Delhi District Court
Seema Rathore vs Yunus on 22 April, 2026
CNR No. DLCT01-004039-2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)- 03: CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURT (EXTENSION BLOCK) : DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023
In the matter of :-
Seema Rathore
W/o Sh. Satish Rathore
R/o 2-K/826, Kedar Building,
Subzi Mandi,
Delhi-110007 ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Yunus
S/o Mohd. Jan
R/o 3548, Gali Theliwali
Bara Hindu Rao,
Delhi-110006.
Also at:- 7451, Gali Choti Masjid,
Sadar Nala Road,
Qureshi Nagar, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006.
Whatsapp No.9643555065
2. Raman Bhutani
S/o Sh. R.P. Bhutani
R/o 21/3A, 2nd Floor, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi-110007.
Working at: 10K, Shop No.12,
Gali No.0, Kolhapur Road,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007.
Whatsapp No.9811251542, 9250588016
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 1 of 35
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:51:49
+0530
3. Dinesh Kumar
R/o 2530, Punjabi Basti
Ghanta Ghar, Delhi-110007.
Working at: 10K, Shop No.12,
Gali No.0, Kolhapur Road,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007.
Whatsapp No.9811445897 ......Defendants
Date of Institution : 20.03.2023
Date on which Judgment reserved : 18.04.2026
Date on which judgment pronounced : 22.04.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court set to adjudicate on myriad issues
flagged on behalf of both the parties, let the Court to spell out
laconically the landscape of the pleadings.
(A) Pleadings of the Parties:-
2. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- filed by
plaintiff against the defendants.
3. Succinctly stated facts of the case as set out in the
amended plaint are that the defendant no.1 is a builder and the
defendants no.2 and 3 are property dealers/commission agents
working in the name of “AD Properties & Advisor Sale Purchase
& Renting” on commission basis. The defendants no.2 and 3 were
already known to the plaintiff and have friendly relation with the
plaintiff and her family and they had introduced plaintiff to the
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 2 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:52:03
+0530
defendant no.1.
4. It has been further averred in the plaint that the
defendants no.2 and 3 induced plaintiff to purchase one property
which was under construction and was being constructed by
defendant no.1. It has been averred that the defendant no.1 had
collaboration agreement with the owner of the said property and
the defendant no.1 told plaintiff that the owner of the property
shall sell the said floors of the property to defendant no.1 or any
person on the instruction of defendant no.1 and thus soon the
possession will be delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant no.1
also showed the collaboration agreement.
5. It has been further averred that the defendants no.1
to 3 conspired with each other to induce plaintiff with their
dishonest intention to purchase 2nd and 3rd floor with roof rights
with land measuring area 70 sq. yards, a part build-up property
bearing no.2568-2569 situated at Basti Punjabian Sabji Mandi,
Delhi-110007 alongwith all fitting and fixtures as mentioned in
the agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).
6. It has been further averred that the defendants no.1
and 2 offered to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.52,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs only) out of which plaintiff had paid a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and promised to
pay the balance amount after three months on the date of
execution of the sale deed. It has been further averred that the
abovesaid conditions were written in Agreement to Sale and
Purchase dated 18.10.2018 which was entered into between the
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 3 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:52:12
+0530
defendant no.1 and plaintiff and was witnessed by defendants no.2
and 3.
7. It has been further averred that during the intervening
period, the defendant no.1 demanded more money from the
plaintiff out of the remaining consideration amount on the pretext
that he was under urgent need and thus, plaintiff paid Rs.5 lakhs
on 12.11.2018 and Rs.3 lakhs on 28.11.2018 to the defendant
no.1.
8. It has been further averred that on the date of
execution of sale deed i.e. 18.01.2019, the defendants no.1 to 3
neither met the plaintiff nor defendant no.1 picked plaintiff’s call.
The plaintiff then contacted defendants no.2 and 3, who were the
dealer and commission agent in this deal, who gave assurance for
the execution of the sale deed. It has been further averred that
after some day, the defendant no.1 informed plaintiff that the suit
property cannot be sold to her as there was some problem between
defendant no.1 and the owner of the suit property. Thus, plaintiff
asked to return the whole consideration amount paid by her and
therefore, one cancellation agreement was prepared in this regard
on 22.01.2019 between the plaintiff and the defendant. It has
been averred that the plaintiff was shocked to see that the
defendants had already prepared a cancellation agreement dated
31.12.2018. The defendant no.1 started postponing the payment
on one pretext or other due to which plaintiff suffered losses and
damages and bear mental stress and trauma. The plaintiff
requested all the defendants time to time but all of them were
having no intention to pay the said amount.
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 4 of 35 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: 2026.04.22 Sharma 15:52:20 +0530
9. It has been further averred that the defendants again
gave one more offer to the plaintiff by stating that defendant no.1
have no money but he could sell out same property and thus
again, all the defendants offered plaintiff to purchase only the
third floor of the said property without roof rights with land
measuring area 70 sq. yards, a part built-up property bearing
no.2568-2569 situated at Basti Punjabian Sabji Mandi,
Delhi-110007 alongwith all fitting and fixtures as mentioned in
the agreement for a sum of Rs.34,00,000/-, out of which plaintiff
had already paid a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and it was agreed that
plaintiff shall pay the remaining amount on or before 23.09.2019.
It has been further averred that before the execution of sale deed,
the defendant demanded Rs.7 lakhs from the plaintiff stating that
there is an urgent requirement and the plaintiff had paid to
defendant no.1 a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on 02.08.2019 and Rs.3 lakhs
on 04.08.2019 in the office of defendant no.2 and 3.
10. It has been further averred that on the date of
execution of sale deed, the defendant no.1 did not turn up. The
plaintiff tried to contact defendants no.2 and 3 but they did not
accept plaintiff’s call. It has been further averred that the plaintiff
was having full and complete remaining amount to purchase the
said property alongwith complete documentations and plaintiff
reached the sub-registrar office for execution of sale but of no
avail and therefore, the plaintiff has to return back stamp duty and
copy of sale deed stamp paper are annexed with plaint.
11. It has been further averred that the plaintiff was ready
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 5 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:52:27
+0530
and willing to perform her part of performance but the defendant
no.1 became dishonest and was not ready to perform his part of
performance and started neglecting plaintiff’s phone calls.
Thereafter plaintiff met all the defendants and requested them to
execute the sale deed but they did not pay any heed to his request.
Later on, plaintiff came to know that on 04.04.2019 the defendant
no.1 had sold the third floor of the said property without roof
rights with land measuring area 70 sq. yards, a part build-up
property bearing no.2568-2569 situated at Basti Punjabian Sabji
Mandi, Delhi-110007 to one Sh. Amar Nath at a higher price but
the defendants no.1 to 3 did not return consideration amount of
Rs.20 lakh to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a legal
notice to the defendants, through his lawyer, demanding her
consideration amount of Rs.20 lakhs but the same was neither
replied to nor acted upon by the defendants. Left with no other
option, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the concerned Police
Station on 22.07.2020 but the concerned police officials did not
take any action and therefore, the plaintiff had filed a criminal
complaint U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. wherein an FIR bearing
No.370/2020 dated 12.10.2020 U/s 420/34 IPC PS Sabzi Mandi
was registered against the defendants and the IO SI Ranvir Singh
PS Sabzi Mandi had seized all the original/relevant documents for
the purpose of FSL vide the seizure memo dated 23.10.2020. It
has been further averred that defendant no.1 was arrested by the
police officials and the defendant no.2 filed anticipatory bail
application which was dismissed by the Court and thereafter, a
settlement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant
no.2 whereby the defendant no.2 had returned Rs.10 lakhs to theCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 6 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:52:37
+0530
plaintiff. Thus, a balance amount of Rs.10 lakhs is pending which
the defendants no.1 and 3 are liable to pay. It has been further
averred that the defendant no.2 may be treated as performa
defendant. The plaintiff has approached the defendants several
times but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Thus, aggrieved
by the act of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit
praying for a decree of recovery of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @
24% p.a. against the defendants no.1 and 3 and a decree of
recovery of penalty charges to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs.
12. An application U/o VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed on
behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of plaint on the ground that
after registration of FIR No.370/2020 dated 12.10.2020 U/s
420/34 IPC registered at PS Subzi Mandi, the Investigation
Officer of the case had seized the original documents and issued
the seizure memo dated 23.10.2020. The said application was
allowed vide order dated 07.11.2023 and plaintiff was permitted
to add para 26 in the original plaint.
13. The defendants No.1, 2 and 3 have contested the suit
by filing their separate written statements.
14. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant
no.1, by way of preliminary submissions, the maintainability of
the suit filed by plaintiff has been challenged on the ground that
plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has
concealed the material facts that defendant no.1 never met the
plaintiff but had cordial relation with the defendant no.2; that the
defendant no.1 is an illiterate person who cannot read or write
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 7 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:52:47
+0530
English, Hindi or Urdu and can only sign in Urdu; or that
defendant no.1 has full faith upon the defendant no.2 and all the
work assigned by the defendant no.2; that the defendant no.2 had
given money to the defendant no.1 in respect of the suit property
and due to cordial relation and good faith, the defendant no.1 had
signed the documents; that the defendant no.1 had never entered
into any sale transaction directly with the plaintiff and in fact all
the deeds/agreement/transaction were started and finalized by the
defendant no.2 with the plaintiff’s son namely Rohit; that the
plaintiff never came forward to sign or talk with the defendant
no.1.
15. On merits, each and every averment made in the
plaint have been controverted. It has been averred that the
defendant no.1 is in the business of construction and the defendant
no.3 is working with defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 used
to assign the construction work to the defendant no.1. It has been
denied that defendant no.2 and 3 are already known to the plaintiff
or have family relation with the plaintiff and her family. It has
been further denied that the defendant no.1 told to the plaintiff
that the owner of the property (which defendant no.1 was
constructing) shall sell the said floors of the property to defendant
no.1 or any person on the instructions of defendant no.1. It has
been reiterated that defendant no.1 never met with the plaintiff at
any point of time and that the defendant no.1 had not received any
single penny from the plaintiff and being illiterate and having full
faith upon the defendant no.2, the defendant no.1 signed the
documents whenever asked by defendant no.2. It has been further
stated that the plaintiff had not disclosed how the defendant no.1
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 8 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:52:54
+0530
informed him that the property in question cannot be sold to her
due to the problem arose between the defendant no.1 and the
owner as the plaintiff never faced the defendant no.1 at any point
of time. It has been reiterated that all transactions regarding the
suit property were carried out between the plaintiff and the
defendant no.2 and that the defendant no.1 never received any
amount from the plaintiff. It has been further averred that the
defendant no.1 had no knowledge regarding the execution of sale
documents; that the plaintiff never came to the defendant no.1 so
that question for willingness to perform her part or intention of the
parties are immaterial. It has been further averred that the plaintiff
has filed a draft of sale deed between Sh. Amarnath and the
plaintiff but the plaintiff did not disclose how and why the
plaintiff entered into the sale transaction qua the suit property with
said Amarnath which shows that the plaintiff is very cunning and
clever person who was well acquainted with the real story but she
deliberately was travelling in two boats. It has been further stated
that defendant no.1 never received any legal notice from the
plaintiff and that the plaintiff had filed a false and frivolous bogus
complaint and legal notice to the defendant no.1. It has been
further submitted that all transaction of the plaintiff were carried
out with the defendant no.2 and not with the defendant no.1 and 3
and that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with
connivance of defendant no.2. It has been denied that both the
defendant no.1 and 3 are bound to pay the remaining
consideration about of Rs.10 lakhs to the plaintiff with interest
and compensation for the harassment caused to plaintiff. Lastly, it
has been submitted that all date or events are false andCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 9 of 35
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:53:02
+0530
manipulated and self created by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is
not entitled for any relief. Thus, it is prayed that suit of plaintiff be
dismissed.
16. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant
no.2, by way of preliminary submissions, the factum of agreement
to sell dated 18.12.2018 having executed between the plaintiff and
defendant no.1 in respect of the suit property, part payments of
Rs.13 lakhs made by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1;
cancellation of said agreement on 05.01.2019, execution of
another agreement dated 02.08.2019 for a total sale consideration
of Rs.34 lakhs and subsequent part payments of Rs.4 lakhs on
02.08.2019 and Rs.3 lakhs on 04.08.2019 to the defendant no.1
have been admitted.
17. It has been further averred that the defendant no.2
introduced the plaintiff with defendant no.1 who was a builder
and offered to sell the suit property; that both the agreements were
witnessed by the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff had made the
payment of Rs.20 lakhs to the defendant no.1. It has been further
averred that as per the second agreement , the defendant no.1 had
to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before
September 2019 but the defendant no.1 did not execute the same
and also did not return the amount of Rs.20 lakhs received by him
from the plaintiff.
18. It has been further averred that the plaintiff had filed
a complaint before the police and FIR bearing No.370/2020 U/s
420/34 IPC was registered at PS Subzi Mandi and the defendant
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 10 of 35
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:53:09
+0530
no.2 moved an anticipatory bail application before the Hon’ble
ASJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Court and in order to buy a
peace, paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of demand draft to the
plaintiff towards full and final settlement of all the disputes
between the plaintiff and defendant no.2.
19. On merits, it has been denied that defendant no.2
conspired with anybody or had any dishonest intention to induce
the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. It has been further averred
that it was not in the hands of the defendant no.2 to pressurize the
defendant no.1 to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff;
that the defendant no.2 had not received any legal notice; that the
amount was to be refunded by defendant no.1 only and the
defendant no.2 had no role in the payment either by the plaintiff to
the defendant or vice versa, as the role of the defendant no.2 was
only to introduce to the seller with the buyer. It has been further
averred that it is the duty of the proposed buyer to verify the
documents before entering into any agreement to sell and in case
of any default by the prospective buyer or seller then the other
party can avail the legal remedies and the property dealer has no
role in the same besides to appear as a witness and to depose the
truth before the Court. It has been specifically denied that the
defendant no.2 had taken any single penny from defendant no.1
out of Rs.20 lakhs which had been paid by the plaintiff to the
defendant no.1 and infact, the defendant no.2 is entitled to
demand Rs.10 lakhs from the defendant no.1 as it was only
defendant no.1 who took Rs.20 lakhs from the plaintiff. It is,
thus, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed
with costs.
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 11 of 35 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.04.22 15:53:18 +0530
20. The defendant no.3 had filed the written statement
almost identical to the written statement filed on behalf of
defendant no.1, hence not reproduced at length for the sake of
brevity. By way of preliminary objections, maintainability of the
suit has been challenged on the ground that suit is based on false,
frivolous, baseless and concocted facts; that the plaintiff never
approached the defendant no.3 directly; that the defendant no.3
was only doing/job work with the defendant no.1 and as per the
instruction/direction of defendant no.1, he completed the work of
firm of defendant no.1. On merits, all the averments made in the
plaint have been controverted and it has been averred that
defendant no.3 being employee of defendant no.1 had signed the
documents only in the capacity of witness in good faith and had
otherwise no knowledge regarding the same. It has been lastly
averred that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and thus, it is
prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
21. No replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff
despite opportunity and hence, vide order dated 18.09.2024, the
opportunity to file the same had been closed.
(B) Issues :-
22. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed vide order dated 09.12.2024:-
1) Whether defendant No.1 had signed the agreement
for sale and purchase with the plaintiff at instance of
defendant no.2? (OPD-1)CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 12 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:53:24
+0530
2) Whether the defendant no.3 had merely signed as a
witness to agreement for sale & purchase between
plaintiff and defendant no.1 being an employee of
defendant no.1. (OPD-3)
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery
of Rs.10,00,000/- against the defendants no.1 & 3, as
prayed for?(OPP)
4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest. If so, at
what rate and for which period? (OPP)
5) Relief.
(C) Evidence :- (a) of Plaintiff
23. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined
herself, as PW-1. She has reiterated the averments made in plaint
in her affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No. 1. Photocopy of Collaboration Agreement dated Mark-A
06.02.2018 executed by Smt. Santosh Chawla in
favour of Mr. Yunus and Mohd. Saleem
2. Photocopy of Agreement to Sell and Purchase Ex.PW-1/2
dated 18.10.2018 executed by Mohd. Yunus in
favour of Smt. Seema Rathore
3. Photocopy of Cancellation of Agreement to Sell Ex.PW-1/3
and Purchase dated 05.01.2019 executed by
Mohd. Yunus in favour of Smt. Seema Rathore
4. Photocopy of Agreement to Sell and Purchase Ex.PW-1/4
dated 02.08.2019 executed by Mohd. Yunus in
favour of Smt. Seema Rathore
5. Original Seizure Memo of the documents Ex.PW-1/X
exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to PW1/4 which have
been seized by SI Ranvir Singh, PS Subzi Mandi
on 23.11.2020 in case FIR No.370/20 dated
12.10.2020 U/s 420/34 IPC
6. Photocopy of the proposed Sale Deed Mark-B
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 13 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:53:32
+0530
7. Photocopy of Sale Deed dated 16.04.2019 Mark-C
executed by Smt. Santosh Chawla in favour of
Sh. Amar Nath
8. Photocopy of legal notice dated 07.07.2020 Ex.PW1/7
9. Photocopy of delivery receipt Ex.PW1/8
10. Photocopy of complaint dated 21.07.2020 Mark-D
11. Photocopy of order and FIR Mark-E
12. Photocopy of Settlement Deed Mark-F
24. The PW1 was cross-examined at length by the
Counsel for defendants no.1 and 3 in respect to her approaching
the defendant no.2/Raman Bhutani who alleged to have
introduced her to defendant no.1 for sale of suit property; sources
from which she arranged/paid consideration amount of Rs.13
lakhs; filing of ITRs reflecting the sale transactions; execution of
agreement for sale in respect of 2 nd and 3rd floor of suit property
i.e. date and place of execution, name of the persons who were
present at the time of execution of agreement, who had purchased
the stamp paper/where the documents were attested etc.; service
of legal notice; receipts of alleged payments; documents
pertaining to third floor; subsequent/fresh agreement between
plaintiff and defendant no.1; settlement arrived at between the
plaintiff and defendant no.2 and liability of defendants no.1 and 3
to pay the amount and lastly falsely impleading defendants no.1
and 3 and filing of suit by plaintiff in collusion with defendant
no.2.
25. The PW1 was also cross-examined on behalf of the
defendant no.2 in respect of both the agreements i.e. the persons
who were present at the time of execution of agreements, mode of
payment; visiting the property at the time of execution of
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 14 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
2026.04.22
Sharma 15:53:43
+0530
agreements; compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and
defendant no.2 after registration of FIR by plaintiff against
defendants no.1 to 3; payment of Rs.10 lakhs made by defendant
no.2 to the plaintiff pursuant to settlement and no further liability
of defendant no.2 to pay any sum of money to the plaintiff.
26. The plaintiff has also examined his son, namely, Sh.
Vivek Rathore, as PW2. He has reiterated the averments made in
plaint by plaintiff in his affidavit Ex.PW-2/A and relied upon the
photocopy of his Aadhaar Card – Ex.PW2/1.
27. The PW2 was also cross-examined on behalf of
defendants no.1 and 3 in respect to his knowledge about the
transactions involved in the present case; not mentioning of his
name by his mother in the suit, legal notice and FIR; not signing
of any documents by him and lastly his alleged false deposition on
the instance of his mother.
28. The PW2 was not cross-examined on beahlf of
defendant no.2 despite opportunity.
29. Plaintiff has also summoned record of sale deed
dated 16.04.2019 executed between Smt. Santosh Chawla and Sh.
Amar Nath with Registration No.3884, Book No.1, Vol.No.7590
at Pages 173-179 which has been produced by PW3/Smt. Amina
Ansari, Sr. Assistant, Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
After going through the photocopy of the Sale Deed from the
court record, she deposed that the same is correct as per second
copy brought by her, however, page pertaining to deed related
details is amiss from the same. The photocopy of the Sale deed
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 15 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:53:52
+0530
from Court record was exhibited as Ex.PW3/A (minus the deed
related details as stated hereinabove) and the certified copy of
Sale Deed brought by the witness was exhibited as Ex.PW3/B.
30. During her cross-examination on behalf of the
Defendant no.1 and 3, she deposed that she has no personal
knowledge of the parties and/or the transaction reflected from
Ex.PW3/B. The PW3 was not cross-examined by defendant no.2
despite opportunity.
31. No other witness was examined on behalf of the
plaintiff and therefore, PE was closed.
(b) of Defendant
32. In order to prove his defence, the defendants no.1 and
3 have examined themselves, as DW1 and DW3. They have
reiterated the facts averred in their respective written statement in
their affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and Ex.DW-3/A respectively. No
evidence has been lead on behalf of defendant no.2.
33. The DW1 and DW3 have been cross-examined on
behalf of the plaintiff in respect to the nature of their work;
dealings with plaintiff and her son for the sale of suit property;
execution of document Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 between plaintiff
and defendant no.1 and receiving of consideration
amount/bayana/earnest money of Rs.20 lakhs by defendant no.1
from plaintiff in the presence of defendant no.3; selling of suit
property by defendant no.1 to some third person namely Amarnath
in the presence of defendant no.3.
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 16 of 35 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.04.22 15:53:59 +0530
34. No other witness was examined on behalf of
defendants. Therefore, DE was closed.
35. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course
of final arguments, an application was moved on behalf of the
defendants no.1 and 3 for taking the affidavit of admission/denial
of documents on record. Since the affidavit of admission/denial
was not filed within statutory period or before the commencement
of trial, the said application was dismissed vide order dated
11.02.2026.
(E) Final Arguments :-
36. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Sahib Rajput,
counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Zafar Abbas, counsel for
defendants no.1 and 3. Written submissions have also been filed
on behalf of plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 3.
37. During the course of arguments, counsels for plaintiff
and defendants no.1 and 3 reiterated respective averments made in
the plaint and written statements and also referred to documents
filed on behalf of plaintiff as well as evidence adduced on record
by them.
38. Counsel for plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff
has established, through cogent evidence, that the defendants
conspired to cheat her by inducing payments totaling
Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest money for a property bearing no. 2568-
2569, Punjabi Basti, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 which defendant
no.1 had already sold to a third party, Sh. Amar Nath, on
16.04.2019. It has been further submitted that the defendant no.2
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 17 of 35
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:54:06
+0530
has partially settled his liability by paying Rs.10,00,000/- via
demand draft to buy peace, rendering him a proforma defendant.
It has been further submitted that defendants no.1 and 3 had filed
a similar written statement supporting each other, however, they
failed to file the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents
which renders their written statement inoperative and documents
filed on behalf of plaintiff deemed to be admitted.
39. It has been further submitted that the defendant no.1,
in para 4, 5 and 8 of his W.S., has admitted to have received the
entire consideration amount from defendant no.2 qua the suit
property as well as signing of the documents; all transactions
having took place in presence of plaintiff’s son Vivek Rathore @
Rohit Rathore (PW-2) and defendant no.2 being engaged in the
construction business and working with defendant no.3. It has
been further submitted that the defendant no.3 has also admitted
the execution and signing of the agreement to sell in the capacity
of witness in para 4 of his written statement. It has been further
submitted that the defendant no.2 in his W.S. admits that the
defendant no.1 had received the entire consideration amount of
Rs.20 lakhs and failed to return the same. Hence, these admissions
unequivocally confirm receipt of Rs.20 lakhs by defendant no.1
and his failure to refund it, rendering him liable to refund the
outstanding amount of Rs.10 lakhs.
40. It has been further submitted that the defendant
no.1’s defense of illiteracy, raised to deny knowledge of the
agreement’s contents, is untenable, as ignorance due to illiteracy
is not a valid excuse absent fraud or misrepresentation. It has beenCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 18 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:54:15
+0530
further submitted that the documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 are
objected by the counsel for the defendants no.1 and 3, however,
the original are in the possession of SI Ranvir Singh, PS Sabji
Mandi and the seizure memo is Ex.PW1/X. It has been further
submitted that photocopies are admissible as secondary evidence
U/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act as originals are seized by
police. It has been further submitted that the said objection of
counsel for the defendants no.1 and 3 is invalid and untenable
since the non-filing of the affidavit of admission/denial itself
amounts admission of the documents of the plaintiff. Moreover,
the defendants no.1 and 3 had specifically admitted the execution
of the agreements, therefore the objection must not be considered.
Thus, it is prayed that suit of plaintiff be decreed. In support of the
contentions, counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon following
judgments:-
a) Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action Buildwell
reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8498;
b) ITD Cementation India Limited vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 6263;
c) Desh Raj & Ors vs. Rohtash Singh reported in (2023)
3 SCC 714;
d) Anoop Singh vs. Gopal Krishan Bhuradia & Anr.
reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9712;
e) Ghanshyam vs. Yogendra Rathi reported in (2023) 7
SCC 361;
f) Kailash Nath Associates vs. Delhi Development
Authority reported in (2015) 4 SCC 136;
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 19 of 35 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.04.22 15:54:22 +0530 g) Bharathi Knitting Co. vs. DHL Worldwide Express
Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. reported in (1996)
4 SCC 704
h) Alok Kumar Aich vs. Asoke Kumar Aich, reported in
1982 SCC OnLine Cal 123;
i) Ramathal & Ors vs. K. Rajamani reported in 2023
SCC OnLine 1022;
j) Bhanwarsingh vs. Ghisalal reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine MP 4609
41. Per contra, counsel for defendants no.1 and 3 has
submitted that the defendant no.1 never entered into any
transaction with the plaintiff and any transaction whatsoever took
place was exclusively between the plaintiff and defendant no.2;
that the defendant no.1 is an illiterate person and has been falsely
roped in due to collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.2
who was the real party dealing with the plaintiff. It has been
further submitted that while obtaining the conditional bail, the
defendant no.2 had handed over a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the
plaintiff which itself proves that it was defendant no.2 and not
defendants no.1 and 3 who owed money to the plaintiff. It has
been further submitted that the plaintiff and defendant no.2 acting
in collusion have concocted this case so as to shift liability upon
defendants no.1 and 3. It has been further submitted plaintiff has
vaguely alleges in para 6 of the plaint that an offer was made for
Rs.52,00,000/- and that Rs.5,00,000/- was paid but no date is
specified; that the plaintiff has failed to disclose the mode of
alleged payments of Rs.5 lakhs on 12.11.2018 and Rs.3 lakhs on
28.11.2018; that the plaintiff could not establish how she arranged
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 20 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:54:32
+0530
such large amount and how much was contributed by her son
Rohit and no banking records or receipts has been filed to
substantiate the alleged payments. Lastly, it has been submitted
that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff which she has failed
to discharge and no proof of payment to defendant no.1 exists and
the suit is false, collusive and vexatious and deserves to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
(E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
42. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and
have also perused the record as well as the written submissions
filed on behalf of the parties.
43. Before returning the findings on issue-wise, it is to be
noted that in the present case, the defendant no.1 and 3 had failed
to file affidavit of admission/denial of documents alongwith their
W.S. within statutory period of limitation and therefore, now
question arises as to whether the W.S. filed on record on behalf of
the defendants can be taken into consideration for the purposes of
defence or only the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff
would be treated to have been admitted in absence of any denial
of documents.
44. In the judgment titled as Unilin Beheer B.V. vs.
Balaji Action Buildwell (supra) while dealing with this issue, the
Hon’ble High Court has held categorically that in absence of
affidavit of admission/denial of documents, not only the written
statement would be treated to have not been taken on record but
the documents filed by the plaintiff shall also be deemed to beCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 21 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:54:39
+0530
admitted and on this basis it was held that even the Court shall be
entitled to proceed U/o VIII Rule 10 of CPC and relevant paras
no. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32 are reproduced as under:-
“22. It is not as if the provision in Rule 3 of Chapter VII,
of the written statement being not taken on record unless
accompanied with an affidavit of admission / denial of
documents was introduced only with effect from 1st
November, 2018. The said provision in Rule 3 of Chapter
VII existed prior to the notification dated 16th October,
2018 also. However, the form of the affidavit of
admission / denial of documents was provided for the first
time with effect from 1st November, 2018, by prescribing
the same to be in accordance with the provisions of Order
XI Rule 4 of the CPC as aforesaid.
23. The core question for consideration is, whether the
only consequence of non-filing of the affidavit of
admission / denial of documents along with the written
statement is of the documents filed by the plaintiff being
deemed to be admitted by the defendant OR of the written
statement being not taken on record and the defendant
being in the position of a defendant who has not filed the
written statement.
24. On first blush it appears that there is indeed
inconsistency /contradiction, in Rule 3 on the one hand,
providing that written statement without affidavit of
admission / denial shall not be taken on record and Rule 4
on the other hand, providing that the effect of non- filing of
affidavit of admission / denial shall be of the documents
being deemed to be admitted.
25. I have wondered, whether the two Rules read together
have the effect of providing that on non-filing of affidavit
of admission / denial with written statement, though the
written statement has to be read but the documents of
plaintiff deemed to be admitted. However to hold so, would
tantamount to rendering otiose the words “……without
which the written statement shall not be taken on record” in
Rule 3 supra and negate the bar in Rule 3 to taking the
written statement on record if unaccompanied with an
affidavit of admission / denial of documents.
26. It is the settled rule of statutory interpretation that
interpretation which renders otiose any part of a statute,CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 22 of 35
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:54:48
+0530
should be avoided.
27. On the contrary the effect of holding that in such a
situation, the written statement shall be deemed to have
been not filed and the documents filed by the plaintiff
deemed to be admitted, would allow full play to both
Rules, without making any part thereof otiose. On further
consideration, no inconsistency / contradiction is found in
the two Rules. This interpretation is also in consonance
with the legislative intent.
28. Such interpretation is also found to be in consonance
with the spirit behind overhauling of the Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 1967 and enactment of the 2018
Rules. With the experience of over fifty years of working of
the 1967 Rules, attempt was made in the 2018 Rules to do
away with the bottlenecks in the proceedings in the suits on
the Original Side of this Court. One of such bottlenecks
was the stage of admission / denial of documents, at which
the suits remained pending, in large number of cases, for
years and thereafter also not serving any purpose of
expediting trial, with vague denials being made, putting the
opposite party to proof of documents at the cost of
consequent delays. Order XII Rule 2A of the CPC, as
existed since amendment thereof of 1976, though provided
that a document, which a party is called upon to admit, if
not denied specifically or by necessary implication or
stated to be not not admitted in the pleading of that party or
in reply to notice to admit, shall be deemed to be admitted
but also provided that where a party unreasonably
neglected or refuses to admit a document after service of
notice to admit documents, the Court may direct him to pay
costs to the other party by way of compensation. The same
in working, led to, as aforesaid, a practice of generally
denying everything in pleadings, implicitly also documents
and taking advantage of resultant delays in proof of
documents. This resulted in suits, most of evidence wherein
was documentary, also being not decided expeditiously
owing to delays in proof of documents. To eliminate such
malady, in the new Rules provisions aforesaid were
incorporated, making affidavit of admission / denial of
documents mandatory and providing stringent
consequences of non-filing of affidavit of admission /
denial of documents to prevent a party from abusing the
process of Courts, to its own advantage and to the prejudice
of opposite parties. The Scheme in entirety, as set out
hereinabove, shows that the same consequences as for
defendant, also follow for plaintiff for non-filing of
affidavit of admission/denial of defendant’s documents.
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 23 of 35 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.04.22 15:54:55 +0530
30. Under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC upon non-filing
of written statement, the Court has discretion, depending on
facts, to either pronounce judgment forthwith or direct the
plaintiff to prove his claim. Deemed admission by the
defendant of the documents of the plaintiff, under Rule 4
supra, will also result in the Court, where defendant has not
filed affidavit of admission / denial with written statement,
on the basis of admission of documents pass a decree
forthwith rather than relegating the party to proof of his
claim based on documents.
31. I thus hold, that in the event of the written statement
being filed without affidavit of admission / denial of
documents, not only shall the written statement be not
taken on record but the documents filed by the plaintiff
shall also be deemed to be admitted and on the basis of
which admission the Court shall be entitled to proceed
under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.
32. It is also deemed appropriate to clarify that what has
been held by the Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India
Pvt. Ltd. supra qua filing of the written statement would
equally apply to filing of the affidavit of admission / denial
of documents and time for filing thereof also cannot be
extended beyond the maximum permitted.
45. The similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in case titled as ITD Cementation India Ltd. vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (supra).
46. In the present case, despite directions, the defendant
no.1 and 3 have failed to file the affidavit of admission/denial of
documents and therefore, in the said facts and circumstances, the
law laid down in aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable and
the present case is virtually of no defence.
47. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 24 of 35 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.04.22 15:55:03 +0530 ISSUE No.1 :-
Whether defendant No.1 had signed the agreement for sale and
purchase with the plaintiff at instance of defendant no.2? (OPD-1)
AND
ISSUE No.2:-
Whether the defendant no.3 had merely signed as a witness to
agreement for sale & purchase between plaintiff and defendant
no.1 being an employee of defendant no.1. (OPD-3)
48. Onus to prove these issues were upon defendant no.1
and 3 respectively. In the alleged W.S. filed on behalf of
defendant no.1, defendant no.1 has taken a specific plea that
defendant no.1 being illiterate person and therefore, having faith
over defendant no.2, signed the sale purchase documents,
Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4, at the instance of defendant no.2.
Another plea has been taken on behalf of the defendant no.3 in his
W.S. that he signed the agreement for sell and purchase as an
employee of defendant no.1 as a witness and he has no role in any
manner.
49. The claim of defendant no.1 in his pleading has been
maintained in his affidavit in examination-in-chief Ex.DW1/A that
he signed the documents in good faith at the instance of defendant
no.2. However, in his cross-examination, when he was shown
Ex.PW1/1 (Mark-A) i.e. Collaboration Agreement between him
and the original owner Ms. Santosh Chawla, he has denied his
signatures though in earlier part of his cross-examination, he has
testified that he signed the documents without getting it explained
to him. Thus, by virtue of his two different stands at two stages ofCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 25 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:55:11
+0530
cross-examination raises serious doubt about veracity of his
testimony. This testimony of denial of signatures is also against
the pleading wherein his specific defence was that the documents
were signed at the instance of defendant no.2.
50. In the present case, the entire claim of the plaintiff is
based upon the cancellation deed of agreement to sell and
purchase dated 05.01.2019. In the entire affidavit filed in
examination-in-chief, the defendant has not denied the execution
of the said document. As discussed earlier, in view of the
judgments and otherwise on the grounds of pleadings, even if
those pleadings in the W.S. are allowed to be read as defence of
defendant no.1 in the form of W.S., the defendant no.1 has never
denied the execution of said cancellation deed of agreement to sell
and purchase dated 05.01.2019, Ex.PW1/3 and therefore, in view
of the rule of pleadings, this document can be read as admitted
document.
51. Therefore, the defence of defendant no.1 that he had
signed the documents only at the instance of defendant no.2 is
neither here nor there as in the entire pleadings or in his evidence
he has failed to explain what was compulsion under which he
signed those documents including the cancellation deed. There is
no evidence on record that this deed was signed without having
any intention to be acted upon. Even for the sake of arguments if
it is assumed that he signed the documents at the instance of
defendant no.2, the very purpose of signature has not been
explained in the pleadings or in the evidence. If the documents
were never meant to be acted upon, this fact should have beenCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 26 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:55:20
+0530
averred in the pleadings and commensurate evidence should have
been brought on record. However, there is nothing on record to
suggest to understand the true meaning of the defence of the
defendant no.1 of his signature upon the documents and this
defence appear to have been taken for the sake of defence on his
behalf as afterthought.
52. Since beginning the defence of the defendant no.3
is that he signed the documents as an employee of defendant no.1
as a witness and he has no role in any manner. Right from
beginning of execution of document i.e. Collaboration Agreement
dated 06.02.2018 Mark-A and copy of the Agreement to Sell dated
18.10.2018 Ex.PW1/2 have signatures of defendant no.3 as
witness which corroborates the defence of the defendant
no.3/Dinesh Kumar. Further, he is in no way connected with the
cancellation deed dated 05.01.2019 Ex.PW1/3 and therefore, even
in absence of any rebuttal evidence no liability can be fastened
upon him. He was at the most a witnesses of the documents and
there is nothing on record to prove his role beyond being witness
of the documents.
53. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that defendant No.1 has failed to prove that he had
signed the agreement for sale and purchase with the plaintiff at
instance of defendant no.2. On the other hand, defendant no.3 has
successfully proved that he had merely signed as a witness to
agreement for sale & purchase between plaintiff and defendant
no.1 being an employee of defendant no.1. Issue no.1 is, therefore,
decided against defendant no.1 and in favour of the plaintiff andCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 27 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:55:28
+0530
issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of
defendant no.3.
ISSUE No.3:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of
Rs.10,00,000/- against the defendants no.1 & 3, as prayed for?
(OPP)
54. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
The first objection raised on behalf of the defendant
No.1 and 3 is that since the suit has been filed on the basis of the
photocopy of the documents and plaintiff has made no efforts to
file the original documents, the plaint is liable to be rejected and
suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
55. There is no denial of the fact that out of the present
dispute, one F.I.R. bearing No. 370/2020 dated 12.10.2020, Mark-
E, was registered upon the complaint Mark-D of the plaintiff
against all the defendants namely Yunus, Raman, Dinesh Kumar
for committing fraud etc. At the time of tendering of these
documents, an objection was taken on behalf of the defendant on
the same ground. However, the original seizure memo pertaining
to these documents including cancellation deed dated 05.01.2019
was also exhibited as Ex.PW1/X. The perusal of Seizure Memo
Ex.PW1/X makes it clear that the original agreement to sell dated
18.10.2018 Ex.PW1/2, cancellation deed dated 05.01.2019 and
original agreement to sell and bayana receipt dated 02.08.2019
were seized by the police. Thus, on the basis of seizure memo,
Ex.PW1/X, it can be safely held that the documents Ex.PW1/2 to
Ex.PW1/4 have been duly tendered and proved as per law even in
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 28 of 35
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:55:34
+0530
absence of original thereof for the two reasons i.e. firstly these
documents were already taken and seized by the police and
therefore, plaintiff cannot be supposed to produce these
documents in original and had there been any objection that the
photocopies are not the true copy of the originals, it was for the
defendants to summon the documents in order to compare the
same which defendants have failed miserably. Secondly, as
discussed hereinabove, since both the contesting defendants no.1
and 3 have failed to file their affidavit of admission/denial of
documents, these documents are otherwise deemed to have been
admitted by them.
56. From the cancellation deed dated 05.01.2019,
Ex.PW1/3 and fresh agreement to sell dated 02.08.2019,
Ex.PW1/4, it is clear that the defendant no.1 has received
Rs.13 lakhs at the time of execution of both the documents.
Further, there was stipulation that the first party i.e. defendant
no.1 is the owner and in possession of the entire third floor
without roof rights i.e. subject matter of agreement to sell dated
02.08.2019 and that the said property is free from all kind of
encumbrances and if the first party does not perform his part of
contract, the first party shall be liable to pay double amount of
bayana/earnest money and/ or to get the sale transaction done
through the Court of law.
57. Admittedly, in the present case, the defendant no.1
has claimed having no right, title or interest over the said property
as detailed in the plaint, therefore, there was no question of
execution of any sale deed or transfer of the property. Therefore,
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 29 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:55:42
+0530
the only remedy which was left with the plaintiff was to file the
suit for recovery of its earnest money.
58. Plaintiff appearing as PW1 was thoroughly cross-
examined on the point of payment of consideration amount and it
has been argued that the earnest money was never paid to
defendant no.1 or 3 and even the plaintiff never met them but she
had all her dealings with defendant no.2.
59. In the cross-examination of PW1, she was inquired
about the detail of payments and she has stated that she does not
recall the exact contribution in the sum of Rs.13 lakhs of her own
and how much was borrowed by her from her son and she has also
deposed that she does not recall if she had reflected payment of
her contribution in her income tax return. However, when her son
PW2 has appeared, not a single question has been put to him
about his contribution towards the purchase money though in his
affidavit in examination-in-chief, Ex.PW2/A, in para 3 he has
made detail of payment on specific date with specific amount. He
has also deposed that despite specific call made to defendant no.1,
he did not pick up the call.
60. In the affidavit Ex.PW2/A, the PW2 has specifically
deposed that after receiving the payment of Rs.13 lakhs the
defendant no.1 demanded Rs.4 lakhs on 02.08.2019 and
Rs.3 lakhs on 22.01.2019 and was paid and thereafter defendant
no.1 promised to execute the sale deed on 23.09.2019 and this
testimony of PW2 remains uncontroverted as except making
suggestion nothing has been brought in his cross-examination
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 30 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:55:49
+0530
contrary to his deposition in his affidavit.
61. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that on
preponderance of probability it has been proved on record that
there was agreement between the defendant no.1 and plaintiff to
execute the sale deed qua the property no. 2567/68, area
measuring 78 sq. yards at Basti Punjabian, Subzi Mandi, Ghanta
Ghar and there was payment of Rs.20 lakhs by the plaintiff as
earnest money on 18.10.2018, 12.11.2018, 28.11.2018,
02.08.2019 and 04.08.2019.
62. Of course these payments are stated to have been
made in cash and its legal consequences might be different but so
far as payment is concerned, it has been proved on record that
defendant no.1 has received these amounts against the receipt
towards the consideration amount for execution of the sale deed of
the aforesaid property which in fact found later on to have been
sold to some other person and for the said reason there was FIR
lodged against the defendant no.1 as well as other defendants.
63. Before filing of the present suit, out of the said
amount, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was already paid by defendant no.2
to the plaintiff in criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid
FIR bearing No. 370/2020 dated 12.10.2020 at the time of
arguments on bail application and therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that on preponderance of probability, the plaintiff has
proved her entitlement for recovery of remaining Rs.10 lakhs on
the basis of oral testimony as well as on the basis of documentary
evidence. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 31 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:55:55
+0530
plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
ISSUE No.4:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest. If so, at what rate and for
which period? (OPP)
64. Though the plaintiff has claimed the interest
including pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum in its
written submission from the date of filing of the suit, however, the
same appears to be on higher side considering the reporate for
lending as fixed by the RBI vide notification dated 30.08.2022
vide Press Release No. 2022-2023/794 having rate of interest @
9.05% in a commercial transaction and thereafter decree in the
reporate time to time and most recently in December 2025
wherein the reporate has been brought on to 5.25%.
65. Otherwise also, section 34 of the CPC deals with the
rate of interest and for the ready reference, same is reproduced as
under:-
“(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment
of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at
such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on
the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to
the date of the decree, in addition to any interest
adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to
the institution of the suit, 1 [with further interest at such
rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum as the Court
deems reasonable on such principal sum], from the date
of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier
date as the Court thinks fit:
2[Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum
so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction,
the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent.
per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of
interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at
which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalisedCS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 32 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:56:06
+0530
banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation I.– In this Sub-section, “nationalised bank”
means a corresponding new bank as defined in the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).
Explanation II.– For the purposes of this section, a
transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is
connected with the industry, trade or business of the
party incurring the liability.]
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the
payment of further interest 3[on such principal sum]
from the date of the decree to the date of payment or
other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have
refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall
not lie.”
66. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the ends
of justice would be met if the plaintiff be awarded simple interest
@ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 20.03.2023
till the realization of decreetal amount.
67. However, since no evidence has been led qua the
quantum of amount for harassment or in respect to penalty
charges, therefore, the prayer for penalty charges is dismissed for
want of evidence.
R E L I E F:-
68. In view of the above, the suit is decreed for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant No.1 with simple interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 20.03.2023 till
realization of the decretal amount.
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 33 of 35 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.04.22 15:56:13 +0530
69. However, the defendant no.2 being the proforma
defendant and since the plaintiff has failed to prove her case
against the defendant no.3 on preponderance of probability,
therefore, suit is dismissed against defendant no.2 and 3.
70. Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit and
additionally Rs.1,000/- spent by the plaintiff in DLSA for
invoking pre-institution mediation.
71. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
72. Before parting with the judgment, it is to be noted
that in case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational
Institution vs. B. Gunashekar & Another, Civil Appeal No.5200 of
2025 decided on 16.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that if there is cash payment of more than Rs.2 lakhs, the matter
be referred to jurisdictional Income Tax Department in terms of
para 18.1(A) of said judgment.
73. In case of The Correspondence, RBANMS
Educational Institution (supra) while disposing off the matter, the
Hon’ble Apex Court made reference to Section 269ST of Income
Tax Act observing that the same was introduced to curb black
money by digitization of the transactions above Rs.2 lakh and
contemplated equal amount of penalty U/s 271DA of the Act.
74. The directions given in para 18.1 of the judgment
were to be intimated by the Registrars of High Courts, the Chief
Secretaries of the States/Union Territories and the Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax Department to the District Judiciary,
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 34 of 35
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:56:22
+0530
the officials of the registration department and the jurisdictional
officers under the Income Tax Department respectively, so as to
facilitate the conduct of periodical audit.
75. Thus, in view of the directions given by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in above mentioned judgment as well as in the
facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the plaintiff
has specifically asserted and proved the cash payment of Rs.20
lakhs to the defendant No.1, it is deemed appropriate that matter
be referred to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for
verification of transactions and the violation of Section 269ST of
Income Tax Act, if any.
76. Court Reader to send the copy of plaint alongwith the
receipts relied upon by the plaintiff as a proof of cash payment
and the judgment passed today, in a sealed envelop, with covering
letter, to Administration Deputy Commissioner (HQRS-ADMN),
Room No.354, Central Revenues Building, I.P. Estate, New
Delhi-110002 PH:23379596 for further action in terms of
judgment in case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational
Institution (supra) passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
77. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. Digitally signed
Dictated and announced Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
in the open Court on
Kumar Date:
22nd April, 2026.
Sharma 2026.04.22
15:56:31 +0530
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS (COMM) No. 493/2023 Seema Rathore Vs. Yunus & Ors. Page 35 of 35
