Delhi High Court – Orders
(Restoration) Dr. R. K. Jain @ Rajesh … vs Mr. Rambir Khatkar S/O Ram Kishan … on 7 April, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 128/2024, CM APPL. 10525/2024 (Condonation of Delay), CM
APPL. 10526/2024 (Exemption), CM APPL. 10527/2024
(Condonation - Refiling Appeal), CM APPL. 25598/2024
(Restoration)
DR. R. K. JAIN @ RAJESH JAIN
S/O LATE SH. S. P. JAIN,
R/O B-13/S-I, DILSHAD GARDEN,
DELHI, 110095
CAMP ADDRESS:
HOUSE NO. 2898, URBAN ESTATE,
JIND, HARYANA, 126102 .....Appellant
Through: Appellant in Person
VERSUS
MR. RAMBIR KHATKAR
S/O RAM KISHAN KHATKAR
R/O 1180, URBAN ESTATE, JIND
HARYANA, 126102 .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tanuj Jaglan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 07.04.2026
CM APPL. 10526/2024 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
CM APPL. 10525/2024 (Under Section 5, 14, and 17 of the Limitation Act,
1963 on behalf of the Appellant for the Condonation of Delay of 372 Days in
filing the First Appeal)
CM APPL. 10527/2024 (Application for Condonation of Delay of 190 Days
in Refiling the Appeal)
3. The above two Applications have been filed on behalf of the
Appellant seeking Condonation of 372 Days in filing the First Appeal and
190 Days in Refiling the Appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the Applications, the delay of 372 Days in
filing the First Appeal, and 190 Days in refiling the Appeal, is condoned.
5. Both the Applications are allowed and stand disposed of, accordingly.
RFA 128/2024
6. Regular First Appeal under Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC‘) has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff /
Appellant R. K. Jain @ Rajesh Jain(herein after referred to as ‘Plaintiff’)
for themodification of Judgement and Decree dated 11.02.2020 decreed in
favor of the Appellant, for grant of higher pendente lite and future interest@
3% and 4% per month, instead of @9% per annum, and the setting aside of
the Order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby
the Plaintiff‟s Review Application was dismissed on the ground of non-
maintainability.
7. The Plaintiff thus, filed the Suit bearing No. 425/2015 instituted
on 23.11.2011 for the Recovery of Rs. 3,00,600/- as on 30.11.2011, along
with pendente lite and future interest as contractually agreed, till
realization of Suit Amount.
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
8. The facts in brief, as narrated in the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff is a
permanent resident of Delhi and is engaged in private practice as a Specialist
Orthopaedic Doctor in Delhi.The Plaintiff used to make visits to the
Defendant‟s residence to treat his mother and father, for various illnesses, on
the weekends, in the city of Jind, Haryana.
9. The Defendant / Respondent Rambir Khatkar (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Defendant’) worked as a Laboratory Technician in Bharat Medical Lab
located in Urban Estate, Jind, Haryana. For about 3 years, he would
frequently visit the Plaintiff‟s Clinic in Jind, for sample collection. The
Plaintiff would make visits to the Defendant‟s residence, to treat his mother
and father for various illnesses.
10. The Plaintiff, on a verbal agreement, gave a cash loan of Rs.
1,20,000/-on an interest @ 3% per month, near Tis Hazari Court
premises,on 15.05.2010 to the Defendant. The Defendant handed over a
‘self‟ post-dated and signed cheque, for the loan amount i.e., Rs. 1,20,000/-
dated 15.06.2010,in favour of the Plaintiff.
11. The Plaintiff gave another cash loan of Rs. 30,000/- along with
interest @ 4% per month, near Tis Hazari Court premises, to the Defendant.
The Defendant had issued another ‘self’signed cheque for an amount of Rs.
30,000/-, dated 15.07.2010.
12. On 16.07.2010, the Plaintiff further transferred an amount of Rs.
20,000/- via RTGS, into the Defendant‟s bank account in Jind, in light of
another request for a loan at the aforesaid amount, an interest rate @ 4%
per month.
13. The loans are summarized, as follows:
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
Interest Rate
Date Loan (Rs.) Mode
(Per Month)
14.05.2010 1,20,000/- Cash 3%
15.07.2010 30,000/- Cash 4%
16.07.2010 20,000/- RTGS 4%
TOTAL 1,70,000/-
14. The Defendant on 01.10.2010, signed two Pro-Notes, acknowledging
the receipt of the cash loan amount of (i) Rs. 1,25,000/- along with interest
@ 3% per month, and (ii) Rs. 30,000/- along with interest @ 4% per month.
However, the Defendant cunningly, fraudulently and with mala fide intent,
marked the dates as 01.10.2010 on both Pro-Notes, whereas the datesshould
have been stated as 15.05.2010 and 15.07.2010, respectively.
15. After a month, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant requesting for
the payment of interest amount that had accrued between 15.07.2010 and
31.10.2010, to which the Defendant expressed his inability, and again
reassured payment within 15 days.
16. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant declined the
Plaintiff‟s request for the issuance of a fresh cheque of the total sum amount
i.e., Rs. 1,70,000/- towards the principal amount, and another cheque for Rs.
50,000 towards the accrued interest. It is claimed that an amount of Rs.
1,30,600/- has accrued as on 30.11.2011, towards the agreed interest.
Further, the Plaintiff incurred a cost of Rs. 15,000/- towards legal fees.
17. The Plaintiff thus, filed the Suit bearing No. 425/2015 instituted
on 23.11.2011 for the Recovery of Rs. 3,00,600/- as on 30.11.2011, along
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
with pendente lite and future interest at contractually agreed rate, till
realization of Suit Amount.
18. The Defendant in his Written Statement took the preliminary
objection that Suit of the Plaintiff is without any cause of action, and that the
Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction, to try the case. He denied that
the said amount was advanced to him in Delhi. It was stated that the
Plaintiff‟s visit to the Defendant‟s home to treat his parents, had instead of
improving their condition, caused further deterioration. The Plaintiff assured
the Defendant that he would bear the expenses for further treatment as he
had wrongly provided steroids to the Defendant‟s mother.He had transferred
the amount of Rs. 20,000/- via RTGS, for the wrong treatment given to the
mother.
19. The Defendant on merits, denied requesting for a loan amount Rs.
1,20,000 along with interest @ 3% per month. It is denied that the
Defendant ever executed any Pro-Note admitting liability towards any loan
advanced by the Plaintiff. It was alleged that the Pro-Notes neither bear his
signatures nor were in his handwriting.The Defendant refuted that any
cheque was issued by him in favour of the Plaintiff. It was asserted that the
said cheque must have been stolen by the Plaintiff, during one of his visits at
the Defendant‟s home. The total liability of Rs. 3,00,600, was denied in toto.
20. The Plaintiff in his Replicationcontroverted the averments of the
Defendant, and re-affirmed the averments made in the Plaint.
21. The learned District Judge had, on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties framed the following issues on 11.01.2013,
(1) Whether the Courts at Delhi lack Territorial Jurisdiction to
try and entertain the present Suit? OPD
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
(2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the Principal
Amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the Defendant? OPP
(3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what
rate and for which period? OPP
(4) Relief.
22. The Plaintiff, as PW1, deposed about his case, as stated in the plaint.
23. PW-2Sayed Faizal Huda, Forensic Expert, who proved his Report as
Ex. PW-2/A1.
24. PW-3 Deepak Saini, Advocate, corroborated the testimony of the
Plaintiff and deposed that the Pro-Notes as Ex. PW-1/F i.e., Pro-Note of Rs.
1,20,000/- dated 01.10.2010 and Ex. PW-1/Gi.e., Pro-Note of Rs. 30,000/-
dated 01.10.2010.
25. The Defendant, in support of his case, examined himself as DW-1.
26. Learned District Judge held that a cash loan of Rs.1,20,000/- and
Rs.30,000/- respectively, was handed over by the Plaintiff to the Defendant
at St. Stephens Hospital and Tis Hazari Court respectively, and that the Pro
Notes Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G were executed by the Plaintiff, at Tis
Hazari. In view of the documents and oral testimony of the Plaintiff, it was
held that Delhi Courts had the jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
27. In respect of recovery of the due amount, after considering the
respective evidence of both the parties, disbelieved the defence of the
Defendant/Respondent that Rs.20,000/- had been transferred by the Plaintiff,
for the wrong treatment given to his mother. The two Pro Notes Ex.PW1/F
and 1/G were accepted to have been executed by the Plaintiff, at the time of
taking the loans. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was proved to have been
transferred through RTGS. It was thus, held that the testimony of 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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
Plaintiff of having given loan of a total amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was fully
corroborated by the documentary evidence.
28. The Suit of the Plaintiff was decreed for a Sum of Rs. 3,00,600/-
along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum, vide
Judgement dated 11.02.2020.
29. Aggrieved by the rate of rent granted vide the impugned
Judgement,Plaintiff filed a Review Application bearing No.
Misc./DJ/219/2020 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC on 03.03.2020 for the
modification for the said Judgement.
30. The learned District Judge,in the Order dated 02.02.2023,dismissed
the Review Petition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was already
pursuing the Execution Petition bearing No. 65/2020 at Jind District,
Haryana in pursuance of for the Judgement and Decree dated 11.02.2020,
against which an Appeal, has also been filed.It was held that the Petitioner
cannot be allowed to take two contrary versions by way of simultaneously
pursuing both remedies.
31. Aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree dated 11.02.2020, and the
dismissal of the Review Application vide Order dated 02.02.2023, the
present Regular First Appeal has been preferred, by the Appellant
/Plaintiffseeking for the modification of Judgement and Decree dated
11.02.2020 to the extent of the grant of agreed interest instead of reduced
interest @ 9% p.a., and (ii) for setting aside of the Order dated 02.02.2023
passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the Plaintiff‟s Review
Application was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.
32. The grounds of the Appeal are that the rules of law and fairness
provides that the Appellant / Plaintiff cannot be deprived or refused of 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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
substantive relief purely on the ground of delay occasioned on account of
Review Petition as he was in a bona fide belief that there was a patent error
on the face of the Judgment, which could be corrected by way of Review.
This ground constituted sufficient cause for establishing that the Appellant /
Plaintiff was never sitting idle; rather was pursuing his legal remedies bona
fide. He had no intention to drag the proceedings for nearly three years from
03.03.2020 to 02.02.2023 during which period the Review proceedings were
pending.
33. The Appellant / Plaintiff further contended that reducing the
contractual rate of interest payable pendent lite and till date of actual
payment realization, is an blatant violation of the Judgments of the Apex
Court as well as of the High Courts, rending the impugned Judgment and
Decree a nullity, to the extent of reducing the contractual rate of interest in
an arbitrary manner and without recording any reason, entailing legal injury
to the Appellant/Decree Holder for no fault of his. He cannot be made to
suffer double jeopardy; first by passing the Judgment which is not in
accordance with law qua the awardable interest and then declining to correct
the mistake by the reasoning which is perverse and not in line with the
settled judicial principles.
34. Reliance is placed on Assistant Excise Commissioner & Ors. vs. Issac
Peter & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 104, wherein it was held that neither „doctrine
of fairness & reasonableness‟ nor „legitimate expectation‟ can be invoked to
alter express terms of the Contract. Similar observations have been made in
SBI vs. Ysangi Venkateswara Rao, AIR 1999 SC 896.
35. Reliance is also placed on Vijaya Bank vs. S. Bhathija&Anr. AIR 1994
Kant 123, wherein it was held that pendent lite as well as future interest
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
must be awarded at contractual rates, unless the debtor complains that the
interest charged was excessive and transaction was substantially unfair.
36. Similar observations have been made in Syndicate Bank vs. WB
Cements Ltd. AIR 1989 Delhi 107 and S.K. Engineering Works vs. New BOI
by Punjab High Court.
37. It is further asserted that the dismissal of Review Application on the
ground of non-maintainability, as the Decree Holder was already pursuing
his Execution Petition in respect of Decree dated 11.02.2020,is legally
untenable because,firstly, no objection had been taken in the Reply;secondly,
the Execution Petition had been filed much after the institution of the
Review Petition; and thirdly, there is no bar in law to pursue the legal right
to execution of Decree while simultaneously pursuing the remedy for
correction of mistake in the Decree. Furthermore, if the Review Application
filed on 03.03.2020 was not maintainable, it should have been dismissed at
the very outset, but the issue of maintainability of Review was decided
nearly after three years, by the learned ADJ. A prayer is, therefore, made
that the impugned Judgment dated 11.03.2020 be modified to the extent of
pendent lite and future interest which may be granted @ contractual interest
and that the Order dated 02.02.2023 dismissing the Review Petition be set
aside.
Submissions heard and record perused.
38. The Suit of the Plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.3,00,600/- has been
decreed with pendent lite and future interest @ 9% per annum. The sole
ground of challenge is that the pendent lite and future interest should have
been granted at the contractual rate of 3% and 4% per month, respectively
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
on the two loans taken by the defendant and not @ 9% per annum, as has
been granted vide impugned Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2020.
39. To appreciate the contention of the Appellant / Plaintiff, the facts need
to be put in the right perspective. According to the Appellant / Plaintiff, the
principal amount was Rs.1,70,000/- on which Rs.1,30,600/- has been added
as an interest @ 3% and 4% per month, as was stated in the Pro
NotesEx.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively.
40. First and foremost, according to the Plaintiff, it was a friendly loan
given to the Respondent and the rate of interest @ 3% and 4% per month, is
not the norm, on the friendly loan transaction. In fact, this rate of interest
was more penal in nature, but because it has not been challenged by the
Respondent, this Court find itself unable to question the pre institution
interest of Rs.1,30,600/-granted by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the
Decree of the Suit for Rs.1,70,000/- towards principle and pre-institution
interest, is upheld and not questioned.
41. The second aspect for consideration is the rate of payment of pendent
lite and future interest, which is essentially governed by Section 34CPC.
42. Section 34CPC pertains to the grant of interest in a Decree for
payment of money. The section reads as follows:
34. Interest .-
(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 principalThis 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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, [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.
43. A bare reading of Section 34 CPC indicates that the power of Courts
to award interest in a Decree for payment of money, is the discretionary
power,de hors the contract between the parties.
44. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra
& Ors.,MANU/SC/0663/2001 held that,
In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged
on the date of the suit, the component of interest is disproportionate
with the component of the principal sum actually advanced, the Court
may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and
post-decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline to award such
interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for
not arbitrary or fanciful reasons.
45. Likewise, in the case of Tomorrowland Limited vs. Housing and
Urban Development Corporation Limited and
Ors.,MANU/SC/0206/2025;2025:INSC:207, it was held that the power to
award interest ought to be exercised judiciously, aligning with equitable
considerations and also ensuring neither undue enrichment nor unfair
deprivation. Courts are duty-bound to assess the facts and circumstances of
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
each case, applying the principles of fairness and justice. This discretion
must reflect a balanced approach, grounded in reason, and guided by the
overarching objective of equity.
46. A similar observation was made in the case of Small Industries
Development Bank of India v. M/s. Sibco Investment Private Limited, Civil
Appeal No. 8 of 2022, wherein it was observed that the award of interest
under Section 34 CPC is a discretionary remedy, steeped in equitable
consideration.
47. The Petitioner has relied on Assistant Excise Commissioner & Ors. vs.
Issac Peter & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 104; SBI vs. Yasangi Venkateswara Rao,
AIR 1999 SC 896; Vijaya Bank vs. S. Bhathija&Anr., AIR 1994 Kant 123;
Syndicate Bank vs. WB Cements Ltd., AIR 1989 Del 107; and S.K.
Engineering Works vs. New Bank of India, AIR 1987 Punj and Har 90, in
support of his contention that contractual terms, including interest rates,
cannot be altered by doctrines of fairness, reasonableness, or legitimate
expectation, and courts must award pendent lite and future interest at
contracted rates absent proof of excessive or unfair charges.These citied
judgements are distinguishable as the said cited authorities were passed in
the context of lending by Banks and pertain mainly to commercial
transactions.
48. As such, the claim of the Appellant for seeking enhanced pendente lite
and future interest on a friendly loan does not hold merit.
49. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that there is no valid ground
raised in the present First Appeal warranting interference with the
impugned Judgement and Order dated 11.02.2020 and Order dated
02.02.2023.
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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05
Challenge to Dismissal of Review videOrder dated 02.02.2023
50. The next contention of the Plaintiff/Appellant is that the decision of
the learned District Judge to dismiss the Review Petition on grounds of non-
maintainability, was legally untenable as no objection was taken by the
Judgement-Debtor, the Execution Petition was filed after the institution of
the Review Petition, and there was no bar under the law to pursue the said
remedies simultaneously.
51. It is settled principle of law that no Appeal shall lie from an Order of
rejection of an Application, as expressly provided underOrder XLVII Rule
7(1) CPC. Thisis endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case of Satheesh V.
K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd., Civil Appeal No(s). 11752-11753/2025,
2025:INSC:1140, wherein it was held that”no appeal lies from an order
rejecting a petition for review is clear from the plain language of Order
XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC. The party aggrieved by the rejection of the review
petition has to challenge the decree or order, as the case may be, and not
the order of rejection of the review petition.”
Conclusion:
52. Thus, the Appeal challenging impugned Judgement dated 11.02.2020
and Order dated 02.02.2023 dismissing the Review Application has no
merit and is hereby, dismissed.
53. Pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
APRIL 7, 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 01/05/2026 at 20:46:05