Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. RINKU JAIN, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 1201/2023
CNR NO. DLCT03-002522-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Central Bank of India
Regional Office at :
1358, First Floor,
Central Bank Building,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-06
Branch Office, Chunamandi ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Dinesh
S/o Dharmvir
R/o Village Badhpura,
Post Dadri, Ghaziabad,
UP-201014
2. Commissioner MCD
S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, Delhi-110002 ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 05.06.2023
Date of Reserving the Order : 28.05.2025
Date of Decision : 05.07.2025
Decision : Decreed
CS No. 1201/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Dinesh & Anr.
Page No.1
of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,26,000/- ALONG WITH
FUTURE AND PENDENTE LITE INTEREST
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff
against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,26,000/- along with
future and pendente lite interest @ 13% per annum with costs
and expenses of the suit.
2. The brief facts pleaded in the plaint are that plaintiff
is a registered bank and present suit has been filed through a duly
appointed AR who is well conversant with the facts of the present
suit. It is stated that defendant no. 1 is principal borrower and
defendant no.2 is the employer of defendant no.1. It is stated that
defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff for personal loan, which
was sanctioned at a limit of Rs.6,50,000/- after execution of the
requisite documents vide Sanction Letter dated 29.03.2017.
Defendant executed the agreement and other documents as per
the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank.
3. It is further stated that the loan was sanctioned as
defendant no. 1 was maintaining his salary account with the
plaintiff bank. Defendant agreed to repay the loan along with the
interest. However, defendant has not repaid the loan as per the
terms and conditions and in spite of several reminders by the
plaintiff. Plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated
19.12.2022 which was duly served upon both the defendants, but
to no avail. The liability of defendant no. 1 along with the interest
as on 04.11.2022 stood at Rs.2,26,000/-. Hence, the present suit
CS No. 1201/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Dinesh & Anr.
Page No.2
of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
for recovery.
4. Summons of the present suit were issued to the
defendants. Vide order dated 29.02.2024, defendant no. 2 was
deleted from the array of the parties. Despite the service of
summons, none appeared on behalf of defendant no.1.
Therefore, defendant no. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide
order dated 03.12.2024 and the matter was fixed for PE.
5. In support of the case, the AR of the plaintiff Sh.
J.K. Jha was examined as PW1 i.e. the sole plaintiff’s witness.
He reiterated the facts of the plaint in his evidence affidavit Ex.
PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibits/Marks
1. Photocopy of power of
attorney/letter of authority
De-exhibited
from Ex.PW1/1
and is now Mark
A
2. Loan application agreement Ex.PW1/2 (OSR)
3. Loan agreement Ex.PW1/3 (OSR
4. Copy of legal notice & postal
receipt
Ex.PW1/4
(colly.)
5. Statement of accounts &
Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act
Ex.PW1/5
(colly.)
6. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated
28.05.2025 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the ex-parte final arguments advanced
on behalf of plaintiff. I have also gone through the judicial
record.
CS No. 1201/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Dinesh & Anr.
Page No.3
of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
8. Defendant no. 1 did not contest the present suit and
the evidence of the plaintiff remained unrebutted and
uncontrovered. There is no reason as to why the un-rebutted and
un-controverted oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff
should not be relied upon. PW-1/AR of plaintiff has proved the
Loan Application Agreement i.e. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) to prove that
the loan was applied for by defendant no. 1 and the same was
sanctioned to defendant no. 1. He has also proved the Legal
Notice along with postal receipts Ex. PW1/4 (colly.) and the bank
statement along with certificate under Section 63 of BSA
Ex.PW1/5 (colly.) to prove the fact that a notice was sent to
defendant no. 1 for repayment of the loan and the bank statement
to prove the outstanding due towards defendant no. 1 as per the
loan account statement, the dues towards defendant no. 1 is
Rs.2,26,000/-. No challenge to these documents was presented
by the defendant.
9. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that
the plaintiff has been able to establish its case and it is held that
plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,26,000/- as
claimed, from defendant no. 1. The plaintiff has claimed interest
@ 13% per annum however, the same appears to be exorbitant
and excessive. Ends of justice shall meet if interest @ 9% per
annum is granted.
10. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in its
favour and against the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff is held
entitled to recovery of amount of Rs.2,26,000/- along with
interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till
CS No. 1201/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Dinesh & Anr.
Page No.4
of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
its realization from defendant no. 1.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to the Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in open Court
on this 05th day of July, 2025
(RINKU JAIN)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS No. 1201/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Dinesh & Anr.
Page No.5
of 5
-- 5 of 5 --