Prathiba M. Singh J.,(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, assailing the impugned ex-parte judgement and decree dated 10th April, 2026 passed by the ld. District Judge, Commercial Court-03, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.S. (Comm) 350/2025 titled ‘State Bank of India v. Sachin Kumar’.

3. Vide the impugned judgement, the suit of the Appellant has been dismissed in the following terms:

[...]

14. It is, therefore, concluded that plaintiff, on account of not filing proper documents or original thereof in support of its claim has failed to prove its case against the defendant on the threshold of preponderance of probabilities. The fact that defendant is ex-parte will not absolve the plaintiff from proving its case against the defendant on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. This view was taken by this Court in another matter was upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA (Comm) 233/2025 - Outlook Publishing India Private Limited Vs. R.R.Solutions decided on 06.05.2025.

Accordingly, the suit filed by plaintiff is dismissed.

4. The brief background of the present case is that, a suit was filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter, ‘Bank’) against the Respondent- Mr. Sachin Kumar.

5. The Respondent - Mr. Sachin Kumar had availed a personal loan vide the loan agreement, for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-, in respect of loan Account No. 42209596082.

6. The Respondent had to clear the loan amount in 72 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 7,831/- each. However, there was a failure by the Respondent in clearing the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

7. The Bank issued notices to the Respondent. In addition, pre-litigation mediation was also attempted, however, the Respondent did not appear.

8. The C.S. (Comm) 350/2025 was also proceeded ex-parte as the Respondent did not appear.

9. Before the Commercial Court, the Bank led evidence and had filed the evidence of PW-1, Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya, the Authorized Representative of the Bank, and had also produced all the documents.

10. Further, the statement of PW-1, Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya was also recorded. However, the suit has been dismissed by the Commercial Court on the ground that the original documents have not been produced by the Appellant. In this regard, the reasoning given by the ld. Commercial Court is set out below:

[...]

9. The plaintiff examined PW1/Sandeep Kalwaniya, Assistant Manager/AR of the plaintiff bank, State Bank of India at PBB, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016. PW1 during his testimony exhibited the following documents:

i. Copy of the gazette dated 27.03.1987 as Ex.PW1/1.

ii. Copy of ID cards of both as Ex.pw1/2(colly).

iii. Copy of KYC documents along with salary proof as Ex.PW1/3( colly).

iv. Copy of letter of arrangement dt. 25.08.2023 as Ex.PW1/4.

v. Copy of personal loan agreement as Ex.PW1/5.

vi. Copy of irrevocable standing instructions as Ex.PW1/6.

vii. Copy of account statement with certificate duly certified under Section 63(4)(c) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as Ex.PW1/7.

viii. Certificate under Section 63(4)( c) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as Ex.PW1/8.

ix. Speed post receipt as Ex.PW1/9.

x. Original loan starter report dated 01.07.2025 as Ex.PW1/10.

10. Since, defendant was proceeded ex-parte, PW1 Sandeep Kalwaniya was not cross examined and the testimony of PW1 remain unchallenged and rebutted.

11. Plaintiff's claim of recovery of Rs. 3,45,000/- against the defendant is based on advancement of loan of Rs. 4 lacs by plaintiff to defendant. In this regard, plaintiff has filed copy of arrangement letter which was taken on record as Ex. PW-1/4. This document is a photocopy. As per Section 59 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), documents must be proved by primary evidence except in cases mentioned in Section 60 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniy