Delhi High Court – Orders
Ms. Preeti Gupta D/O Sh. Vinod Gupta R/O … vs Mr. Sumit Kumar S/O Sh. P.K. Tanwar C/O … on 10 March, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 112/2025, CM APPL. 46766/2025 & CM APPL. 46767/2025
MS. PREETI GUPTA
D/o Sh. Vinod Gupta
R/o H.No.71, Bheem Gali,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate.
versus
MR. SUMIT KUMAR
S/o Sh. P.K. Tanwar
C/o Mr. Mayur
R/o 82, Ground floor, Radhey Puri Extn.,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi. .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 10.03.2026
1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC“), has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant/Defendant against Judgment and Decree dated
29.04.2025, whereby learned District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the
First Appeal on the ground of limitation and thereby, upheld the Judgment
of the learned Civil Judge dated 19.07.2024, whereby the Suit of Plaintiff /
Respondent for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of institution till realization, of the said amount
within 01 month from date of decree.
2. Facts in brief are that Plaintiff / Respondent had filed a Civil Suit No.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:34
136/2023 on 03.02.2023 under Order XXXVII CPC for the recovery of
Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @18% p.a.
3. The facts in brief, are that on 09.09.2019, Defendant / Appellant had
approached the Plaintiff / Respondent for a friendly loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for
an urgent medical treatment of her father in Max Hospital, Patparganj,
Delhi. Accordingly, the loan was advanced on 10.09.2019 and a Promissory
Note / Pronote / Receipt in favour of the Plaintiff was issued, with an
assurance that the loan would be repaid within six months. However, when
the Plaintiff demanded his money back on 15.03.2020, Defendant avoided
repaying the loan. Plaintiff then sent a Legal Notice dated 05.09.2022, but it
returned with remark of „addressee not found,’ but Plaintiff found the
Defendant on the same address, showing the malafide intention of the
Defendant. Plaintiff thus, filed a Suit for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- along
with interest.
4. Defendant / Appellant, in her Written Statement, took the defence
that Plaintiff / Respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands
and has suppressed material facts. She claimed that she had never
approached the Plaintiff for a friendly loan, for the purpose of treatment of
her father. She had an apprehension that Promissory Note / Pronote / Receipt
have been forged on the basis of some documents, which her previous
counsel had got signed in her divorce related matter. She denied knowing
Plaintiff, let alone any liability under the alleged Promissory Note / Pronote /
Receipt to pay the alleged loan.
5. Plaintiff / Respondent, in his Replication, re-affirmed his assertions.
6. Issues were framed on 21.10.2023, which are as under:
“1. Whether the Promissory Note / Pronote / Receipt was
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:34
got signed from the Defendant by her previous lawyer
fraudulently?(OPD)
2. Whther the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of
Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest from the Defendant, as
prayed for?(OPP)
3. Relief.”
7. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and proved the documents
Ex.PW-1/A to E.
8. Defendant examined herself as DW-1 and proved the document
Ex.DW-1/A.
9. Learned Civil Judge referred to Original Promissory Note / Receipt
dated 10.09.2019 Ex.PW1/B and in the light of evidence of both parties,
held this document to be genuinely executed by the Appellant and also that
the signatures on the same, were of the Appellant. In defence, she did not
deny the signatures on the Pro Note. In fact, the defence taken by the
Appellant was that her previous counsel namely Mr. Lokesh Verma had got
some documents signed form her, in her divorce litigation, which was not
accepted. Learned Civil Judge thus, held that Plaintiff was entitled to
recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- and accordingly, decreed the Suit along with
interest @ 6% per annum.
10. Thereafter, First Appeal bearing RCADJ/4 2025 was filed by the
Appellant along with Application seeking condonation of delay of 100 days,
in filing the Appeal.
11. Learned District Judge, Vide Order dated 29.04.2025, dismissed the
Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, by observing
that there was no reason whatsoever, given by the Appellant for condoning
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:34
the delay and consequently, the First Appeal was also dismissed.
12. Aggrieved by the same, present Second Appeal has been filed by
the Appellant.
13. The grounds of challenge are that learned First Appellate Court
erroneously calculated the delay to be of more than six months instead of
103 days, thereby prejudicing the condonation Application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963, for which reliance has been placed on
Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107.
14. It is further asserted the learned First Appellate Court misapplied
Rajneesh Kumar vs. Ved Prakash by failing to consider the Petitioner‟s good
faith. Reliance placed on Mr. Rampal Singh‟s false assurances, contravening
precedents protecting litigants from negligence of the counsel, for which
reliance is placed on Rafiq vs. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400 and N.
Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123.
15. It is further asserted that the impugned Order dated 29.04.2025, is
violative of principles of natural justice, as the Appellant was not even given
full opportunity to argue on the condonation Application and was denied
additional time to rely on supporting Judgments. Reliance is placed on
Manohar Nathurao Samarth vs. Marotrao, (1979) 4 SCC 93.
16. Learned First Appellate Court, without addressing the merits in the
First Appeal, erroneously dismissed the Appeal, which has led to
miscarriage of justice, for which reliance has been placed on Nagaland vs.
Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752.
17. The remarks of learned First Appellate Court against the conduct of
Petitioner‟s counsel, reflect bias, vitiating impartiality of the proceedings,
for which, reference is made to R. C. Sharma vs. Union of India, (1976) 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:34
SCC 574.
18. The Promissory Note for Rs.2,50,000/- has been forged by Mr.
Lokesh Verma, who had misused the signatures obtained on blank papers
from the Appellant during her divorce proceedings, on 10.09.2019. The
negligence of Mr. Rampal Singh, who withheld critical evidence and
colluded with the Respondent‟s counsel, resulting in miscarriage of justice,
has not been appreciated.
19. Respondent had failed to prove the loan transaction beyond
reasonable doubt, under Section 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 („NI
Act‟), especially when validity of Promissory Note itself is disputed. The
Respondent failed to produce Bank Statements or Income Tax Returns, to
establish his financial capacity, to lend Rs.2,50,000/-. Respondent‟s
inconsistent claim of providing tuition to Petitioner‟s daughter, who was
only 2.5 year old in 2016, has not been appreciated, since this casts doubt on
his credibility.
20. There is no cogent evidence by way of Call Record or WhatsApp
Chats, to substantiate the acquaintance of Respondent‟s with the Appellant,
since 2016. The objection of the Appellant that there was no medical
emergency involving her father during the alleged period, has not been
considered.
21. Furthermore, the delay in filing the First Appeal was of 163 days, due
to misrepresentations by Mr. Rampal Singh that the Appeal had been filed.
This deceit came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff on 18.01.2025, during
Execution proceedings. Present Second Appeal has been filed within the
limitation period from the First Appellate Court‟s Order dated 29.04.2025.
22. A Prayer is therefore, made that the impugned Judgment be set aside.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:34
Submissions heard and record perused.
23. First and foremost, it may be observed that the grounds of Appeal are
essentially on merits and no substantial question of law has been raised.
Secondly, the first Appeal was preferred on 28.01.2025, against the
Judgment of the Civil Judge dated 19.07.2024, i.e. after a delay of 163 days
(193-30) in filing the First Appeal. The only explanation given was that the
Appellant‟s previous counsel Sh. Ram Pal Singh had misguided her about
filing of the First Appeal, but in actuality it was not filed.
24. Learned District Judge, while dismissing the condonation
Application, had noted in impugned Order dated 29.04.2025 that there was
no cogent reason, whatsoever, given for explaining the delay. Even now,
aside from asserting that the Mr. Rampal Singh had colluded with the
counsel for the Respondent, the Appellant has not been able to show any
cogent reason for condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal.
25. The Appellant placed reliance on the Hon‟ble SC Judgment N.
Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 in her grounds of
Regular Second Appeal, but misconceived the essence of very ratio laid
down therein. While the Appellant seeks to rely on certain observations to
contend that her conduct ought not be viewed strictly, she has failed to
appreciate that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment,
unequivocally held that condonation of delay is a matter of Judicial
discretion and that the acceptability of the explanation, and not the length of
the delay, is the governing criterion. It was held that even a short delay may
be refused condonation, if no satisfactory or sufficient cause is shown. Thus,
the first Appellate Court, rightly dismissed the Appeal on limitation.
26. The Appellant herself has stated that she had appeared in the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:34
execution proceedings. There was a delay of 163 days (193-30) in filing the
First Appeal, which has not been sufficiently explained. There is no cogent
explanation for interfering with the Order of learned District Judge dated
29.04.2025.
27. There is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed along
with pending Applications.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
MARCH 10, 2026/R
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:34
[ad_1]
Source link
