The court found that acknowledgments made by the defendant constituted a fresh promise to pay, creating a new cause of action and rendering the suit not barred by limitation. The court also held that the interest claimed at 5% per month was excessive under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 and awarded interest at 6% per annum.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,44,00,000/- along with interest against the defendant.

2. "Law: in its nature the noblest and most beneficial to mankind, in its abuse and debasement the most sordid and the most pernicious" observed Henry St. John, Lord Viscount Bolingbroke in Letters on the Study and Use of History (1739). This adage of 1739, holds ground even today and is manifested in its full majesty in this case. The plaintiff prompted by his goodness, agreed to give a loan of Rs. 2.4 crores to the defendant, a friend and a person known to him, inter alia on the following terms as reflected in his e-mail dated December 28, 2006:

"a. The Defendant would pay one time transaction fee of 7.5% on the principal amount of the loan.

b. The Defendant would pay interest @ 5% per month on the principal loan amount of Rs. 2.40 crores.

c. The loan will be secured by the Plaintiff's lien on the receivables from the sale of the said property at 32-F, Sainik Farms, New Delhi, which according to the Defendant was under process of sale and by a mortgage of the said Karnal Property by registered mortgage in favour of the Plaintiff.

d. The principal amount together with interest and fee (collectively "loan") would be repaid by the Defendant preferably within 30 days but definitely within 90 days."

3. Upon acceptance of the above terms by the defendant, vide an email on the same date viz. December 28, 2006, a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- was credited to the account of the defendant in Axis Bank, New Delhi through a Bank Draft issued by the Union Bank, Gurgaon on the directions of the plaintiff. As per the terms, the repayment of the entire loan amount was to be made by 01.04.2007. However, the last payment was made by the defendant on 01.03.2007 and a total amount of Rs.88,00,000/- was repaid. The defendant also defaulted in executing a Mortgage Deed in respect of Karnal property in favour of plaintiff. Further, though the defendant had represented himself to be the owner of property No. 32E, Sainik Farms, New Delhi but the defendant was unable to sell the property on account of some defect in the title deeds. The plaintiff has claimed that the defects in title deeds imply that the defendant had wrongly represented himself to be the owner of Sainik Farms property.

4. The plaintiff wrote various emails and made telephonic calls to the defendant for repayment of the loan, but the defendant failed to refund the entire loan amount by 31.01.2012.

5. The total sum claimed from the defendant is as under:

6. The plaintiff has thus sought recovery of Rs.7,74,00,000/- along with the interest @ 5% p.m. and costs.

7. The defendant who was extended financial assistance by the plaintiff to bail him out of a tricky financial situation, felt cornered and decided to exploit the most "pernicious and sordid" aspect of Law and delayed the admitted loan amount by pulling out all kinds of arrows of objections from his quiver of Code of Civil Procedure. He in his Written Statement, took various preliminary objections. The first objection was that the plaintiff had alleged that loan transaction took place on 28.12.2006 as confirmed by the e-mail of the same date. However, the suit has been filed in the year 2012 i.e. beyond the period of three years from the date of cause of action and therefore, suit is patently barred by limitation.

8. The second preliminary objection is that the plaintiff has filed an earlier Civil Suit bearing No. CS OS 777/2011 for the recovery of sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- which is pending. While instituting the said suit, plaintiff did not seek permission from the court under Order II Rule 2 of Schedule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) a