$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 151/2020 & CM APPL. 7835/2020 SURESH GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anil K. Khaware and Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocates.

versus AKASH RAJ .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 17.02.2026

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.01.2020, whereby the Leave to Defend filed by the Defendant/Appellant in a Civil Suit under Order XXXVII CPC, has been rejected, and the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent has been decreed in the sum of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till realization.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Suit under Order XXXVII CPC for Recovery of Rs.10 lakhs on the grounds that Defendant had availed a friendly loan of Rs.10 lakhs between the period January, 2015 to June, 2017 towards the repayment of this, Defendant had issued one Cheque bearing No.237700 for Rs.10,00,000/- dated 18.8.17 with the assurance that the Cheque would be honored in August, 2017. However, on presentation the Cheque was dishonored with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” vide Bank Memo dated

04.09.2017.

3. The Plaintiff contacted the Defendant, who assured that because of the marriage of his daughter, he was unable to make the payment but assured that he would make the payment in November, 2017. The Plaintiff contacted the Defendant personally as well as telephonically several times for repayment of Rs.10 lakhs, but despite repeated requests and reminders, the Defendant delayed the payment of the amount on one pretext or the other.

4. The Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 19.12.2017, but despite the service of Legal Notice the defendant failed to pay the amount. Hence, the Plaintiff filed a Suit for Recovery of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest, under Order XXXVII CPC.

5. The Defendant/Appellant filed his Leave to Defend application wherein he asserted that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action. There was no loan ever taken by him and that too, in tranches between 2015 to 2017. It was thus, claimed that there was no proof of the said amounts ever given to the Defendant.

6. It was further contended by the Defendant that the Cheque in fact, had been stolen, about which he had no knowledge. On receiving the Legal Notice dated 19.12.2017, he had contacted the Plaintiff, and confronted him, who had apologized. The Defendant took it as a closed Chapter, but suddenly the mischief was unveiled with the filing of the Civil Suit.

7. It was claimed that no Prosecution under Section 138 NI Act was filed even after expiry of more than two years from the date of Legal Notice, which clearly reflects the manipulation on the part of the Plaintiff.

8. It was further asserted that the Plaintiff owed Rs.30,000/- to the Defendant since 2017 towards purchases made by the Plaintiff on credit, from the Grocery shop of the Defendant. He had been demanding the money and in order to dissuade him, it appears that this frivolous Suit has been filed against the Defendant. The Defendant thus, sought unconditional Leave to contest the Suit.

9. The learned District Judge vide Impugned Judgment dated 24.01.2020, noted that there was no triable issue raised in the Leave to Defend, which was rejected and the Suit of the Plaintiff was decreed.

10. Aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 24.01.2020, the present Appeal has been filed, wherein the grounds of challenge are that various triable issues have been raised by the Appellant in his Leave to Defend Application. The Plaint contained bundle of improbabilities based on purported stolen cheque about 6-7 years before, with no corresponding connection, whatsoever. Even oral assertions are improbable and do not contain any material facts.

11. The Cheque used by the Respondent is not even signed by the Appellant. The Respondent could have obtained the same during his frequent visits to the Appellant’s house, being