Ms. Vanessa Armelle Ganguly Mousset vs Mr. Yashpal Singh Chauhan & Anr on 18 May, 2026

May 26, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Ms. Vanessa Armelle Ganguly Mousset vs Mr. Yashpal Singh Chauhan & Anr on 18 May, 2026

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has
been filed on behalf of the Appellant, Ms. Vanessa Armelle Ganguly
Mousset against Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2026, whereby learned
District Judge has rejected the Suit of the Plaintiff / Appellant for Recovery
of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a, under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, being barred by limitation.

SPONSORED

2. The Plaintiff / Appellant had filed a Summary Suit bearing 4 CS DJ
No.1023/25 under Order XXXVII CPC for the Recovery of Rs.20,00,000/-
along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. The facts in brief, as stated in the Suit were that the Plaintiff is a
French National, permanently residing at Rennes, France. Sometime in the
year 2009, Defendant Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Yashpal Singh Chauhan and Mrs.
Madhuri Chauhan, known to Mrs. Mousset and the Plaintiff through social

RFA 518/2026 Page 1 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27
and family circles, approached Mrs. Mousset for jointly investing the funds
into lucrative real estate ventures, in Delhi. The Defendants represented
themselves as experienced Real Estate Developers and Investors, possessing
substantial goodwill and connections in the sector and assured that with their
experience, Mrs. Mousset would secure and get high return opportunities.

4. Two commercial property spaces were identified by the Defendants in
the premium project of DLF South Court, Saket, New Delhi, which were
Property No. 265, First Floor, admeasuring 1215 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred
to as „Property No. 265‟) and Property No. 258, First Floor, admeasuring
1345 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as „Property No. 265‟) (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the „Suit Properties‟).

5. Relying on the assurances and trusting the bona fides of the
Defendants, Mrs. Mousset remitted Rs. 4,00,00,000/- to the Defendants in
2009 for purchase of the Suit Properties. Subsequently, Defendants through
their daughter, Ms. Gagandeep Chauhan, informed Mrs. Mousset that they
had purchased the Suit Properties in their own names, in 2009. Mrs. Mousset
was assured that these Suit Properties would be managed and sold in due
course and she would receive her rightful share in the proceeds. Mrs.
Mousset being based in France, relied completely on the assurances
extended by Defendants and their daughter and did not make any
independent verification of the status of investments.

6. It was further submitted that the Defendants informed Mrs. Mousset
and the Plaintiff that, without their knowledge or consent, they had entered
into a Sale Arrangement in respect of Property No. 265 and had even
received the money towards the said transaction. However, the transaction
did not fructify, as disputes arose on account of Defendants’ personal

RFA 518/2026 Page 2 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27
liabilities arising out of an unrelated transaction. As a consequence of such
liabilities, Execution Proceedings were initiated vide Execution Petition
No.182/2014 titled as Harvinder Singh Bhasin & Ors. v. Yashpal Singh
Chauhan & Anr.

7. The Defendants admitted that, due to their inability to clear the
liability, Property No.265, the same stood sold to Mr. Harvinder Singh
Bhasin, Mrs. Komal Bhasin, Mr. Deepak Bhasin and Mrs. Rinkoo Bhasin, in
terms of Settlement Agreement dated 09.03.2018.

8. The Defendants were unable to fulfil their undertaking furnished by
them in Execution Petition No.182/2014, wherein they had undertaken to
pay a sum of Rs.19,68,000/- to the Decree Holders, on or before 31.01.2020.
Owing to the inability to comply with the undertaking Defendants
approached the Plaintiff and Mrs. Mousset seeking further financial
assistance, representing that they were in urgent need of money to meet their
Court mandated Undertaking. It was also represented that if the undertaking
was not satisfied before this Court, it would make it difficult for the
Defendants to settle the dispute for the Properties.

9. The Plaintiff having no option, executed a Loan Agreement dated
04.02.2020 and advanced Rs.20,00,000/- to the Defendants, to satisfy
their Undertaking before this Court, in the Execution proceedings. The loan
tenure was fixed as nine months from 04.02.2020, which included an
extension of three months.

10. The Charge was created over the Defendants’ immovable property
bearing No.C-30, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi as collateral to secure
due performance of their repayment obligations.

RFA 518/2026 Page 3 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27

11. Subsequent to the execution of the Loan Agreement, the world was
confronted with the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in
widespread economic disruption, restrictions on movements, and severe
financial uncertainty across all sectors. In these circumstances, the
Defendants approached the Plaintiff and expressed their inability to adhere
to the repayment schedule, stipulated under the Loan Agreement. They
sought additional time, over and above the nine months’ payment plan.
Considering the extraordinary situation Plaintiff acceded to the Defendants’
request. However, the Defendants wilfully and deliberately evaded and
delayed the repayment obligations, even in the additional time granted by
the Plaintiff over and above nine months’ payment schedule.

12. Left with no option, Plaintiff sent a Letter dated 03.04.2024
demanding the outstanding loan of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest @
18% per annum. Thereafter, a formal Legal Notice dated 11.02.2025 was
sent claiming the return of the loan amount.

13. The Suit for Recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- along with pendente lite and
future interest @ 18% per annum was, thus filed.

14. The learned District Judge in the impugned Judgement dated
19.02.2026 noted that the Loan Agreement was of 04.02.2020 and even if
the benefit of COVID-19 is given, then too the Suit was patently barred by
Limitation. The learned Additional District Judge proceeded on the premise
that the money was received by the defendant on 04.02.2020 and that the
period of limitation of three years would commence from that date, thereby
rendering the Suit, instituted on 04.02.2023, barred by limitation, and
rejected the Suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, on 19.02.2026.

RFA 518/2026 Page 4 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27

15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgement dated 19.02.2026, present
Appeal has been filed.

16. The grounds of challenge are that learned District Judge misapplied
the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. For rejection under this Order, the
bar of limitation must be apparent on the face of the Plaint, when read as a
whole, along with the documents relied by the Plaintiff.

17. In the present case, the Plaint pleaded several distinct facts which,
when taken together, take the case outside the bar of limitation. Repeatedly,
the Respondents/Defendants had sought extension, which was granted by
the Appellant/Plaintiff. Moreover, the Respondents / Defendants had made a
written acknowledgement of liability through e-mail dated 29.03.2020,
which was also linked to the refund from M/s DLF Universal Limited.

18. The Appellant had written a Letter of Demand dated 03.04.2024 and a
Legal Notice dated 11.02.2005. Furthermore, the loan transaction was part
of a broader and continuing financial relationship, recorded in the
Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 12.12.2019. None of these averments
have been considered.

19. Furthermore, the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and
law, which could not have been decided summarily and without evidence.
The averments in the Plaint, the request of extension of time, grant of such
extension, the linkage of payment to DLF refund and the acknowledgement
dated 29.03.2020, the subsequent demands and the conduct of the parties; all
required evidence to be led and tested.

20. The e-mail sent by Ms. Gagandeep Chauhan, daughter of the
Respondents, who at all material times acted for and on behalf of the
Respondents in their dealings with the Appellant and her family, has been

RFA 518/2026 Page 5 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27
completely ignored. The e-mail was formally placed on record before the
learned Trial Court along with the Application under Section 151 CPC dated
18.02.2026, which expressly acknowledged the receipt of loan amount and
also that the amount shall be paid from the sums released from DLF.

21. Learned Trial Court has failed to take note of Clause 3.6 of the Loan
Agreement, which provided that in the event of default by the Respondents,
the Appellant was required to send a Written Notice before the Right of
Recovery under Loan Agreement crystallised. The Notice was first sent on
03.04.2024 and thereafter, a formal Legal Notice dated 11.02.2025. The
cause of action for recovery, in terms of contractual mechanism agreed
between the parties, therefore, arose only after the issuance of Notice and
refusal of the Respondents to comply with it.

22. Learned Trial Court has, contrary to the express terms of the Loan
Agreement, computed the limitation from the date of original maturity,
while completely ignoring the Notice mechanism that the parties themselves
had built into the contract.

23. Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the Loan Agreement contemplate and provide
the mechanism for extension of the loan tenure by mutual agreement of the
parties. Respondents through Ms. Gagandeep Chauhan, informed the
Appellant that repayment would be made out of the DLF refund, but the
Appellant by her conduct, in not insisting upon repayment in 2020 and in
granting subsequent extensions, accepted the modification. The repayment
obligation after 29.03.2020 was therefore, not a fixed term obligation. It
became contingent to receiving the refund from DLF, an event which has
not occurred till date.

RFA 518/2026 Page 6 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27

24. The cause of action for recovery of loan did not accrue on 31.07.2020
or 31.10.2020, as held by the learned Trial Court. The cause of action
accrued only when the Respondents failed to respond to the Written Demand
dated 03.04.2024 and Legal Notice dated 11.02.2025, i.e., when the
Respondents finally refused to honour their obligation.

25. Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the
„Act‟) being the residuary Article, applicable in the absence of any specific
Article, is attracted in the present case. According to Article 113 of the Act,
limitation runs from the date when the right to sue accrues. In a contractual
relationship of the present nature, and where the contract itself required a
default Notice, the right to sue accrued only upon the refusal of the
Respondents to comply with the said Notice. The Suit has been instituted on
09.12.2025, i.e., within three years of the Demand Letter 03.04.2024 and
Legal Notice dated 11.02.2024.

26. Furthermore, the loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- was not an isolated stand-
alone transaction. It was a direct extension of an ongoing financial
relationship between the family of the Appellant namely, the mother of the
Appellant Ms. Mausset and the Appellant herself on one hand, and
Respondents on the other hand. This relationship commenced with the
entrustment of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- by Appellant’s mother to the Respondents
in the year 2009, for purchase of the Suit Properties.

27. The loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- was advanced by the Appellant for
enabling the Respondents to discharge the Court Decree liability before this
Court, in Execution Petition No.182/2014. This loan, by its nature and
design, was a link to keep the broader DLF transaction alive and to protect
the larger entrustment made by Appellant’s mother. The commercial

RFA 518/2026 Page 7 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27
realities have not been considered and the learned Trial Court has treated the
loan transaction as stand-alone, separated from the broader relationship, of
which it was an integral part.

28. The Respondents have at no stage, denied the receipt of
Rs.20,00,000/- institution of Loan Agreement dated 04.02.2020, or the
receipt of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- from the Appellant’s mother under the
registered Declaration dated 12.12.2019. In a relationship of this nature,
where the underlying debt is admitted, where the borrower repeatedly seeks
indulgence and where the lender extends time in good faith on the
representations of the borrower, the question of limitation cannot be reduced
to a mechanical counting of days from the date in a single document.

29. Appellant is a French national, permanently residing in France and
has been pursuing her remedies in India under significant practical and
logistical constraints, which became particularly acute during and in the
aftermath of COVID-19 pandemic, when the international travel was
severely restricted. The Appellant has acted in good faith and advanced the
interest-free loan to assist the Respondents in discharging a Court-mandated
undertaking before this Court. She had granted extensions of time as and
when sought by the Respondents.

30. Once the liability is admitted by the Respondents, the Suit cannot be
dismissed on the hyper-technical computation of limitation. It is therefore,
submitted that the impugned Judgement dated 19.02.2026 be set aside and
the Suit be remanded back for Trial, on merits.

Submissions heard and record perused.

31. The principal question which arises for consideration in the present
Appeal is whether the learned District Judge rightly rejected the Plaint under

RFA 518/2026 Page 8 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

32. The claim of the Plaintiff arises out of a Loan Agreement dated
04.02.2020 under which the repayment period was expressly stipulated
between the parties. The present Suit, being one for recovery of money lent
under an agreement, would be governed by Article 21 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years for a suit
relating to money lent under an agreement that it shall be payable on
demand. Under the said Article, the period of limitation begins to run from
the date on which the loan is made.

33. Now examining the facts of the present case, it is an admitted case of
the parties that the Plaintiff/Appellant had given a loan of Rs. 20 lakhs vide
Loan Agreement dated 04.02.2020. Clause 3.1 and 3.2 of the Loan
Agreement provided the time frame for returning the loan amount. They
read as under :

“3.1 The Term Loan shall be for the term of 6 (six)
months from the date of this Agreement, unless
terminated earlier on account of the repayment of the
Term Loan by the Borrowers or extended in accordance
with clause 3.2.

3.2 The Terms may be extended by the mutual
agreement of the parties and no more than 3 months from
term as mentioned in clause 3.1 above.”

34. From the simpliciter reading of the terms of the Loan Agreement
dated 04.02.2020, it emerges that the loan amount was to be paid within six
months from the date of extension of loan on 04.02.2020 i.e., the loan was
payable till 04.08.2020. Clause 3.2 further provided that the further
extension could be given for three months, thereby the time for payment of
loan as per the terms of the Agreement was till 04.11.2020. The Suit has

RFA 518/2026 Page 9 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

35. Even if the period directed to be excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 owing to the COVID-19
pandemic is excluded and the limitation period of three years is computed
from 01.03.2022, the Suit still ought to have been instituted by March, 2025.
However, the present Suit came to be instituted only on 09.12.2025 and is
therefore clearly barred by limitation.

36. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has asserted that this was not a
standalone Loan Agreement, but was a part of the Undertaking/transaction
undertaken by the mother of the Plaintiff in the year 2009 when admittedly,
Rs.4,00,00,000/- had been extended and two commercial properties were
purchased by the Defendants. It is not denied that one of the properties so
purchased had to be sold, while there is an Execution pending in respect of
the second property.

37. The case of the Plaintiff is that in order to save this second property
from being lost in the Execution, the parties entered into the present Loan
Agreement dated 04.02.2020 under which it was agreed that the Plaintiff
shall give Rs. 20,00,000/- to abide by the Undertaking given by the
Defendants in this Court in the Execution proceedings.

38. It is claimed that this was a part of the larger scheme of things and
this Loan Agreement cannot be read dehors the earlier transaction which
commenced in 2009 between the mother and the Defendants. While the
transactions between the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants may have
commenced in 2009 when the mother chose to invest Rs. 4,00,00,000/- in
the real estate through the Defendants, but the bare perusal of the Loan
Agreement shows that it was a standalone Loan Agreement, whereby the

RFA 518/2026 Page 10 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27
Plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to the Defendants, because
of their financial necessity to satisfy the Undertaking given by them before
in an Execution proceeding pending before this Court.

39. From the entire gamut of facts as well as the expressed terms of the
Loan Agreement, it emerges that it does not mention anything about the
transaction between the mother and the Defendants, and is in no way
connected with the transactions between them, which commenced in 2009.

40. While the subject property which was intended to be sold by the
Defendants, may have been acquired from the money given by the mother,
but it is nowhere reflected that the loan transactions between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant, had any concern or connection with the dealings between
the mother and the Defendants. It was an independent Loan Agreement
between the Plaintiff and the defendants. This contention raised by the
Appellant, therefore, is without any basis.

41. The Appellant has further referred to the email dated 29.03.2020
written by Gagandeep Chauhan daughter of the Defendants addressed to the
Plaintiff wherein she wrote “it is important that you persuade DLF for
refund on property and damages”. It was further written “we both have
worked very hard for DLF refund. Throwing it away does not seem a fair
and possible choice”. As, with the sums released from DLF (in accordance
with new calculation sheet), will help us pay back Rs.20 Lakhs (that you
generously arranged and we are obliged for the same), our debts and loans
and even the Income Tax”.

42. This email has been written on 29.03.2020, acknowledging having
received Rs.20 lakhs from the Plaintiff and expressing the gratitude of
helping the Defendants in the time of distress. Moreover, it merely records

RFA 518/2026 Page 11 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

43. This email, as has been contended, does not link the return of loan
amount to the refund as and when received from DLF. Rather, it merely
expresses that the DLF may be pushed to return the refund amount, which
would enable her to also return her Rs.20,00,000/-. It is in no way a
condition precedent that the loan amount would be returned only after
receiving the money from DLF. This argument, therefore, is of no help to
the Appellant.

44. Even if the aforesaid e-mail dated 29.03.2020 is assumed to constitute
an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act,
1963, a fresh period of limitation computed therefrom would also expire
much prior to the institution of the present Suit on 09.12.2025. The said
communication, therefore, does not extend the limitation so as to save the
present Suit from being barred by time.

45. Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of the Appellant that the
question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and could not
have been adjudicated outrightly, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However,
here is a case where all the facts are admitted and from the averments made
in the Plaint itself, it is evident that the Suit is blatantly barred by limitation.
There are no disputed facts involved and therefore, no evidence was merited
in the facts of this particular case, to consider whether the Suit was barred by
limitation.

46. Learned District Judge has rightly held that from the admitted facts
as narrated in the Plaint, the Suit is patently barred by limitation.

RFA 518/2026 Page 12 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27

47. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed
along with pending Applications.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

MAY 18, 2026/R/VA

RFA 518/2026 Page 13 of 13

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 25/05/2026 at 20:43:27

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Ms. Vanessa Armelle Ganguly Mousset vs Mr. Yashpal Singh Chauhan & Anr on 18 May, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders