KISHAN KUMAR GUPTA vs RAJ KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 13th February, 2026 Pronounced on: 25th April 2026 + RSA No.150/2024, CM APPL. 47257/2024 (stay) KISHAN KUMAR GUPTA S/o Late Om Prakash Gupta R/o 291/1, D-6, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi-110085 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Galib Kabir, Advocate. versus RAJ KUMAR S/o Late Bishan Sarup R/o 3139, Lal Darwaza Bazaar Sita Ram Delhi-110006 .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. Second Regular Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to ‘CPC‟) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment dated 14.05.2024, whereby the learned District Judge-06, Central District, Delhi in RCA DJ No. 16/2019, has upheld the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2018 of the learned Civil Judge whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.2,84,500/-, has been dismissed. 2. The Substantial question of Law that arises in the present Appeal is: Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS RSA 150/2024 Page 1 of 16 ARORA Signing Date:25.04.2026 17:59:34 (i) Whether the oral evidence is admissible in the teeth of Written Document? (ii) Whether findings on oral evidence, in contradiction to written document, is contrary to S.90/S.91 Indian Evidence Act? 3. The Plaintiff/Appellant had filed a Suit for Recovery of Rs.2,84,500/- along with the pendente lite and future interest @18% p.a. against Defendant. 4. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were well known to each other, having previously been residents of Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi. The Defendant took a loan of Rs.3,20,000/- on 15.09.2013, stating that he was under financial stress as he had purchased a house in August, 2011 and