$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29^th May, 2025 + CS(OS) 694/2024 KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal and Ms. Ridhi Bajaj, Advocates.

versus M/S SURGE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Ninad Dogra, Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Mr. Vishal Bharadwaj and Mr. Devesh Diwakar Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 12254/2025

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of CPC, 1908 for passing a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants in the sum of Rs.3,17,18,750/- along with interest @ 15% on the decretal amount till payment.

2. This is a summary suit filed by the Plaintiffs for recovery of the aforestated amount with interest. Facts to the extent necessary are that Defendants No. 2 and 3, who are partners in Defendant No. 1, approached the Plaintiffs for a friendly loan @ 15% per annum in December, 2020. Various amounts were advanced to Defendant No. 1 from December, 2020 under a Loan Agreement executed on 12.04.2024. Four cheques were issued Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 694/2024 Page 1 of 8 by the Defendants towards payment of Rs. 2,90,00,000/-, the details of which are mentioned in the plaint and are as follows:-

3. On deposit of the cheques by the Plaintiffs, the same were dishonoured, leading to filing of the present suit, based on the Loan Agreement; cheques issued by the Defendants, which were dishonoured; and WhatsApp chats and recorded conversations, wherein Defendants acknowledged the debt.

4. Summons were issued in the suit on 30.08.2024 and by the same order, Court restrained the Defendants from creating third party rights and interest in their share of the properties mentioned in the order. Defendants entered appearance on 10.09.2024 and filed an application for grant of leave to defend on 28.09.2024, primarily on the ground that the suit was not maintainable as the amounts were to be paid only by 31.03.2029 and the interest was reduced to 9% per annum. By a detailed judgment 07.01.2025, Court granted conditional leave to defend to the Defendants, subject to Defendants furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 2 crores, either in the form of movable or immovable property or in combination of both, to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court within four months from the date of the order. It is significant to note that the Court granted conditional leave to defend to the Defendants since Defendants themselves acknowledged the debt of Rs. 2 crores as due and payable and this was also reflected in the ledgers and Income Tax Returns filed by the Defendants.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 694/2024 Page 2 of 8 Plaint was registered as a suit and Defendants and Plaintiffs were granted time to file the written statement and replication respectively.

5. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an application being I.A. 2038/2025 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC, 1908 for a direction to the Defendants to disclose the assets and for restraining them from creating any third-party rights in the assets detailed in paragraph 5 of the application, on which notice was issued by the Court on 24.01.2025 and the Defendants sought time to file a reply. Reply was filed by the Defendants but the assets disclosed did not inspire confidence and Defendants were directed to file another affidavit indicating immovable/movable assets. While this application was pending, Plaintiffs filed the present application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of CPC for passing a decree, on which notice was issued on 14.05.2025.

6. Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that by judgment dated 07.01.2025, Court had granted conditional leave to the Defendants, subject to their furnishing security of Rs. 2 crores, either in the form of movable or immovable property or in combination of both within a