* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 12^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 13th March, 2026 + RFA 271/2025 & CM APPL 16971/2025 MOTI LAL S/o Late Sh. Ram Gopal, R/o C-7, Janhit Apartment, Rohini, Sector- 9, Delhi- 85 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra, Mr. Lovish Sharma, Mr. Rehan Saifi, Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Ms. Namrata Malhotra and Ms. Avneet Kaur, Advocates.

versus PREM CHAND (Proprietor of M/S Suraj Mall Ghanshyam Dass), R/o 2735/4, Mohan Lal Place, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 ALSO AT:

House No. BH-28A, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Appeal has been filed under Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred o as “CPC”) against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Ld. District Judge (Central), Delhi, whereby Suit for recovery of Rs.4,90,000/- filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant, was dismissed for want of evidence

2. Briefly stated, the Appellant, Mr. Moti Lal filed a Civil Suit No. CS DJ 53/2021 titled “Moti Lal v. Prem Chand” for Recovery of Rs.4,90,000/-. It was stated by the Plaintiff that in May 2017, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 1% per month, was advanced in cash to the Respondent/Defendant, Mr. Prem Chand, which was repayable within 2–3 months, vide a handwritten Undertaking/Receipt dated 02.06.2017,which was issued on the Letterhead of the proprietorship concern of the Respondent.

3. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent had repaid a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.09.2018, Rs.1,50,000/- on 07.01.2019, and Rs.50,000/- on 08.02.2020), and that a balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- remained outstanding, which the Defendant failed to pay, despite service of the Legal Demand Notice dated 11.08.2020.

4. The Appellant, on 18.01.2021, instituted a Suit under Order XXXVII CPC (later converted into an ordinary Civil Suit vide Order dated 04.02.2021) for the recovery of Rs.4,90,000/- (Principal Rs.3,00,000/- plus interest Rs.1,90,000/-) against the Respondent, before the Ld. District Judge, Delhi.

5. The Respondent/Defendant in his Written Statement admitted taking the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and issuing the Undertaking dated 02.06.2017, on the Letterhead of his Firm,but submitted that the loan had been duly returned in cash in the month of July 2017, and vehemently refuted the alleged part payments and Receipts thereof, as contended by the Appellant.

6. The Respondent further stated that he did not seek a Receipt of his alleged repayment of Rs.7,00,000/-, on account of good relations with the Appellant.

7. The Respondent filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC dated 12.03.2024 praying for dismissal on the grounds that there is no cause of action in the case of the Appellant and that the Suit is barred by limitation as the same was filed on 18.01.2021 for a transaction of May 2017.

8. The Application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court, vide Order dated 29.04.2022, who observed, inter alia, that by entering and executing such cash transactions, the parties acted in contravention of the statutory provisions regulating cash transactions exceeding Rs.50,000/-, and are consequently liable to face and bear the repercussions of any adverse consequences resulting from their deliberate non-compliance with the law.

9. The Ld. Trial Court vide Order dated 13.07.2022 framed the following issues:

1. “Whether the defendant had already returned Rs 7 lakhs to the plaintiff as mentioned in preliminary objection No. 4 of the written statement ? OPD

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery Rs.

4,90,000/- as mentioned in prayer clause? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum or at any other rate? OPP

5. Relief.”

10. The Plaintiff/Appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of