JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

RFA(COMM) 300/2026 CM APPL. 29766/2026 CM APPL. 29767/2026

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, [‘CPC’] against judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed by Commercial Court- 01, East, Karkardooma Courts in CS (Comm) No. 222/2021 titled as Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) v. Yogesh Kumar Sharma whereby the learned District Judge has decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent for a sum of Rs. 6,69,202/-, along with interest at rate of 11% per annum and penal interest at the rate 2% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

Factual Matrix

2. The Respondent vide sanction letter dated 21.09.2015 authorized a term loan of the amount 5,27,000/- to the appellant for the purchase of a radio taxi, i.e., Hyundai Xcent Car.

3. It is the case of the Appellant that he entered into an agreement dated 26.05.2015 with M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the business of providing radio taxi services. And, as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, since the Appellant opted to operate the taxi in a single shift, the first 24 EMIs of the loan were payable by the Appellant, while the remaining 36 EMIs were agreed to be borne and paid by M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd.

4. It is stated that pursuant to the agreement dated 26.05.2015, the Appellant had paid EMIs amounting to the sum of Rs. 2,64,748/- to the Respondent Bank; however, M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. failed to comply with its obligations under the said agreement and defaulted in the payment of remaining EMIs to the Respondent bank.

5. The Respondent bank initially entered into a settlement with the Appellant before the Lok Adalat held in the year 2018 and in the award passed at the Lok Adalat, the Appellant acknowledged its liability for a sum of Rs. 5,03,874/-, which was to be paid in the manner recorded therein.

6. However, the Appellant did not make payments as per the award and therefore, the Respondent Bank instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,69,202 /- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

7. The Appellant contested the suit by filing his written statement and denied its liability to make any payment to the Respondent. It also moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. as a necessary party, on the ground that the transaction in question with the bank arose out of an agreement dated 26.05.2015 executed between the Appellant and M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. The said application was, however, dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.10.2022 holding that M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. is not a necessary or a proper party.

8. The suit proceeded to trial, parties led evidence and thereafter, by the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2023, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent Bank.

9. The Appellant subsequently filed a suit i.e., CS No. 71/2025 for a declaration and mandatory injunction against M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. and the Respondent Bank in 2025, which was held not maintainable by the District Court vide order dated 03.04.2025, with liberty to the Appellant to pursue appropriate remedies before the Executing Court or to seek enforcement of the agreement dated 26.05.2015 executed with M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd.

10. The Appellant thereafter filed Ex. (COMM) No. 04/2026 being objections under Section 47 of CPC before the Executing Court, which was seeking to implement the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2023, agitating the plea of liability of M/s Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. This application was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 20.03.2026. Consequent thereto, warrants of attachment have been issued against the Appellant in the execution proceedings.

11. In this background of facts, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal, contending that the judgment dated 18.04.2023 has been passed withou