Delhi High Court upholds Rs.50 lakh decree, directs pendente lite interest and costs in favour of successful lender

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal heard an appeal under Section 96 CPC read with Order XLI Rule 1 challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, which had granted a decree of Rs.50 lakhs with future interest. The challenge concerned whether promissory notes and a set of undated cheques, said to evidence an interest-free loan to a deceased borrower, were proved and whether the plaintiff was entitled to pendente lite interest and costs.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court's finding that the promissory notes and cheques bore the signatures and handwriting of the deceased promisor and therefore entitled the plaintiff to recovery. The court held that although the cheques were undated and the payee names were blank, they had "corroborative value" given the total amount matched the promissory notes and the plaintiff had summoned bank records to prove signatures. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is a settled position of law that a civil suit has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the Trial Court has analysed the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the promissory notes as well as the cheques duly bore the signatures as well as the handwriting of late Sh. Rakesh Mathur. Hence, the plaintiff was entitled to the amounts in terms of the promissory notes issued by late Sh. Rakesh Mathur." The court further noted that "A successful party in the suit cannot be deprived of pendente lite interest."

Background The plaintiff alleged that he extended an interest-free friendly loan of Rs.50 lakhs to the late Sh. Rakesh Bahadur Mathur between July 2013 and August 2014 by way of cheques and cash, and that two promissory notes and five undated cheques were executed in his favour. After the promisor's death on 26 July 2015, the defendants—his legal heirs—denied the loan and alleged that the promissory notes and cheques were forged and fabricated. The plaintiff sent a legal notice and filed CS No. 59187/2016 for recovery of Rs.50 lakhs.

At trial the plaintiff led four witnesses and summoned bank records to prove signatures; the defendants led one witness (son of the deceased) and contended discrepancies and absence of supporting receipts, counterfoils and contemporaneous entries. The Trial Court found that signatures on the promissory notes and cheques matched the bank records and that defendants had not pleaded or adduced evidence of forgery; it decreed the suit for Rs.50 lakhs with future interest at 12% per annum.

On appeal, Justice Bansal examined the pleadings and evidence and upheld the Trial Court's findings that discrepancies were not material, that the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof by summoning official bank record, and that defendants failed to rebut the evidence. The High Court however found no reason for the Trial Court to deny pendente lite interest and costs; it directed pendente lite interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing (1 October 2015) to the date of decree (3 September 2019) and awarded costs including amounts paid to the Local Commissioner. Earlier interim orders required deposit of two-thirds of the decretal amount and subsequent partial release; the Registry was directed to release the balance deposited by the appellants to the respondent along with accrued interest, to be adjusted against the decretal amount. The appeal was dismissed and the plaintiff’s cross-objections were allowed to the extent indicated.

Case No.: RFA 1003/2019, CM APPL. 50426/2019, CM APPL. 54558/2019 & CM APPL. 27979/2025 Case Title: Renu Mathur & Ors v. Ramesh Chander Gupta Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Nitin Kumar & Ms. Shruti Kapur, Advocates For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin Gupta and Ms. Mahima Chanchalani, Advocates