The court's decision was influenced by the un-rebutted evidence and the defendant's failure to repay the loan, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.

G.S.SISTANI, J.

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.22,10,000/-together with interest @18%, per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till realization.

2. Upon service of summons, defendant entered appearance and also filed written statement. Since, none appeared on behalf of the defendant on 13.1.2009, the defendant was proceeded ex parte on 13.1.2009. Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file ex parte evidence and the matter was placed before Joint Registrar for marking exhibits on documents. Plaintiff has filed her ex parte evidence by way of affidavit, which is Exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. In the affidavit, the plaintiff has deposed on the lines of the plaint.

3. In the affidavit, the plaintiff has deposed that in January, 1976, she was allotted an Industrial Shed bearing No.185 in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, by Delhi State Industrial Development (DSIDC). In February, 2007, the defendant desired his intention to purchase the Industrial Shed of the plaintiff bearing no.185. At that time the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he had already purchased another Shed bearing no.154, DSIDC, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, of Sh.S.K. Dey. Believing the averments made by the defendant, plaintiff agreed to sell her shed to the defendant. During this time, the plaintiff also received various offers from other persons to purchase her Shed. She has further deposed that in the month of March, 2007, the defendant backed out from the agreement arrived at with her on account of some financial crisis and due to certain problems, which cropped up with respect to Shed No.154. Since the defendant backed out from the agreement arrived at with the plaintiff, the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay compensation to her. The defendant in order to avoid payment of compensation to the plaintiff had represented the plaintiff that a relative of the defendant, namely, Sh.Naresh Yadav, who was running the business under the name and style of Shivam Infocom Private Limited, is interested in purchasing the said Shed of the plaintiff. The defendant introduced Sh.Naresh Yadav to the plaintiff. Sh.Naresh Yadav had agreed to purchase Shed NO.185 of the plaintiff and even paid some part payment to the plaintiff in March, 2007, to June, 2007. During the process of negotiation of sale with the defendant, the defendant became friendly with the plaintiff and gained confidence of the plaintiff. In April, 2007, the defendant requested the plaintiff to give a friendly loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs to him on the ground that owners of Shed Nos.85 and 54 are selling some portion of their shed at lesser prices and he wanted to purchase the same. The defendant also requested the plaintiff that she may request Shivam Infocom Private Limited to pay the said amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to the defendant which may be adjusted from the sale proceedings in respect of her said Shed. The defendant promised to repay the said loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs to the plaintiff within a short span of time. Believing the representation of the defendant the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.20.00 lakhs to the defendant as a friendly loan with the understanding that defendant would clear the said loan within a short period. The plaintiff has also deposed that thereafter the plaintiff requested Shivam Infocom Private Limited vide communication dated 1.4.2007 to pay a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs to the defendant out of the sale proceedings in respect of the said Shed. The communication dated 1.4.2007 has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1. At the request of the plaintiff, Shivam Infocom Private Limited paid the defendant Rs.20.00 lakhs. Defendant issued a duly signed receipt dated 4.4.2007 acknowledging to have received Rs.14.00 lakhs, which amount has been adjusted by Sh.Naresh Yadav, owner of Shivam Infocom, out of the sale proceeds of the plaintiff’s shed NO.185. Receipt issued by defendant dated 4.4.2007 has been exhibited