Dismissed¶22

Deepak Gupta v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta

Delhi HC4 Feb 2025RFA/242/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA 242/2022; Delhi High Court; Girish Kathpalia J.; decision 04.02.2025; Order XXXVII CPC summary suit; leave to defend not sought; summons for judgement served 12.11.2020; Order XXXVII Rule 6(a) CPC decree; dishonoured/bounced cheque; friendly loan repayment; plea of repayment rejected; decree of Rs. 4,00,000/- upheld; appeal dismissed; Deepak Gupta vs Dharmendra Kumar Gupta.

What did the court decide?

None; the impugned judgment and decree for recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- were upheld and pending applications were disposed of. ¶22

Deepak Gupta Vs Dharmendra Kumar Gupta — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impugned judgment and decree for recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- were upheld and pending applications were disposed of.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant was entitled to leave to defend the summary suit on his plea that he had already paid back the loan amount, despite having failed to file an application for leave to defend after due service of summons for judgment under Order XXXVII CPC.

¶17

Court's answer

It was not disputed that the summons for judgment were served on the appellant on 12.11.2020, as established from postal receipts and tracking report; moreover, the appellant himself pleaded service in his 20.11.2020 application, and he knew the special procedure under Order XXXVII CPC having entered appearance thereunder.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's plea that he had already paid back the loan amount did not advance his case, because it remained unexplained why he would not take back his cheque, the bouncing whereof led to the summary suit.

¶17

Key takeaways

No infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed under Order XXXVII Rule 6(a) CPC; the same were upheld, the appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia, J.) upheld a summary decree of Rs. 4,00,000/- passed under Order XXXVII Rule 6(a) CPC in a recovery suit founded on a bounced cheque issued towards repayment of a friendly loan. Although the appellant had entered appearance under Order XXXVII CPC and was served with summons for judgment on 12.11.2020 (duly proved by postal receipt and tracking report), he chose not to file any application for leave to defend till 25.11.2020; his own application dated 20.11.2020 acknowledged receipt of the summons. His sole plea that he had already repaid the loan was rejected as it remained unexplained why he would not take back his cheque whose bouncing triggered the suit. Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court's judgment and decree, the Court upheld them and dismissed the appeal, disposing of pending applications.

¶1

$~75

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 04.02.2025

¶4

+ RFA 242/2022, CM APPL. 25686/2022 & 25685/2022

¶5

DEEPAK GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vinay Kumar Parihar, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

DHARMENDRA KUMAR GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶10

The appellant has assailed judgment and decree for recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/-, passed against him in the summary suit filed by the present respondent. The impugned judgment and decree were passed because the appellant opted not to file application seeking leave to defend the suit under Order XXXVII CPC.

¶11

Upon service of notice issued by the predecessor bench, respondent entered appearance through counsel but today none has appeared on his behalf and I find no reason to adjourn the matter. As such, I have heard learned counsel for appellant, who has taken me through records.

¶12

RFA 242/2020 Page 1 of 3 pages

¶13

GIRISH

¶14

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48 35d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD KATHPALIA 2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.04 17:26:31 -08'00'

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 4.02.2025 17:55:38

¶16

Briefly stated, the present respondent filed a summary suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- on the basis of a bounced cheque which had been issued by the appellant towards repayment of friendly loan. On registration of the suit, summons in the prescribed format under Order XXXVII CPC were issued and the appellant entered appearance before the Trial Court. Thereafter, on 18.09.2020, summons for judgment were issued under Order XXXVII CPC returnable on 24.11.2020. But till 25.11.2020, the appellant opted not to file application for leave to defend despite clear service of the summons for judgment on 12.11.2020, as established from postal receipt and tracking report. As further reflected from record, on 20.11.2020, the appellant filed an application seeking to enter appearance, in which he alleged that the summons for judgment were received by his relative at his residence in his absence. Under these circumstances, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and decree under Order XXXVII Rule 6(a) CPC.

¶17

The only argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant had already paid back the loan amount, so he is entitled to leave to defend. But if that be so, it remains unexplained as to why the appellant would not take back his cheque, bouncing whereof led to the summary suit. No other argument on behalf of appellant has been advanced.

¶18

RFA 242/2020 Page 2 of 3 pages

¶19

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.04 17:26:53 -08'00'

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 4.02.2025 17:55:38

¶21

It is also nobody’s case that summons for judgment were not served on the appellant. As mentioned above, the present respondent placed on record of the Trial Court postal receipts and tracking report as per which the summons for judgment were duly served on 12.11.2020. Not only this, thereafter the appellant himself also moved an application on 20.11.2020, pleading that the summons for judgment were served on 12.11.2020 in his absence at his residence. It is also nobody’s case that the appellant did not know special procedure prescribed under Order XXXVII CPC. For, as mentioned above, the appellant even entered appearance under Order XXXVII CPC, after which summons for judgment were issued and served on him.

¶22

Considering the above circumstances, I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree, so the same are upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶23

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D1 KATHPALIA 5570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF8 01E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.04 17:27:09 -08'00'

¶24

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

¶25

FEBRUARY 04, 2025/ as

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

RFA 242/2020 Page 3 of 3 pages

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 4.02.2025 17:55:38

Deepak Gupta v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Gupta v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Pappu Pathak Vs M S Bansal Brothers Industries

Shri Vinit Sharma Vs M S Bansal Brothers Industries

Shri Sanjay Sharma Vs M S Bansal Brothers Industries

Chander Pal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Vs Smt. Manju Bala

Hemant Kumar Vs Sharp Mint India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.