Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J
VINOD KRIPASHANKAR PATHAK @ VINOD PATHAK @ V KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
COL (RETD) RAMPAL SUHAG – Respondent
RFA 818/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Saran Suri, Ms. Ruchi Jani, Mr. Sahil Goyal
For the Respondents:Respondent in-person
Contradictory claims about financial transactions necessitate clarity in legal proceedings, and a withdrawn suit without explicit liberty for subsequent claims may impact legal rights.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Regular first appeal challenging a judgment regarding a loan amount - Appellant contends contradictory stands taken by respondent about the loan’s advancement - Earlier suit was withdrawn without granting liberty for a subsequent claim - Discretion of the plaintiff to withdraw rests with court unless exceptional circumstances are present. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Withdrawal and Liberty - A withdrawal of a suit does not automatically allow the plaintiff to institute a new suit unless expressly granted by the court despite the discretion accorded. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a judgment concerning a loan of Rs. 15 lacs allegedly given to the appellant, with contradictory claims about its source, which led to procedural complications. The earlier suit was withdrawn without permission for follow-up actions, raising the principle of res judicata.
Findings of Court:
The court notes the absence of liberty to file a subsequent suit and emphasizes the importance of consistency in claims concerning financial transactions.
Issues: Whether the prior withdrawal of a suit affects the ability to file later claims and the implications of contradictory statements made in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without explicit liberty granted in a suit withdrawal, further claims may be challenged on legal grounds and recognized the role of discretion in allowing or disallowing claims.
Result: Stay granted on the operation of the impugned judgment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contradictory claims and withdrawal of suits (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. details regarding the loan dispute and its proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. stay of the court's judgment pending appeal. (Para 12) |
O R D E R
% 01.09.2025 CM APPL. 54687/2025 (exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
The application stands disposed-of.
RFA 818/2025 & CM APPL. 54688/2025 (stay)
By way of the present regular first appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellant impugns judgment and decree dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in suit bearing CS DJ ADJ No. 516734/2016.
2. Mr. Saran Suri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant points-
out, that the suit from which the present appeal arises was based on a cheque bearing No. 833866 in the sum of Rs. 15 lacs drawn on State Bank of India, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Counsel submits that in an earlier suit bearing C.S. (O.S.) No. 2412/2011 titled Delta Guards RFA818/2025 Page1of4 Private Ltd. Vs. V. Kumar &Anr. the respondent in the present proceedings (who is the Managing Director of M/s. Delta Guards Private Ltd.) had contended as follows:
“32. …… Out of the said sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) (sic) was paid by the Plaintff Company to the Defendant no.1 by way of the Cheque no. 833866 drawn by Col. R.P.Suhag at State Bank of India, Vasant Kunj in the favour of Defendant no. 1 herein. The said amount was transferred in the account of Defendant No. 1 with the name “Vinod Kripa Shankar Pathak”, in SBI A/c no. 0020003151888 on December 15, 2009. A copyof therelevant page of theBankStatement of Col.R.P.Suhag’s Bank Account showing the transfer of Rs. 15,00,000 to the account of Defendant No.1,is annexedhereinas “Annexureno.XIV”.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. Counsel however points-out that the earlier suit was withdrawn vide order dated 28.03.2012 on an application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC, in which the order it was recorded as under:
“The plaintiff in the present application also seeks liberty to file or institute a fresh suit or claim against the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that Col. Ram Pal Suhag (retd.), Managing Director of the plaintiff company had paid an amount of Rs. 15 lacs out of his own funds to the defendant while in the present suit, the said amount has been claimed by the Company. Counsel further submits that thereis anapprehensionthat inthefresh suit tobefiled by the said Director, the defendants may raise objection to challenge the maintainability of the suit being barred by the principles of res judicata.
“This application is strongly opposed by the counsel for the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff had filed the suit with a view to harass the defendants. Counsel also submits that nowhere in the plaint and the application, RFA818/2025 Page2of4 it is mentioned that the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was advanced by thesaiddirector.
“I have heard learned counsel for the parties. So far the withdrawal of the present suit is concerned, it is within the discretion of the plaintiff to continue the suit or withdraw the same. It is only in exceptional circumstances, the withdrawal of the suit can be refused by the Court. In any case, the liberty has not been sought by the plaintiff company but the plaintiff company in the present application is seeking liberty for the Director to file an independent suit to claim the said amount. No such averment has also been made by the plaintiff in the present application, in such circumstances no liberty can be afforded to the plaintiff company as a Director will have an independent right to claim the said amount from the defendant and on filing of such a suit, the defendant will have every right to raise all legal objections available to oppose the same.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. Learned counsel accordingly submits,
