Delhi High Court
Ashish Jain vs Kapil Gupta on 31 July, 2015
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 561/2014
Decided on 31st July, 2015
ASHISH JAIN ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ankur Goel, Adv.
versus
KAPIL GUPTA ..... Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)
1. Initially, plaintiff had filed this suit under Order XXXVII CPC against
the defendant for recovery of `24.45 lacs together with pendente lite and
future interest @ 24% per annum. Summons under Order XXXVII CPC
were duly served on the defendant but he did not enter appearance.
Thereafter, on 15th October, 2014 counsel for the plaintiff made a statement
that present suit be treated as an ordinary suit. Accordingly, suit proceeded
further. Since defendant had remained unrepresented he was proceeded
against ex-parte.
2. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence by filing his affidavit Ex. PW1/A
in his evidence. Plaintiff has proved four documents as Ex. PW1/1 to
PW1/4.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
4. Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that on 5 th January, 2011 defendant
approached him for financial help. He requested for grant of friendly loan
of `14 lacs which was paid by the plaintiff to defendant in cash. Defendant
executed two documents on 15th September, 2012 categorically
acknowledging grant of loan of `4 lacs and `10 lacs respectively from the
plaintiff on 5th January, 2011. Prior thereto, defendant had executed two
receipts on 15th February, 2011 wherein he had acknowledged the receipt of
`4 lacs and `10 lacs respectively from the plaintiff. Defendant had stated in
the said receipts that he required the money for investing in some property.
5. Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 indicate that defendant had agreed to repay
the loan within six months. Plaintiff has categorically deposed that
defendant did not repay the loan despite requests and, hence, the suit for
recovery of `24.45 (`14 lacs + `10.45 lacs towards interest @ 24% per
annum with effect from 5th January, 2011 till filing of the suit, that is, 14th
February, 2014).
6. Plaintiff has corroborated the averments made in the plaint which had
been reproduced hereinabove in brief. The averments made by the plaintiff
are also supported from the Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/4. In Ex. PW1/3 and Ex.
PW1/4 defendant has categorically stated that he had taken loan of `4 lacs
and `10 lacs from the plaintiff on 5th January, 2011 for investing in property.
He has further admitted in these documents that due to financial crises he
could not repay the loan of `4 lacs and `10 lacs. He reiterated that he would
repay the loan amount with interest @ 24% per annum within six months.
7. From the unchallenged deposition supported by the documentary
evidence, plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he had extended loan of
`14 lacs to the defendant on 5th January, 2011 and defendant had agreed to
repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum. However, in my view, rate
of interest is on the higher side and appropriate rate of interest which can be
awarded to the plaintiff would be 12% per annum.
8. For the foregoing reasons, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant for `14 lacs together with interest @ 12 % per
annum with effect from 5th January, 2011 till realisation of entire decretal
amount by the defendant. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs. Decree
sheet be drawn.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JULY 31, 2015
ga
