The defendant
promised to help the plaintiff financially but informed the plaintiff that he could arrange only Rs.11,40,000/-. The defendant
had given Rs.2 Lakh, Rs.3 Lakh, Rs.2 Lakh, Rs.3 Lakh and Rs.1,40,000/- between 03.10.2008 to 06.10.2008 and thus, the
plaintiff was liable to repay Rs.11,40,000/- to the defendant. On 23.04.2009, the plaintiff commenced the process of
discharging his debt to the defendant and paid Rs.3,40,000/- to the defendant vide cheque no. 085962 dt. 23.04.2009, drawn on
State Bank of Indore, New Delhi, leaving balance amount of Rs.8 Lakh to be paid to the defendant.

Suit no. 727/2019 by MUNISH Page no. 2 of 20

MUNISH Date:
BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:18:59
+0530

2.1. It is further averred that in the beginning of September 2010, the defendant approached the plaintiff expressing dire need of
money and requested to lend him, Rs.15 Lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.8 Lakh could be deducted towards the outstanding
dues and the defendant would repay Rs.7 Lakhs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeking to reciprocate the gesture of the
defendant, granted a friendly loan of Rs.15,00,000/- vide cheque no. 082749 dated 01.11.2010, drawn on State Bank of Indore,
New Delhi. The defendant promised to payback the said amount of Rs.7 Lakhs within two years failing which the defendant
agreed to repay the said amount with interest thereon @15% per annum. After lapse of two years, sometimes in the end of
January 2014, the plaintiff enquired the defendant about repayment of amount and interest thereon to which defendant pleaded
his tight financial condition and assured to discharge liability at the earliest alongwith interest. Thereafter, the plaintiff again
tried in year 2015 and 2016, however, the defendant kept delaying the repayment amount on one pretext or other. The plaintiff,
thereafter, incessantly followed up the defendant upon which the defendant issued a cheque no. 182128 dated 29.06.2017,
drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Atpar Branch, Jaipur, Rajasthan for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff from the
account jointly held by defendant and his wife Smt. Darshana Devi Garg, in part discharge of his liability. The defendant while
handing over the cheque to plaintiff, requested the plaintiff not to present the cheque without taking confirmation.

Digitally
Suit no. 727/2019 signed by Page no. 3 of 20
MUNISH
MUNISH BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.03.27
17:19:04
+0530

On 19.07.2017, after confirming the factum of cheque getting cleared, the plaintiff presented the said cheque, however, the said
cheque got dishonoured vide Return Memo dated 20.07.2017 for the reason that account has been closed. Thereafter, defendant
intentionally and deliberately started avoiding the calls of plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a demand notice dated 29.07.2017 to
defendant which was duly served on 03.08.2017. As the plaintiff found a typographical error of the date, he sent a corrigendum
notice to defendant by speed post as well as by registered AD which was also served upon the defendant, however, defendant
has not complied with the notice. The defendant sent an email dated 19.08.2017 to plaintiff's lawyer thereby denying issuance
of cheque in question and alleging that plaintiff had stolen the cheque in question and hard copy of the said reply was received
on 21.08.2017. It is stated that the allegation of the defendant is absolutely false.

2.2. On these grounds, it is prayed that the defendant is liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with pendente
lite and future interest @15% p.a. w.e.f. 29.06.2017 till the final disposal of the suit, hence this suit.

3. Summons under prescribed format under Order XXXVII CPC were sent to the defendant and upon service of summons, the
defendant entered his appearance. Thereafter, upon issuance of Suit no. 727/2019 by MUNISH Page no. 4 of 20 MUNISH
Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:19:08
+0530

summons for judgment, the defendant has filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC read with Section 151
CPC seeking leave to defend alongwith application seeking condonation of delay in filing the said application seeking leave to
defend.

3.1. Vide order dated 22.03.2022, the delay was condoned and application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC r/w Section
151 CPC was allowed thereby granting unconditional leave to defend to the defendant. The defendant was further directed to
file written statement.

4. In written statement, the defendant has stated that the present suit is false and frivolous; that no cause of action has arisen
against the defendant; that the defendant never lent any loan of Rs.11,40,000/- to the plaintiff as alleged and that he was never
engaged in any commercial transaction with plaintiff.

4.1. In reply on merits, the contents of plaint are denied and it is stated that the plaintiff has never approached the defendant for
financial help of Rs.12 Lakh and that defendant has never lent Rs.11,40,000/- to the plaintiff as alleged. It is further stated that
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101380655/ 2/7
7/13/25, 10:29 PM Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025
plaintiff has never issued any cheque in favour of defendant as alleged in para 4 of the plaint. It is further stated that defendant
has never approached the plaintiff to lent him Rs.15 Lakhs. It is further Suit no. 727/2019 by MUNISH Page no. 5 of 20
MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:19:12
+0530

stated that cheque in question was never issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff and stated that account of the defendant
stood closed for the last 8-9 years. It is stated that the cheque book containing the cheque in question and some other blank
signed cheques used to remain at the residence of defendant owing to serious illness of his wife between 2012-2014 for any
sudden use by the family members and the plaintiff being known to the family visited the residence of defendant on some
occasions to enquire about well being of wife of defendant, who later on died of serious illness on 29.12.2014. The plaintiff
somehow came across an opportunity to steal the cheque in question and has misused the same. It is stated that there was no
occasion for the defendant to issue any cheque to the plaintiff as there was no financial transaction between them and that the
alleged cheque dated 01.11.2010 of Rs.15 Lakh was never issued or received by the defendant. Citing these grounds, it is stated
that suit of the plaintiff is false and baseless and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Replication to written statement is filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein the contentions made by the defendant in his
written statement are denied and pleading made in the plaint are reiterated and reaffirmed to be correct. It is prayed that suit of
the plaintiff be decreed.

Suit no. 727/2019 MUNISH BANSAL Page no. 6 of 20

BANSAL Date:
2025.03.27
17:19:16 +0530

6. From pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 01.12.2022:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) from the defendant, as payed
for? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on such sum? If yes, at what rate
and for which period? OPP

3. Relief.

Thereafter, matter was listed for PE.

7. To prove his case, the plaintiff Sh. Ashwani Garg himself stepped in witness box as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he made similar averments as made in the plaint. He placed reliance on following documents:-

1. Certified copy of the dishonoured cheque bearing no. 182128 for an amount of Rs.10 lacs Ex. PW-1/1.

2. Certified copy of return memo Ex. PW-1/2.

3. Office copy of legal notice dated 29.07.2017 alongwith postal receipts and tracking report Ex. PW-1/3 (colly).

4. Office copy of corrigendum of legal notice dated 29.07.2017 Suit no. 727/2019 by MUNISH Page no. 7 of 20
MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27 17:19:22 +0530 Ex. PW-1/4.

5. Copy of reply dated 18.08.2017 of defendant Ex. PW-1/5.

PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. During cross-examination, the plaintiff has admitted that he has
not placed on record any document to show partial return of alleged loan amount and also admitted that he has not placed on
record any document to show that he had given Rs.15 Lakh to the defendant in year 2010, however, he voluntarily stated that
he has placed on record all the documents that were in his possession. He denied the suggestion that date, amount and name on
cheque in question were not filled by the defendant. He further stated that he did not receive any reply to legal notice
Ex.PW1/3 and corrigendum notice Ex. PW1/4, however, admitted the suggestion that he has mentioned in his evidence
affidavit that his counsel has received reply to legal notice sent by defendant which is Ex. PW1/5.

Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was listed to DE.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101380655/ 3/7
7/13/25, 10:29 PM Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025
8. In defence, the defendant appeared as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/1 wherein he made
similar deposition as made in his written statement. He was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. During cross-
examination, he stated that father of plaintiff was his cousin. He stated that he had received a notice from the lawyer of plaintiff
regarding bouncing of Digitally Suit no. 727/2019 signed by Page no. 8 of 20 MUNISH MUNISH BANSAL BANSAL Date:

2025.03.27 17:19:26 +0530 cheque and this was the first time when he got to know about the factum of cheque being
bounced. He stated that he met plaintiff at plaintiff's chacha's house after bouncing of cheque for settling the matter. He
voluntarily added that there are two other matters between plaintiff (his wife and another relative at the behest of the
plaintiff), against his son. He admitted that he has stated in his reply to legal notice that plaintiff had stolen the cheque
from my residence and added that it may be from the office of his son because he was meeting his son, however, how
plaintiff got the cheque he did not know. He admitted that he has not filed any police complaint against the plaintiff for
theft of cheque. He denied the suggestion that cheque is question is for return of amount taken by him from the plaintiff.
He further deposed that his son did not take any loan from the plaintiff but there were many transactions which took place
between the plaintiff and his son, but those cannot be treated as loan. He further stated that he is not aware about all the
things with regard to his son's dealings. He stated that his bank account was closed in year 2013. He denied the
suggestion that he had issued cheque to plaintiff in year 2017 towards discharge of his loan liability.

Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.

9. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and carefully perused the material on record. My Suit
no. 727/2019 BANSAL Page no. 9 of 20 MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:19:30
+0530
issue-wise findings are as under.

Issues no. 1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) from the defendant, as payed for? OPP

10. Onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in order to establish his case, has in his plaint averred and
deposed in his evidence that in September 2008, plaintiff approached the defendant and requested the defendant to lend a sum
of Rs. 12 lacs but defendant could arrange only Rs. 11,40,000/- which was given by way of different installments between
03.10.2008 to 06.10.2008 and plaintiff vide cheque no. 085962 dated 23.04.2009 paid Rs. 3,40,000/- to the defendant leaving
balance amount of Rs. 8 lacs to be paid to the defendant. Plaintiff has further averred that in September 2010, defendant
approached the plaintiff expressing dire need of money amounting to Rs. 15 lacs and the plaintiff reciprocated the earlier
gesture of the defendant by granting a friendly loan of Rs. 15 lacs vide cheque no. 082749 dated 01.11.2010 and the defendant,
after setting off the sum of Rs. 8 lacs due by the plaintiff towards the defendant, promise to pay back the remaining amount of
Rs. 7 lacs within two years failing which the defendant agreed to repay the said amount with interest thereon at the rate of 15
%. Plaintiff has also Suit no. 727/2019 MUNISH BANSAL Page no. 10 of 20 BANSAL 2025.03.27 17:19:35 +0530 averred
and deposed that on repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant, defendant issued cheque no. 182128 dated
29.06.2017 Ex. PW-1/1 for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the account jointly held by the defendant and defendant's wife in part
discharge of his liability but however, the said cheque on being presented on 19.07.2017, got dishonoured vide return memo
dated 20.07.2017 Ex. PW-1/2 for the reason 'account has been closed.' 10.1. In cross examination, plaintiff appearing as PW1
has admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show either with regard to the partial return of the loan amount
alleged to be taken by the plaintiff from the defendant and also with regard to payment of Rs. 15 lacs to the defendant. Though
the defendant has denied having any transaction(s) with the plaintiff, which the plaintiff alleged in his plaint however, no proof
has been tendered by the defendant also that there were no transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. Counsel for the
defendant has relied upon the judgment in Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar V. Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors AIR 1968 Supreme Court
1413. The said judgment relates to adverse inference being drawn against the party who fails to produce the documents
admitted to be in his possession. However, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the
present case the claim is based upon a cheque and there is a statutory presumption of cheque being drawn or made for Suit no.
727/2019 by MUNISH Page no. 11 of 20 MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:19:40
+0530

consideration in favour of the plaintiff in whose favour cheque was drawn.

10.2. Counsel for the defendant has also argued that plaintiff has only exhibited the certified copies of the documents which are
secondary evidence. In this regard, counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment in Shri Satish Janardhan Bhusari V.
Ramesh & Ors WP 6707 /2016 High Court of Bombay. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff has contended that as per Section 79
of Indian Evidence Act, presumption of genuineness is attached to the certified copies of the documents duly certified by the
concerned Authority and that no objection as to mode of proof was taken at the time of the tendering of the said documents.
Notably no objection was raised as to mode of proof at the time of tendering the documents in evidence by the plaintiff. Even
in the aforesaid judgment cited by the counsel for the plaintiff, it is observed that objection which is directed towards the mode
of proof of the document alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient, should be taken when the evidence is tendered and
once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not be admitted in
evidence or that mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to
the marking of the document as an exhibit. In view thereof, the said plea/ objection raised by the counsel for the defendant is
not tenable.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101380655/ 4/7
7/13/25, 10:29 PM Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025

Suit no. 727/2019 Digitally signed Page no. 12 of 20

by MUNISH
MUNISH BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.03.27
17:19:45 +0530

10.3. The plaintiff has based his claim in the present suit on the basis of cheque Ex. PW1/1. In the WS and even in reply Ex.
PW1/5 to the legal notice Ex. PW1/3 (Colly) and corrigendum of legal notice Ex. PW1/4, defendant has raised the issue that
the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, though denying that there has been exchange of money transaction between the
plaintiff and the defendant. The said plea of limitation is not tenable as the cheque is a promise within the meaning of Section
25 (3) Contract Act and is still enforceable. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case
titled as Rajeev Kumar Vs. The State NCT Of Delhi & Anr CRL. L.P 212/2021.

10.4. Perusal of the pleadings of the defendant as well as the testimony of the defendant including his cross examination shows
that the defendant has not disputed his signatures on the cheque Ex. PW1/1 nor has he disputed that the cheque has not been
issued with regard to the bank account maintained by him. Herein relevant is Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (in short NI Act) by which presumption is there that every negotiable was made or drawn for consideration until contrary
is proved. In the light of the factum that there is no denial to the signatures on the said cheque being that of the defendant, there
is a presumption against the plaintiff and against the defendant that the said cheque was made or Suit no. 727/2019 Digitally
signed Page no. 13 of 20 by MUNISH BANSAL MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:19:50
+0530

drawn for consideration. Burden lies upon the defendant to rebut or displace the said presumption. Once there is a presumption
in favour of the plaintiff, it is for the defendant to show and prove that the cheque was not drawn or made for consideration. It
is for the defendant to prove that no money transactions were there between the plaintiff and the defendant including those
alleged by the plaintiff in the present suit. Defendant has alleged that no money transactions took place between the plaintiff
and the defendant but the defendant has also not produced any proof including statement of his bank account for the relevant
period to show that there were no money trnasactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. The only plea that has been taken
by the defendant is that the said cheque was stolen by the plaintiff. In this regard, defendant in his WS has stated that blank
signed cheques used to remain at the residence of defendant owing to serious illness of his wife between 2012-2014 for any
sudden use by the family members and the plaintiff came across an opportunity to steal the cheque during the period when the
wife of the defendant was seriously ill and plaintiff being known to the family of the defendant has visited the residence of the
defendant on some occasion to enquire about the well being of the wife of the defendant. During cross examination by the
counsel for the defendant, PW1/plaintiff has denied the suggestion that when wife of the defendant was admitted in hospital, he
took the blank signed cheques from the house of the plaintiff and misused the same. Thus, Suit no. 727/2019 Digitally signed
Page no. 14 of 20 by MUNISH BANSAL MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:19:54
+0530

there is an admission on part of the defendant that the cheque in question was taken from the house of the defendant at the time
when the wife of the defendant was alive and was admitted in hospital. In his cross examination, DW1 has stated that the
plaintiff and his wife came to meet the defendant once on the death of the wife of the defendant and once thereafter, meaning
thereby that the cheque, if stolen by the plaintiff, would have been stolen subsequent to the death of the wife of the defendant,
which is inconsistent with the aforementioned averment/plea made in the WS. In the cross examination, DW1 also admits that
in his reply to legal notice, he has stated that plaintiff has stolen the cheque from the defendant's residence or it may be from
the office of his son because plaintiff was meeting his son but he does not know how the plaintiff got the cheque. The same is
different from the stand taken in the WS where cheque is stated to be stolen from the residence of the defendant. Thus,
defendant's stand regarding the place and time of stealing of the cheque is inconsistent and wavering. The said wavering stand
of the defendant dilutes the credibility of defendant as witness.

10.5. In cross examination, defendant has stated that the bank account from which cheque was issued was closed in year 2013.
He further deposes that he knows that usually, bank takes cheque book at the time of closing the bank account and that after
2013, he would not have the cheques for the said account. He also admits that Suit no. 727/2019 by MUNISH Page no. 15 of
20 MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:19:58
+0530

plaintiff was not aware that his account was closed or not in year 2013. Thus, in these circumstances, it was for the defendant to
prove and show as to how the plaintiff got the said cheque. Mere averment or pleading cannot substitute the proof. A mere
statement that the cheque was not stolen is not enough. In view of the wavering stand taken by the defendant regarding the theft
of the cheque. Admittedly, neither any police complaint or any suit was filed in the court qua the theft of the said cheque. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, the defendant has not been able to rebut and displace the presumption under section 118 (a) of
NI Act in favour of the plaintiff. It is to be understood that the standard of proof in civil case is one of preponderance of
probabilities, in distinction with the standard of proof in criminal case which is 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101380655/ 5/7
7/13/25, 10:29 PM Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025
10.6. The contention on behalf of the defendant that cheque was stolen somewhere around year 2014 also does not appear to be
tenable because if the plaintiff was having blank cheque of the defendant in the year 2014 itself, then he would not have waited
till year 2017 to present the same. Moreover, even if the contention of the defendant that there were no transactions between the
plaintiff and the defendant, is believed to be true, then it was quite easy for the plaintiff to mention in his suit that the defendant
has borrowed a friendly loan in the year 2017 itself and issued a cheque in question in discharge of the said liability. Plaintiff in
his plaint has pleaded in Suit no. 727/2019 Page no. 16 of 20 MUNISH BANSAL BANSAL Date:

2025.03.27 17:20:02 +0530 detail about the inter-se dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. In
view of the above-said discussion, the bona- fides of the plaintiff cannot be doubted.

10.7. Moreover, if the plea of drawer of the cheque that the blank signed cheque has been stolen and the account of the
drawer has been closed much prior to the drawing /issuance of the same, is believed on its bare assertion, then every
unscrupulous debtor would use the said modus-operandi of issuing cheques of which account has already been closed
much prior to the issuance and thereafter raise a plea that the cheque has been misused by the payee of the cheque. In this
scenario, a bona-fide creditor (payee of the cheque) would come to know about the factum of the account already been
closed only after dishonour of the cheque and if aforesaid plea of the drawer of the cheque is permitted, then the creditor
/payee of the cheque would be rendered remediless.

10.8. In order to butress the plea of the defendant that the cheque was stolen or taken away by the plaintiff, counsel for
the defendant has submitted that for the sake of arguments, even if it is admitted that loan was advanced by the plaintiff to
the defendant in year 2010, then there was no requirement or need for the defendant to issue the cheque in question for a
time barred claim/ loan amount. In this regard, Section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is Suit no. 727/2019
Digitally signed Page no. 17 of 20 by MUNISH BANSAL MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27
17:20:06
+0530

relevant as per which cheque is a promise and is enforceable. The signatures on the cheque are not disputed by the
defendant. This reasoning that defendant shall not issue the cheque for time barred claim cannot accepted as an absolute
proof or explanation for the theft of the cheque because if the said reasoning is accepted on its bare submission, then
Section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would become a redundant provision since the said plea/ reasoning can be
taken by anyone who issues cheques in discharge of liability for the time barred debt. The defence of theft of cheque has
not been sufficiently proved to rebut the presumption under Section 118 (a) of NI Act. It is also not proved that version of
the plaintiff putforth in the plaint stands falsified by the evidence especially in the cross examination of the plaintiff.
Thus, the abovesaid presumption stands intact in favour of the plaintiff.

10.9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is satisfied that pleadings and evidence of the defendant are not
sufficient to rebut or displace the presumption as envisaged by Section 118 (a) NI Act in favour of the plaintiff. As a
sequel of the foregoing, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is held
entitle to recover a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the defendant.

Issue no. 2 Suit no. 727/2019 Digitally Page no. 18 of 20 signed by MUNISH MUNISH BANSAL BANSAL Date:

2025.03.27 17:20:11 +0530 If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on such
sum? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP

10. The onus to prove the said issue was also on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 15 % with effect from
29.06.2017 till the final disposal of the suit. Apart from the bare assertion in the plaint as well as in his deposition
contained in the evidence affidavit, there is nothing on record to shows that rate of interest at the rate of 15 % was agreed
upon by both the sides including the defendant. There is also nothing on record to show that as from what time, interest
shall be payable. It is to be noted that plaintiff himself in his plaint has asserted that the cheque in question was to be
presented and was so presented on 19.07.2017, only after confirmation from the defendant and the cheque in question
was dishonoured on 20.07.2017. In the heading of the suit, suit is mentioned for recovery alongwith pendente-lite and
future interest.

However, in the relief clause interest is claimed till the final disposal of the suit. In these facts and circumstances and guided by
Section 34 of CPC, 1908, this court deems it fit to grant interest @ 6 % per annum (calculated on simple interest basis) on the
aforesaid decreetal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, from 20.07.2017 till the disposal of the present suit.

Digitally
Suit no. 727/2019 signed by Page no. 19 of 20
MUNISH
MUNISH BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.03.27
17:20:19
+0530

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101380655/ 6/7
7/13/25, 10:29 PM Ashwani Garg vs Kewal Krishan Garg on 27 March, 2025
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present issue stands decided in the aforesaid terms.

Relief

11. In view of the findings given on the issues, the present suit is decree in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to
recover principal amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the defendant alongwith interest @ 6 % calculated with effect from
20.07.2017 till the disposal of the present suit. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be
prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by MUNISH BANSAL MUNISH Date:

BANSAL 2025.03.27 17:20:27 Announced in the Open Court +0530 on 27.03.2025 (Munish Bansal) District Judge-03,
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi Suit no. 727/2019 Page no. 20 of 20

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101380655/ 7/7