Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRUTI CHAUDHARY
JSCC-ASCJ-GUARDIAN JUDGE, NORTH-EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNE030002652023
SUIT No.:- 151/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt. Archana,
D/o Sh. Ram Prakash,
R/o H. No. B-415, Gali No. 21,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.
…..Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Wala Organics,
Through its Proprietor / AR,
Ms. Ritu Rani,
P. O. Paprola Tehsil Baijnath,
District Kangara,
Himachal Pradesh-176115.
2. Ms. Ritu Rani,
Proprietor of M/s Wala Organics
P. O. Paprola Tehsil Baijnath,
District Kangara,
Himachal Pradesh-176115.
…..Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 73,800/- WITH INTEREST
@ 18% PER ANNUM
Date of Institution: 27.03.2023
Date of judgment: 15.05.2024
CS No: 151/2023 Archana vs. M/s Wala Organics & Anr. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit was filed seeking recovery of Rs. 73,800/-
from the defendant. Succinctly, the necessary facts for
adjudication of the present suit as stated in the plaint are as
under:-
(i) Plaintiff has stated in her plaint that she was offered the
possession of Sales Officer at Delhi location by the defendant
vide offer letter dt. 01.01.2022 for the purpose of sales and
distribution of products covering North-East District. She
submits that her date of joining the defendant’s organization was
03.01.2022 and she was offered CTC of Rs. 2,78,000/- per
annum and was awarded employee code no. WB 01025. She has
stated that after joining the services, she continued her
employment with utmost devotion and commitment, however,
her employer stop paying her salary in the month of July, 2022
and thereafter the plaintiff had resigned from the employment in
August, 2022. She has stated that she performed her duties till
31.08.2022 and she was not paid her salary from 01.07.2022 to
31.08.2022, amounting to Rs. 45,000/-. It is also the case of the
plaintiff that she was not paid expenses for the period of
01.05.2022 to 31.07.2022 amounting to Rs. 28,800/-.
(ii) It is stated that the plaintiff had sent a legal demand notice
dt. 12.10.2022 to the defendant demanding the above stated
amount, through speed post on 13.10.2022. It has also been
clarified by the plaintiff that in the said legal notice, the plaintiff
has erroneously claimed Rs. 51,300/- from the defendant instead
of Rs. 73,800/- due to some typographical error. Therefore, she
has filed the present suit seeking the following prayers:-
CS No: 151/2023 Archana vs. M/s Wala Organics & Anr. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
(I) A money decree, in favour of plaintiff and against
the defendant, of Rs. 73,800/- alongwith interest @ 18%
per annum till its realization.
(II) Cost of suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
(III) Any other relief which court deems fit and proper;
2. Summons of the suit in the prescribed format was issued to
the defendant vide order dated 31.03.2023 and the same was
served upon the defendant on 21.04.2023 and 26.04.2023.
However, no one appeared on behalf of the defendant, who was
proceeded ex-parte vide order dt. 12.07.2023 and matter was
listed for ex-parte PE.
3. Plaintiff examined herself as PW-1, relying upon her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and further relied upon
the following documents:-
(i) Copy of Aadhar card Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
(ii) Copy of appointment letter Mark X (de-exhibited
from Ex. PW1/2).
(iii) Copy of legal demand notice dt. 12.10.2022 Ex.
PW1/3.
(iv) Receipt of speed post Ex. PW1/4 (Colly.).
4. Thereafter, ex-parte PE stood closed. Ex-parte final
arguments have been heard at length and court record has been
perused.
CS No: 151/2023 Archana vs. M/s Wala Organics & Anr. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
5. In terms of section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, any facts
averred by a party which is relied upon by them must be
separately proved by them before the court. Although, the
defendant has already been proceeded ex-parte, same does not
mean that the allegations of the plaintiff shall be accepted as
gospel truth. Every judgment passed by a court has to be on
merits, irrespective of the fact that the defendant appears before
the court and defends himself or not. The Court is not bound to
grant a decree in case the defendant is absent. Even for an ex-
parte judgment and the decree, the basic ingredients of judgment
must be available. In the matter of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya
V/s Anil Pajwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508, it was observed that even
if the suit proceeds ex-parte, the necessity of proof by the
plaintiff of its case cannot be dispensed with. Merely because the
defendant is absent the Court shall not admit evidence the
admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision
being influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the
matter of Meenakshisundaram Textiles V/s Valliammal Textiles
C.M.A.No.3700 of 2010 (judgment dated 07.03.2011) Hon’ble
Madras High Court has observed:
“16. Code of Civil Procedure does not
define either an ex-parte judgment or an
ex-parte decree. It refers only to a
judgment and a decree. In the event a
judgment is rendered when the
defendant fails to defend the suit by his
absence, that judgment is known to be
an ex-parte judgment and the decree
drawn on the basis of that judgment is
known as an ex-parte decree. Hence,
even for an ex-parte judgment and the
decree, the basic ingredients of
CS No: 151/2023 Archana vs. M/s Wala Organics & Anr. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
judgment must be available to the extent
to indicate that the Court has applied its
mind to the pleading, relief claimed
thereunder, the evidence and the
conclusion arrived at by the Court on
the above.”
6. Coming to the facts of the present case, by way of
evidence led by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has sought to prove that
she is owed Rs. 73,800/- from the defendant. However, plaintiff
has not led any evidence to show that she was paid any expenses
by the defendant and that her claim of Rs. 28,800/- pertaining to
expenses for the period of 01.05.2022 to 31.07.2022 was
legitimate. The plaintiff has simply relied upon copy of her
appointment letter dt. 01.01.2022, Mark X in which her CTC is
clearly mentioned as Rs. 2,78,000/- per annum. Although, the
plaintiff has not examined any witnesses in this regard, in light of
unrebutted evidence of the plaintiff, it is the considered opinion
of this court that the plaintiff has successfully shown that she was
appointed as Sales Officer in terms of the appointment letter dt.
01.01.2022. Further, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has admitted
that the plaintiff was getting in-hand salary of Rs. 22,500/- per
month, which is why the amount of Rs. 45,000/- has been
claimed from the defendant in the legal notice for the period of
01.07.2022 to 31.08.2022. This averment of the plaintiff has also
gone unchallenged as no one appeared on behalf of defendant to
challenge the case of the plaintiff despite service of summons.
7. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, it is the
considered opinion of this court that the plaintiff has successfully
CS No: 151/2023 Archana vs. M/s Wala Organics & Anr. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
proved her case pertaining to non-payment of salary for the
period of 01.07.2022 to 31.08.2022 and therefore, she becomes
entitled to claim the sum of Rs. 45,000/- from the defendant. The
plaintiff has failed to prove that she is entitled to amount of Rs.
28,800/- towards expenses for the period of 01.05.2022 to
31.07.2022. No evidence has been led by the plaintiff to justify
as to on what grounds interest @ 18% per annum has been
claimed by the plaintiff and this court believes the same to be
excessive. Considering the entire material available on record
and the contents of the plaint, the suit filed by the plaintiff is
decreed in terms of the following:-
RELIEF
I A decree of Rs. 45,000/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the present case till the date of
realization of the amount;
II The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open court on this 15th May, 2024, this
judgment consists of 06 pages.
Shruti Chaudhary
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No: 151/2023 Archana vs. M/s Wala Organics & Anr. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --