Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Mr. Pradeep, S/o. Sh. Om Prakash - Appellant
Versus
Ms. Kiran Naithani D/o, Sh. Shanti Srup Naithani - Respondent
RFA 23 of 2025, CM APPL. 1520 of 2025 & 1521 of 2025
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhruv Chawla.
For the Respondent: Mr. Karan Singh.
Even in ex-parte proceedings, a plaintiff must establish their cause of action through reliable and admissible evidence. A court cannot mechanically decree a claim on default; it must scrutinize the material on record to ensure the factual and legal veracity of the claim.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 1 - Civil litigation - Suit for recovery - Ex parte proceedings - Burden of proof.
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Duty of court - Even when a defendant is proceeded against ex parte, the court is under a duty to satisfy itself about the factual and legal veracity of the claim - Plaintiff must establish the case on the basis of credible and admissible evidence - Mechanical decree on default is not permissible. (Paras 29-31)
(C) Evidence - Documentary evidence - Evidentiary value - Receipts lacking official seal, stamp, or clear link to the service provider are insufficient to prove payment - Non-contested status of documents does not automatically render them reliable proof of liability if they lack inherent evidentiary value. (Paras 33-35)
Facts of the case:
The appellant initiated a civil suit for the recovery of professional fees for engineering and architectural services. The respondent did not contest the proceedings. The trial court dismissed the suit, noting that the receipts produced were not formally verified, lacked identification markers, and failed to prove liability, and that primary evidence regarding the alleged service failure was absent.
Findings of Court:
The evidence provided by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish the claim; there was no proof that the persons receiving money were authorized representatives, and there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the breach of service agreement.
Issues: Whether the trial court correctly assessed the evidence in an ex-parte suit and whether the documentation sufficiently established the financial liability of the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court must ensure that the plaintiff's evidence stands the test of reliability and proof, regardless of the defendant's non-appearance, as the burden of proof rests solely on the plaintiff to establish the cause of action.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and initiation of civil recovery proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. trial court evaluation of evidentiary reliability in ex parte cases. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. appellate arguments regarding misappreciation of unrebutted evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. burden of proof remains on plaintiff regardless of ex-parte status. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. insufficiency of evidence confirms dismissal of recovery suit. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, against the ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 04.11.2022, of the learned Additional District Judge-02, New Delhi, whereby the Suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.7,46,900/-, was dismissed.
2. The Civil Suit bearing CS DJ No. 284/2020 was filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff, seeking recovery of Rs.7,46,900/-.
3. The facts as narrated in the Plaint, were that the Plaintiff Fida Hussain, was introduced to the Defendant through a common friend in the beginning of January, 2016. The Defendant claimed himself to be a Civil Engineer and a registered Architect, engaged in preparation of building plans and obtaining sanctions from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The Plaintiff, intending to avail such services in respect of property bearing No. 1738, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi, approached the Defendant for preparation and sanction of the building plan.
4. The Defendant informed the Plaintiff that a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- would be required as his professional charges and out of the said amount, some amount will be paid towards statutory fees, payable to MCD. Believing the representations, the Plaintiff handed over all the relevant documents pertaining to the property to him.
5. Initially, the Building plan was submitted by the Defendant and the Plaintiff signed the requisite documents, whenever required, and also made payments from time to time, to the persons at his instruction, against the Receipt. The last payment was made on 16.03.2017 through cheque bearing No.149468 for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, and the said cheque was given in blank on the request of the Defendant, which was encashed in the account of Ms. Aasif, stated to be related to the Defendant. The payments were made on the assurance that the Defendant would render the agreed services, however, since the said services were not provided, the Plaintiff claimed refund of the said amount.
6. However, despite repeated assurances by the Defendant that the work would be completed, no substantial progress was made and the Defendant gradually stopped responding to the calls and communications of the Plaintiff.
7. Thereafter, Plaintiff started receiving letter from MCD for completion of the formalities, while the Defendant stopped responding to his telephonic calls and communications. In the compelling circumstances and non-cooperation of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was constrained to avail the services of another Architect for completion of the requisite formalities and incurred additional expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-.
8. Despite receiving substantial amounts from the Plaintiff for rendering the agreed services, the Defendant failed to perform his obligations and did not refund the amount, despite repeated requests. Consequently, the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 15.06.2019 for refund the said amount. However, the Defendant failed to make the payment.
9. The Plaintiff, thus, filed the Suit for Recovery of Rs.7,46,900/-, comprising the principal amount of Rs.4,85,000/- along with interest calculated at the rate of 18% from 17th March 2017 to till date of filing of suit a sum of Rs.2,81,900/-.
10. The Defendant/Respondent was duly served with the Summon on 14.01.2021. However, despite se
