CS(OS) 160/2020 Page 1 of 11

$~11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 12^th July, 2022.

+

CS(OS) 160/2020 & I.A.5214/2020 (u/O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC),

I.A.6157/2020 (u/O-XXXVII R-3(4) of CPC), I.A.8212/2020 (u/O-

XXXIX R-4 of CPC)

SARVESH BISARIA

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Rajeev Garg and Mr. Ashish

Garg, Advocates

versus

HARI OM ANAND

(DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)

..... Defendant

Through:

Mr. Sanchit Garga and Mr.

Nikunj Jain, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

CS (OS) 160/20202 & I.A.8211/2020 (of defendants u/O-XXXVII R-3(5)

of CPC) & I.A.8213/2020 (of defendants u/O VII R-11(d) of CPC)

1.

The present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order

XXXVII of the CPC, claiming the principal amount of Rs.3,20,00,000/-

along with interest @ 18% per annum from September, 2018 to May, 2020,

the date of the filing of the suit, totalling Rs.4,86,66,570/-.

2.

Summons in the suit were issued on 6^th July, 2020 and defendants

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002588

CS(OS) 160/2020 Page 2 of 11

were directed to maintain status quo with regard to title and possession of

the property bearing No. E-139, 1^st Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.

3.

I.A. No. 8211/2020 has been filed on behalf of the defendants seeking

leave to defend and I.A No. 8213/2020 has been filed on behalf of the

defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. Pleadings have duly been completed

in the aforesaid applications.

4.

The present suit has been filed on the basis of the following pleadings:

(i)

The plaintiff is a practicing advocate before the Supreme Court of

India.

(ii)

The defendant, Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, was known to the plaintiff

for 20 years. The defendant is represented through his legal heirs viz Sh

Meera Anand (wife), Mansi (daughter), Nidhi Bhasin (Daughter) and Sh.

Gautam Anand (son).

(iii)On 8^th February, 2016, a loan of Rs.3,20,00,000/- was given by the

plaintiff to Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, through a bank transfer to his bank

account in HDFC Bank Limited. The said loan was to be used by the Late

Sh. Hari Om Anand for commercial purposes for the expansion of his

business.

(iv)

Till September, 2018, Late Sh. Hari Om Anand paid interest to the

paintiff towards the said amount of loan.

(v)

A cheque dated 27^th March, 2019 for Rs.3,20,00,000/- was given by

Late Sh. Hari Om Anand to the plaintiff towards repayment of the said loan.

(vi)

Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured by the bankers of

the Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, on the ground of “insufficient funds”.

(vii)On 6^th April, 2019, the plaintiff sent a legal notice under Section 138

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002588

CS(OS) 160/2020 Page 3 of 11

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Late Sh. Hari Om Anand

did not reply to the said notice.

(viii)The plaintiff filed a Criminal Complaint Case No.6371/2019 before

the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the NI Act.

(ix)

On 16^th November, 2019, a demand notice was issued on behalf of the

plaintiff to Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, demanding the principal amount of

Rs.3,20,00,000/- plus interest. Late Sh. Hari Om Anand duly received the

said notice. However, he failed to reply to the same.

(x)

Accordingly, the present suit has been filed.

5.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has r