$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 927/2025 KAMAL SANGWAN .....Appellant Through: Ms. Mary Vimala Bai, Advocate.

versus ANUPAMA JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Verma, Ms. Somya Chugh and Mr. Vivek Mathur, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026

1. Regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2025, whereby the Suit of the Appellant filed for Recovery of Rs. 4,71,350/- has been partly decreed in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with the interest of 6% per annum with effect from 04.03.2022 till the date of realization.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent herein had filed a Suit for Recovery of Rs.3,89,139/- against the Defendants. The facts as narrated in the plaint were that Defendant/Appellant was the family friend of the Plaintiff and they were known to each other since 2018. The Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff, as under:

3. The Defendant returned a total of Rs.1 ,00,000/- till 11.02.2021 in the Bank account of the Plaintiff‟s Husband. For the payment of remaining loan amount, the Defendant issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- dated 04.03.2022 which was drawn in the name of the husband of the Plaintiff.

4. The Defendant also transferred Rs. 30,000/- to the account of the Plaintiff‟s husband on 07.03.2022.

5. The Cheque on presentation was dishonoured on 05.03.2022 for “funds insufficient”. Despite repeated requests, the Defendant failed to return the total loan amount of Rs.3,89,139/- along with the interest @ 24%.

Hence, the Suit for recovery was filed.

6. The Defendant/Appellant in his Written Statement took the preliminary objections that there is no cause of action disclosed in the Suit and the case was based on false and fabricated story. On merits, it was alleged that Defendant was the family friend of the Plaintiff. It was, however, denied that he had borrowed money from the Plaintiff. He even denied having taken Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the Plaintiff.

7. It was explained that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant started working together in the month of August, 2019. The Plaintiff used to transfer the expenses in the account of the Defendant. The business proposal could not work because of the outbreak of the Corona Virus. The Defendant had made payments to the Plaintiff of the amount payable to her, after adjustment of the expenses. It was denied that the cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- had been issued as repayment of balance loan. It was claimed that the Cheque in question was misused by the Plaintiff and it was not issued in discharge of any liability. Actually, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was outstanding and to be paid by the Defendant, as per the settlement of the Account. After payment of Rs.30,000/- on 07.03.2022, there was no amount outstanding. It was thus, submitted that the Suit of the Plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.

8. The Plaintiff in her Replication, reiterated the assertions made in the Plaint.

9. The Issues in the pleadings were framed on 01.06.2023 as under:

“(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.3,89,139/- (principal of Rs.3,41,350/- + interest of Rs.47,789/-) from the defendant, as prayed for? OPP (ii) If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether Plaintiff is entitled to interest on said sum? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP (iii) Relief.”

10. In support of her case, the Plaintiff appeared as PW-1.

11. The Defendant opted not to lead any evidence in defence and the Defence Evidence was closed on 23.08.2024.

12. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, concluded that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was payable to the Plaintiff along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the Suit was accordingly, decreed.

13. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant.

14. The grounds of challenge are t