Final Order 10

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. 1204/2023
CNR NO. DLCT03-002526-2023
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. Seema Devi
R/o H.No. 30/21, Block 30,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi-110092
2. Commissioner MCD
S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, Delhi-110002 ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 05.06.2023
Date of Reserving the Order : 23.01.2025
Date of Decision : 10.02.2025
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,33,000/- ALONG WITH
FUTURE AND PENDENTE LITE INTEREST
CS No. 1204/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Seema Devi
Page No.1
of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff
against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,33,000/- 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. 1 is the employer of defendant no. 1. It is stated
that defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff for personal loan,
which was sanctioned after execution of the requisite documents
for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide Sanction Letter dated 28.07.2017
and the loan amount was transferred in Account No.
3964158380. 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 alongwith 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
08.12.2022 which was duly served upon both the defendants, but
to no avail. The liability of defendant no. 1 alongwith the interest
as on 04.11.2022 stood at Rs.1,33,000/-. Hence, the present suit
for recovery.
4. Summons of the present suit were issued to the
CS No. 1204/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Seema Devi
Page No.2
of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
defendants. Vide order dated 29.02.2024, defendant no. 2 was
deleted from the array of the parties. Despite the service of
summons through publication dated 05.10.2024, none appeared
on behalf of defendant no. 1. Therefore, the 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 letter of
authority
De-exhibited
from Ex.PW11
and is now Mark
A
2. Copy of Loan application form Ex.PW1/2
(OSR)
3. Copy of Loan agreement Ex.PW1/3
(OSR)
4. Legal Notice alongwith postal
receipts
Ex.PW1/4
5. Bank statement alongwith
certificate u/s 63B of BSA
Ex.PW1/5
6. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated
23.01.2025 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.
8. The defendant no. 1 did not contest the present suit
CS No. 1204/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Seema Devi
Page No.3
of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
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 Form i.e. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) and Loan
Agreement Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) to prove that the loan was applied
for by defendant no. 1 and the same was duly sanctioned to
defendant no. 1. He has also proved the Legal Notice alongwith
postal receipts Ex. PW1/4 and the bank statement alongwith
certificate under Section 63 of BSA Ex. PW1/5 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
the defendant no. 1 as per the loan account statement, the due
towards defendant no. 1 is Rs.1,33,134/-. 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.1,33,000/- as
claimed, from the 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.1,33,000/- along with
interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till
its realization from defendant no. 1.
CS No. 1204/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Seema Devi
Page No.4
of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
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 10th Day of February, 2025
(RINKU JAIN)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS No. 1204/2023
Central Bank of India Vs. Seema Devi
Page No.5
of 5
-- 5 of 5 --