Sample Civil Judgment — Recovery of Money

A suit for recovery of money is the most frequently set civil judgment-writing problem in judiciary mains, and for good reason: it compresses almost every skill the examiner is testing into one compact record. You must frame issues on a small set of disputed facts, allocate the burden of proof correctly, handle a statutory presumption where a promissory note or cheque is involved, decide limitation, fix interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and then draft an operative decree precise enough to be executed for a rupee figure. This chapter walks through a complete model judgment for a money claim, annotating each component so you can reproduce the architecture under exam conditions. Read it beside the structure of a civil judgment chapter and the statutory basis chapter so the skeleton and the reasoning fit together.

The problem as the examiner sets it

Take the facts your paper typically supplies. The plaintiff pleads that he advanced a sum of money to the defendant, evidenced by a demand promissory note or a loan receipt, repayable with interest at an agreed rate; that despite demand the defendant has failed to repay; and he sues for recovery of the principal with interest. The defendant either denies execution of the note altogether, or admits the document but pleads it was given as security, or for a different transaction, or without consideration, or pleads that the debt is time-barred. Your task is not to decide whom you find more sympathetic; it is to build a judgment that an appellate court could affirm. Settle the architecture before you draft, drawing on the structure chapter: cause-title, narration of the rival pleadings, issues, issue-wise discussion with findings, and the operative decree.

The commonest reason a money-suit answer loses marks is that the candidate writes an essay on the law of contract and negotiable instruments instead of a judgment that disposes of these pleadings. A money decree is built on the record — the document sued upon, the admissions, the depositions and the exhibits — and not on speculation. Where the paper is silent on a fact, reason from the evidence actually led and the burden of proof; where a party withholds the best evidence in his power, you may draw an adverse inference. Anchor every paragraph to the four corners of the plaint, the written statement and the proved documents, and let the rupee figure in the decree follow from your findings.

Cause-title and the narration of pleadings

Open with the cause-title exactly as the cause-title chapter prescribes: the court, the suit number and year, the description and array of the parties, and the nature of the suit ("Suit for recovery of Rs. ___ with interest"). Then narrate the rival cases compactly. Summarise the plaintiff's case first, drawing only on the plaint, following the discipline set out in statement of facts — the plaintiff's case; the defendant's case follows from the written statement, per statement of facts — the defendant's case.

A money suit makes the narration carry a particular weight, because the defences are often technical and must be visible from your own summary before you reach the issues. If the defendant pleads discharge by part-payment, or that the rate of interest is usurious, or that the suit is barred by limitation, record those pleas accurately in the narration. The reader of a good judgment can predict the issues from the recital of pleadings alone.

Framing the issues

Issues are framed under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other. In a money suit the indispensable issues are: (i) whether the plaintiff proves the loan / advance and the execution of the document sued upon; (ii) whether the document is supported by consideration, or whether the defendant proves want or failure of consideration; (iii) whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, and if so at what rate and for what period; (iv) whether the suit is within limitation; and (v) what relief and what decree. Adjust the list to the pleaded defences — add an issue on discharge by payment, or on the plea that the instrument was a security, where those are raised.

Frame each issue in the language of the dispute and number it, because the entire judgment will be organised around the issues and your findings on them. This is the discipline the introduction chapter flags as the difference between a judgment and a narrative, and it tracks the framing skill tested directly in many states' papers.

Burden of proof and the order of discussion

Allocate the burden expressly before weighing any evidence — examiners reward the candidate who states who must prove what. The governing rule is in Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (now Sections 104 and 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023): the burden of proving a fact lies on the party who asserts the affirmative. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, the Supreme Court drew the now-standard distinction between the burden of proof, which is fixed by the pleadings and never shifts, and the onus, which shifts as evidence is led: the initial onus is on the plaintiff, and if he makes out a case entitling him to relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove the circumstances that would disentitle the plaintiff.

Decide the order of discussion deliberately. Take the proof of the loan and execution of the document first, because if the document is not proved the rest collapses; then consideration; then interest; then limitation; and finally relief. A judgment reads as reasoned only when each finding is a logical predicate for the next. Writing issues out of sequence — deciding interest before deciding whether any debt exists — is a frequent and avoidable error.

Issue 1 — Is the loan and execution of the document proved?

Begin with the plaintiff's primary burden to prove the advance and the execution of the instrument sued upon. If the defendant admits execution, record the admission and move on; if execution is denied, the plaintiff must prove the signature and the making of the document through the maker, an attesting witness, a handwriting comparison, or other admissible proof. Examine the contemporaneous material — the receipt, entries in account books, bank statements evidencing the advance, and the conduct of the parties. Where the plaintiff sues on an oral loan without any document, scrutinise the evidence of advance with particular care, because the absence of a writing throws the whole weight of the issue on the credibility of the oral testimony.

Conclude with a clear finding: "Issue 1 is answered in the affirmative; the plaintiff has proved the advance of Rs. ___ and the execution of the promissory note dated ___ by the defendant." The reader must know precisely what has been decided before turning the page, in keeping with Order XX Rule 5 CPC, which requires a finding with reasons on each separate issue.

Issue 2 — Consideration and the Section 118 presumption

This issue is the heart of most money judgments built on a negotiable instrument. Where the suit is on a promissory note, bill or cheque, Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 raises a presumption that the instrument was made or drawn for consideration. The presumption arises once execution is admitted or proved, and it is the defendant who must then displace it. In Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35, the Supreme Court held that upon proof of execution the presumption under Section 118(a) operates in the plaintiff's favour, but it is rebuttable: the defendant may discharge the burden by direct or circumstantial evidence, and need not enter the witness box if he can rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities from the plaintiff's own evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

Apply this to the worked facts. If the defendant pleads that the note was given without consideration or as a security, weigh whether he has raised a probable defence sufficient to shift the onus back. A bare denial is not enough; but equally, the plaintiff cannot rest on the presumption if his own evidence of the advance is shown to be improbable. Where there is no negotiable instrument and the claim rests on a simple loan, no statutory presumption assists the plaintiff, and he must prove consideration as part of his ordinary burden. Record a reasoned finding on whether the presumption stands rebutted.

Where the suit is a summary suit under Order XXXVII

Many money claims on a written contract, a negotiable instrument or an enactment-based debt are filed as summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC, and a mains problem may turn on the leave-to-defend stage rather than on a full trial. If your paper asks you to decide an application for leave to defend, apply the principles restated by the Supreme Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568, which superseded the older formulation in Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687. The Court laid down a graded scheme: a defendant with a substantial defence likely to succeed gets unconditional leave; one who raises triable issues showing a fair or reasonable defence ordinarily gets unconditional leave; where the court doubts the defendant's good faith it may grant leave on conditions as to deposit or security; a defence that is plausible but improbable may be put on terms of deposit; and only where the defence is frivolous or vexatious, or the facts are wholly false, may leave be refused and the plaintiff allowed to sign judgment.

The Court reinforced the orientation in Sudin Dilip Talaulikar v. Polycap Wires (P) Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 577, holding that the grant of leave to defend, with or without conditions, is the ordinary rule and the denial of leave the exception, to be reserved for cases where the defendant has practically no defence and cannot show even a semblance of a triable issue. If you are writing the final judgment after leave was granted, the suit proceeds as an ordinary suit and the presumption and burden analysis above governs.

Issue on discharge, part-payment and accounts

Where the defendant pleads discharge — full repayment, or part-payment to be credited against the claim — the burden of proving discharge lies squarely on the defendant who asserts it, consistent with Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558. Look for receipts, bank transfers, endorsements of part-payment on the instrument, or entries in account books proved in accordance with the law of evidence. A plea of payment unsupported by any contemporaneous record, advanced for the first time in the written statement, is weak and you should say so.

Where the claim is on a running or mutual account between traders, the judgment should set out the account, identify the admitted debits and credits, and strike the balance with reasons, rather than decreeing a lump sum the plaintiff merely asserts. Part-payment also bears on limitation: a payment on account of a debt, if made before expiry of the limitation period and evidenced by a writing signed by the party making it, furnishes a fresh starting point under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Note any such payment in this issue because it will feed directly into the limitation issue that follows.

Issue on limitation

Limitation in a money suit is not a formality; it is a question the court must decide even if not pressed, because Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 obliges the court to dismiss a suit instituted after the prescribed period even where limitation is not set up as a defence. Identify the correct Article of the Schedule. A suit for money lent is generally governed by Article 19, three years from when the loan is made; a suit on a promissory note or bond payable on demand falls under Article 35 (and the cognate Articles for instruments payable at a fixed time), three years from the due date; and a suit for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account runs three years from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered, under Article 1.

Then apply the saving provisions. A written acknowledgement of liability signed before the period expires gives a fresh period of three years from the date of acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963; a part-payment evidenced by a writing operates similarly under Section 19. Record the date of the cause of action, the date of any acknowledgement or part-payment, and the date of institution, and return a clear finding that the suit is, or is not, within time. A money decree passed on a time-barred claim is liable to be set aside however strong the merits.

Issue on interest — Section 34 CPC and contractual rate

Interest in a money decree must be analysed in three stages, and a disciplined judgment deals with each separately. Interest for the period before the suit is a matter of the contract between the parties or of any statute or trade usage; the plaintiff can recover pre-suit interest only at the rate agreed or otherwise legally claimable, and you must find that rate from the pleadings and evidence. Interest for the two later stages — pendente lite, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, and future interest, from the decree to realisation — is governed by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and lies in the discretion of the court.

That discretion is structured, not arbitrary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the award of pendente lite and post-decree interest under Section 34 is a discretionary remedy steeped in equitable considerations: the rate and period cannot be fixed mechanically or at an unreasonably high figure, and the award must compensate the creditor for the loss of use of money without becoming punitive on the debtor. Section 34 itself caps future interest on the principal sum adjudged, and provides that where the liability arises out of a commercial transaction a higher rate may be allowed. In the worked judgment, fix the pre-suit rate by reference to the contract, then exercise your Section 34 discretion explicitly — stating the rate, the principal sum on which it runs, and the dates between which it accrues — so that the interest component of the decree is as executable as the principal.

Issue on relief — quantifying the decree

Gather the findings. If the plaintiff has proved the advance and the execution of the instrument, the Section 118 presumption (where applicable) stands and is not rebutted, no discharge is proved, the suit is within limitation, and the rate of interest is established, the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree. Quantify it with precision: state the principal sum adjudged, the pre-suit interest worked out at the found rate up to the date of suit, and then provide separately for pendente lite and future interest under Section 34. Avoid the common error of decreeing a single undifferentiated figure that buries the interest calculation, because an executing court must be able to read the decree and compute what is due on any date.

If instead the plaintiff fails on proof of the loan, or the presumption is rebutted, or discharge is proved, or the suit is time-barred, dismiss the suit and say on which issue it fails. Where the plaintiff proves part only of his claim — for instance a smaller principal than pleaded, or a lower rate of interest than claimed — decree the proved sum and dismiss the rest, recording the arithmetic. Deal with costs under your costs power, and note that the operative figure must reconcile exactly with the issue-wise findings above it.

Drafting the operative decree

The operative portion is the part drawn up as the decree under Order XX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in a money suit it must be self-executing to the rupee. A model operative paragraph for a successful plaintiff reads: "The suit is decreed. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. ___ (the principal sum of Rs. ___ together with interest at ___ per cent per annum from ___ to the date of suit amounting to Rs. ___). The decretal amount shall carry interest at ___ per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and at ___ per cent per annum on the principal sum adjudged from the date of decree till realisation. The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit. Draw up the decree accordingly."

Notice the discipline: the principal and the pre-suit interest are stated as components so the total is transparent; pendente lite and future interest are provided for separately and tied to the Section 34 power; and future interest is expressly confined to the principal sum adjudged, as the section requires. A decree that lumps everything into one figure, or that omits the rate or the dates, forces the execution court to guess and is an incomplete judgment. Cross-check that the figure in the decree matches the findings on the interest and quantification issues exactly.

Common errors that cost marks

First, ignoring the Section 118 presumption where a negotiable instrument is sued upon, and putting the whole burden of proving consideration on the plaintiff when the law puts the burden of rebuttal on the defendant, contrary to Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; second, failing to decide limitation at all, when Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it a duty of the court; third, lumping principal and interest into one figure instead of dealing with the three stages of interest separately under Section 34 CPC; fourth, in a summary suit, refusing leave to defend on a defence that is merely doubtful, contrary to IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 and Sudin Dilip Talaulikar v. Polycap Wires (P) Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 577; and fifth, writing a treatise on the Negotiable Instruments Act rather than disposing of the pleaded issues.

A disciplined candidate allocates the burden expressly, anchors every paragraph to an issue, cites only what is necessary, ends each issue with a one-line finding, and drafts a decree that an execution court can apply without further interpretation. Revisit the civil judgment writing hub to see how this money-suit template sits within the broader judgment-writing syllabus, and rehearse the structure until the skeleton is automatic and your time is spent on reasoning, not on remembering the order of headings.