$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 188/2026, CM APPL. 12533/2026 MANJU RANI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Avinash Kumar, Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwary and Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocates.

versus BASANTI MALLICK .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 24.02.2026 CM APPL. 12534/2026

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

RFA 188/2026, CM APPL. 12533/2026

3. Appeal under Section 96(1) read with Order XLI of CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against Judgment / Decree dated 02.09.2025, whereby Application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC for condonation of Delay in filing Leave to Defend Application was dismissed and Suit of the Plaintiff / Respondent under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of Rs.8,25,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, was decreed.

4. The Record shows that Suit under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of Rs.8,25,000/- was filed on the basis of Cheque of Rs.8,25,000/- dated 10.09.2020 drawn on Indusind Bank, in favour of Plaintiff /

Respondent, which on presentation got dishonoured on 30.09.2020 with remarks “Refer to Drawer”.

5. The Legal Notice dated 23.10.2020 under Section 138 NI Act was served upon the Defendant. On 24.10.2020, she sought time for returning the loan on the ground that she was in financial distress due to COVID-19. No action was taken by the Plaintiff / Respondent by filing Complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Since, 23.10.2020 till July, 2021, 6. Plaintiff / Respondent was in regular touch with the Appellant / Defendant in regard to loan amount, but subsequent to dishonor of cheque, Plaintiff’s husband fell from the terrace on 30.06.2021 and passed away.

7. Therefore, she herself was in severed distress and was unable to communicate with the Appellant. However, in January, 2022 when she tried to communicate with the Appellant. She completely denied her responsibility to pay the cheque amount and started ignoring her request. Consequently, on 05.12.2022, Suit for recovery of Rs.8,25,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum under Order XXXVII was filed by Plaintiff.

8. Record shows that summons for appearance were sent twice, firstly on 12.01.2023 and secondly, on 15.03.2023. Memo of appearance was filed on 04.03.2023 and Appellant’s husband also appeared in the Court. On 04.03.2023, Appellant filed Adjournment Application on the ground that she was undergoing treatment.

9. Thereafter, Summons for Judgments were directed to be issued, which were served on 02.12.2023 upon the Appellant’s daughter.

10. Thereafter, Application for Leave to Defend along with Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed on 08.05.2024, wherein it was stated that the Appellant was in Judicial Custody since 26.08.2023. It was further mentioned that Summons for Judgment have been served at her permanent address, however, she was behind the bars in different cases and could not receive the same personally. However, without prejudice and by way of abundant precaution, Defendant authorized her counsel to put appearance on behalf of her and file appropriate Application, as and when required.

11. Defendant’s previous counsel had not advised her to file Leave to Defend to the present Suit. On last date of hearing the Defendant’s husband appeared and came to know that some action was required to be done by the Defendant’s counsel, which was not intimated. Later Defendant’s husband informed her about the Court hearing and inaction of her counsel, but the Defendant could not do anything, as she could not approach her previous counsel. Defendant waited for some days but her previous counsel did not come for meeting in Jail.

12. Finally, she decided to change her counsel, who advised to file Leave to Defend. Thereafter, Defendant filed an Application for condonation of Delay in filing the Leave for Defend to the Suit. It was claimed that delay in filing the Leave for Defend, was for the aforesaid reasons.

13. The ground