J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Second Regular Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to ‘CPC‟) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment dated 14.05.2024, whereby the learned District Judge-06, Central District, Delhi in RCA DJ No. 16/2019, has upheld the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2018 of the learned Civil Judge whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.2,84,500/-, has been dismissed.

2. The Substantial question of Law that arises in the present Appeal is:

(i) Whether the oral evidence is admissible in the teeth of Written Document?

(ii) Whether findings on oral evidence, in contradiction to written document, is contrary to S.90/S.91 Indian Evidence Act?

3. The Plaintiff/Appellant had filed a Suit for Recovery of Rs.2,84,500/- along with the pendente lite and future interest @18% p.a. against Defendant.

4. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were well known to each other, having previously been residents of Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi. The Defendant took a loan of Rs.3,20,000/- on 15.09.2013, stating that he was under financial stress as he had purchased a house in August, 2011 and had also got his son married. The Defendant promised to pay in a year‟s time and he also promised to pay interest @18% p.a.

5. The Defendant failed to pay the loan amount and when the Plaintiff insisted, he issued a cheque dated 21.10.2014 for Rs.3,20,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff, with an assurance that on presentation, the cheque would be encashed.

6. The cheque, however on presentation for encashment on 16.01.2015, was dishonoured with the remarks “Accounts Closed”, vide Return Memo dated 19.01.2015. The Plaintiff immediately approached the Defendant for the return of loan and also served a demand Notice dated 18.02.2015 asking the Defendant to repay the loan amount.

7. With the intervention of common friends, the dispute was amicably settled, and the Defendant agreed to pay a sum of ₹1,10,000/- in lieu of the cheque, in instalments. The first instalment of ₹10,000/- was payable on 25.03.2015, and subsequent instalments of an equal amount, were to be paid on a monthly basis, commencing from 01.05.2015.

8. The parties entered into a Settlement dated 16.03.2015, in the presence of witnesses. Clause 4 of the said Settlement provided that, in the event of the Defendant‟s failure to pay two consecutive instalments, the Plaintiff would be at liberty to claim the entire loan amount of ₹3,20,000/-. The Defendant paid five instalments of ₹10,000/- each from 25.03.2015 till August 2015, and one further instalment on 05.10.2015, thereby paying a total sum of ₹60,000/-. However, the Defendant failed to pay any instalments from October, 2015 onwards and thus, failed to honour the Settlement dated 16.03.2015.

9. In view of the Defendant‟s default, the Plaintiff became entitled to recover the entire loan amount of ₹3,20,000/- along with interest. However, after adjusting the sum of ₹60,000/- already received, the Plaintiff was entitled to balance amount of ₹2,60,000/- along with interest @18% per annum. The Plaintiff thus, filed the present suit for recovery of ₹2,84,500/- along with pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum.

10. The Defendant, in the Written Statement, contended that the Plaintiff has not disclosed any cause of action, as the averments made in the Plaint are contrary to the documents on record. It was further contended that the present litigation has been initiated solely to harass the Defendant.

11. The Defendant also asserted that the Suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. Additionally, it was alleged that the Plaintiff is a professional money lender, who has played fraud upon innocent persons including the Defendant, and being unlicensed, was not entitled to advance loans.

12. The Defendant asserted that the true and material facts are that the Defend