##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 03^rd September, 2026 Pronounced on: 27^th October, 2026 Uploaded on: 28^th October, 2026 # CNR No. : DLHC011020752024 + RFA 56/2025 Jai Gupta S/O Late Sh. Major N.N Gupta (Vsm)

R/O 231, RPS DDA Flats, Sheikh Sarai Phase-1, New Delhi. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Arunima Gupta, Advocate.

versus Sunil Kumar Roy S/O Late Sh. Major N.N. Gupta (Vsm)

R/O 181, Amrapali Apartment, 56, IP Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankur Dhall, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff /Plaintiff, Jai Gupta, against the Order dated 16.08.2024, whereby the Plaintiff‟s Suit bearing CS No. 91/2023 for damages for Rs.10,00,000/- on account of Defamation, was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. The facts in brief, as narrated in the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff has been a practicing advocate at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, since September 1989 until mid-2018, and belongs to an established family of lawyers. It was averred that both his late parents were advocates who practised in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and the District Courts. His elder real brother had served as a judicial officer in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services, before retiring in 2020.

3. The Respondent was also a practising advocate at Patiala House Courts and was known to the Plaintiff, as he occupied a neighbouring chamber and frequently visited the Plaintiff‟s chamber, to seek legal advice and have tea with him.

4. The Plaintiff contended that, in May 2017, the Respondent approached him for financial assistance by way of a loan of ₹2, 00,000/. The Respondent was allegedly facing severe financial difficulties, owing to criminal and civil proceedings initiated by one Sh. Dinesh Verma against him and his wife, in connection with alleged financial wrongdoing involving ₹30,00,000/-, in respect of which an FIR was registered, and a Summary Suit was pending.

5. Considering the Defendant‟s financial difficulties, the Plaintiff advanced a loan of ₹2, 00,000/- to him at his chamber, on 29.05.2017. The Respondent issued a post-dated cheque dated 29.08.2017 for ₹2, 00,000/- and assured the Plaintiff that the cheque would be honoured upon presentation.

6. From 29.08.2017 onwards, the repeatedly requested the defendant to repay the loan. However, the Defendant requested him not to present the cheque, stating that he was facing financial difficulties, and assured him that the amount would be repaid once his financial position improved. Acting upon these assurances, the plaintiff did not present the cheque for encashment, during its three-month validity period.

7. On 03.03.2022, when the plaintiff visited Patiala House Courts, the Defendant approached him and requested him to waive the outstanding loan of ₹2, 00,000/. The Defendant asserted that, had the Plaintiff transferred his earlier Chamber in his favour instead of surrendering it to the Bar Council, he would have returned the loan amount. However, since the Chamber had already been surrendered, the plaintiff was told to forget about his money.

8. The Plaintiff declined to waive the loan, explaining that the amount had been advanced when the Defendant was facing financial difficulties and that he himself required repayment. However, the Defendant became aggressive and pushed the Plaintiff and obstructed his way when he attempted to leave the Chamber. The Defendant allegedly assaulted him, causing injuries to his face, and threatened him with dire consequences, including grievous injuries, if he continued demanding repayment. The Plaintiff was eventually able to leave the chamber.

9. The Plaintiff, after being assaulted, made a PCR call and was taken to the hospital, where his medical exami