SRINAGAR: A Srinagar court has decreed a recovery suit of Rs 16.15 lakh against the proprietor of Behreen Travels after rejecting his plea to contest the case, observing that he had failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate his defence over money paid for Hajj and Umrah arrangements that could not be carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, presided over by Anjum Ara, on October 17, 2026, directed Nissar Ahmad Wani, proprietor of Behreen Travels, Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar, to pay Rs 16.15 lakh to three plaintiffs, along with interest at six per cent from the date of institution of the suit until realisation and the costs of the proceedings.
The court dismissed Wani’s application seeking leave to defend the summary recovery suit, holding that his allegations of fraud, forgery and coercion were unsupported by material evidence. It also noted that he had not produced documents to establish that the money received from the plaintiffs had been spent on flight tickets, hotel bookings, transport or other pilgrimage-related arrangements.
The suit was filed by Abdul Khaliq Dar of Illahibagh, Srinagar; Gh. Ahmad Bhat of Yarmukam, Ganderbal; and Bashir Ahmad Dar of Illahibagh, Srinagar. They sought recovery of the amount under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides for a summary procedure in specified cases.
According to the plaint, Dar paid Rs 8.50 lakh, Bhat Rs 6.65 lakh and Bashir Ahmad Dar Rs 1 lakh to Wani during 2020-21 for Hajj pilgrimage arrangements, taking the total to Rs 16.15 lakh.
The plaintiffs alleged that after receiving the money, Wani repeatedly assured them that either the pilgrimage would be arranged or their payments would be returned. However, neither assurance was fulfilled.
They further submitted that Wani signed a written undertaking on August 7, 2023, agreeing to repay the amount by September 15, 2023, with applicable interest in the event of default. The plaintiffs approached the court after the stipulated period expired without repayment.
Wani disputed the plaintiffs’ account and sought permission to contest the suit. In his application, he maintained that he had made arrangements for the pilgrimage, including flight tickets and hotel bookings, but the COVID-19 outbreak prevented the plaintiffs from travelling. He claimed to have incurred substantial expenditure on the arrangements and argued that the disruption was beyond his control.
The defendant also alleged that the plaintiffs had forcibly obtained his signatures on the document dated August 7, 2023, and had fabricated the agreement. He further alleged that Rs 3.50 lakh had been forcibly taken from him. These allegations were part of his defence before the court.
Wani also contended that a civil suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction was pending before the City Judge, Srinagar, and that criminal proceedings relating to the dispute were pending separately. He argued that the recovery suit required a full trial and that refusing him leave to defend would cause him prejudice.
The plaintiffs opposed the application, maintaining that the defendant had acknowledged his liability in writing and had failed to repay the money despite the undertaking. They argued that the defence lacked supporting evidence and was intended to delay the proceedings.
After examining the pleadings, written arguments and material on record, the court found that Wani had not submitted documentary proof of the alleged travel bookings, payments to airlines or hotels, cancellation charges, or other expenses claimed to have been incurred for the pilgrimage.
The court also observed that the defendant had not placed any supporting material on record to substantiate his allegations that the undertaking had been obtained through fraud, forgery or coercion. His assertion that he had lodged a complaint at Police Station Karan Nagar was also found unsupported by documentary evidence before the court.
The judge noted that the defendant had not denied receiving the money from the plaintiffs, while his principal defence was that the amount had been spent on pilgrimage arrangements. In the absence of supporting documents, the court held that the defence did not disclose a substantial or plausible ground requiring a trial.
The court further ruled that the pendency of separate civil proceedings or a criminal complaint did not, by itself, prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing the summary recovery suit.
Explaining the legal position, the court observed that Order XXXVII CPC is intended to provide an expeditious remedy in cases falling within its scope and to prevent proceedings from being delayed by defences that do not disclose a genuine triable issue. It also noted that leave to defend must be considered where a defendant raises a substantial defence or a genuine issue requiring adjudication.
In the present case, however, the court concluded that the defendant had failed to establish grounds for either conditional or unconditional leave to defend and dismissed his application as devoid of merit.
Invoking Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(a) CPC, which entitles a plaintiff to judgment forthwith when leave to defend is refused, the court decreed the suit in favour of the three plaintiffs for recovery of Rs 16.15 lakh, with six per cent annual interest from the date of institution until realisation, along with costs.
The court directed its office to prepare the decree sheet and ordered that the case file be consigned to the records after completion of the necessary formalities.
