$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 1188/2025, CM APPL. 82301/2025, CM APPL. 82302/2025 &

CM APPL. 82303/2025 ANJU & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Joby P Varghese and Ms. Rashi, Advocates versus MAHESH PANWAR .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟) has been filed to challenge the Judgment dated 08.10.2025 which has decreed the Suit for recovery against the Appellant in the sum of Rs.5 lacs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till the actual realization.

2. The brief facts are that the Plaintiff was the uncle of Rakesh Panwar, deceased husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Defendants No. 2 and 3, and had cordial relationship with the deceased. On the request of Rakesh Panwar, the Respondent/Plaintiff agreed to advance a friendly loan of Rs.5 lacs out of which, Rs.4,87,500/- has been given through Cheque No. 000030 dated 26.05.2016 and Rs.12,500/- in cash. The deceased Rakesh Panwar, in order to secure the repayment, had issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 929629 dated 09.03.2017 for Rs.5 lacs drawn on Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited on Account No. 006005001642 in favor of the Plaintiff. It was assured that the cheque on presentation shall be honored.

3. The Plaintiff further asserted that that the loan amount was not repaid. The cheque on presentation was dishonored and returned with the remarks “funds insufficient” vide Return Memo dated 16.03.2017. It is further submitted that Rakesh Panwar died in October, 2016 and Defendants who were the legal heirs of Rakesh Panwar, were sued for recovery of the loan amount of Rs.5 lacs and interest.

4. The Suit was contested by the Defendants (Appellants), who took a preliminary objection that a false and frivolous Suit has been filed which is not maintainable in the eyes of law. All the averments made in the Plaint were denied. It was admitted that Rakesh Panwar had died in the month of October, 2016. It was asserted that the alleged friendly loan was not within the knowledge of the Defendants. In May, 2016, there was no financial urgency of deceased Rakesh Panwar which would have necessitated his borrowing of Rs.5 lacs.

5. It was further asserted that the Plaintiff has failed to mention the specific date on which the alleged post-dated cheque was issued to Rakesh Panwar. Moreover, the alleged cheque was not filled in the handwriting of the deceased and the same has been fabricated and manipulated against the Defendants. Moreover, the Plaintiff has presented the alleged cheque only on 14.03.2017, i.e. after several months of demise of Rakesh Panwar. No Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was initiated, which further shows that this cheque is a manipulated document.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on

24.01.2019:

1 . Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- as prayed for? OPP

2 . Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP

3. Whether the cheque in question is forged? OPD

4. Relief.

7. The Plaintiff/Respondent examined himself as PW1 and PW2 Ram Kumar, Assistant Manager, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited to prove the requisite documents.

8. The Appellant Defendant No. 1 Ms. Anju examined herself as DW1 and reaffirmed her defense as taken in the Written Statement.

9. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence and concluded that the Plaintiff/Respondent has successfully proved the loan of Rs.5 lacs extended to late Rakesh Panwar. Consequently, the Suit of the Plaintiff for Rs.5 lacs along with interest @ 6% was decreed.

10. The grounds of challenge as raised in the present Appeal are that even though Rakesh Panwar died in October, 2016, the cheque was presented only on 09.03.2017. A person who is not alive, could not possibly have issued and sign the cheque and this impossibility stri