$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 14.10.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 13.11.2025

+ RFA(COMM) 136/2024

SMT MEENAKSHI OBERG .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. Shivam Gaur, Mr. Aryan Kumar, Ms. Rashi Singh and Ms. Shabina, Advs.

versus

SH. KARUN DUBE & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Dinesh Monga, Ms. Merlin Mathew & Ms. Vrinda Awasthi, Advs. for R-1 and R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “IJ”] passed by the learned District Judge, Saket Court Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “DJ”], whereby the civil suit filed by the Appellant and Respondent No.3 (Plaintiffs before the Trial Court), for recovery of Rs.70,20,172.53/- was dismissed on account of failure to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish their claim.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall be referred in accordance with their status before the DJ.

3. In substance, the brief facts culminating in the present Appeal and relevant for adjudication, revolve solely around the loan agreement dated 21.11.2013 [hereinafter referred to as “LA”] executed between Mr. Karun Dube (Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1) and Late Smt. Shanti Devi, whereby the latter purportedly advanced a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to the former, along with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum, repayable at the end of the period of LA, i.e. of three years from the date of execution of the LA.

4. Additionally, under the terms of the LA a post-dated cheque bearing No.000102 dated 21.11.2016 was drawn in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi. However, on 05.07.2017, she passed away leaving behind three children, namely Mrs. Meenakshi Oberg (Plaintiff No.1/Appellant), Mr. Praveen Chawhan (Plaintiff No.2/Respondent No.3) and Mr. Brijesh Singh Chauhan (Defendant No.2/Respondent No.2). Following the demise of Smt. Shanti Devi, legal notices dated 20.01.2018 and 14.06.2018 were issued by Plaintiff No.1 to Defendant No.1, seeking recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/- repayable with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the LA.

5. Subsequently, the Plaintiff No.1, on account of failure of Defendant No.1 to make payment, instituted a civil suit against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the course of trial, the dispute, with the consent of the parties was referred to mediation by the DJ. Consequently, the matter was settled between the Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants by way of a Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “SA”], whereby the parties agreed to resolve the dispute in full, upon payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to be made in two instalments, with Rs.2,00,000/- payable immediately via cheque on the same date, and the remaining amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- payable on or before 23.05.2023 by way of a DD/NEFT/RTGS. However, the settlement reached by the parties could not attain finality and was abandoned by the Plaintiff No.1 after forfeiting Rs.2,00,000/- already received. Following the failure of the SA between the parties to settle the matter, the trial resumed in its ordinary course and the DJ upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence was pleased to pass the IJ against the Plaintiffs. Hence the present Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF NO.1

6. Learned Counsel representing the Plaintiff No.1 impugning the findings of the DJ, contends that a scanned copy of the LA and the cheque dated 21.11.2016, securely saved on the Google Server, was produced before the DJ, hence the requirement of proof under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [hereinafter referred to as “IEA”] stood satisfied. It is further contended that the acceptance of Defendant No.1 about the receipt of loan amount