Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Presented on 05.01.2018
Registered on 16.01.2018
Decided on 13.12.2018
Duration Yrs. M. Days
10 27
CNR No.
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.72 OF 2018
Shri Shamrao Sukhdeo Kate
an adult, aged about 58 years, Indian
Inhabitant, occ : Service, residing at Flat
NO.715, Building No.80, Sapta Sangam CHS
Ltd., MHADA Building, Mankhurd (West),
Mumbai400 043. ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Mrs.Meera Subhash Unhale,
an adult, Indian Inhabitant, age not known,
residing at Flat NO.306, 3rd floor, Building
No.12, Mandvi CHS Ltd., Lallubhai
Compound, Mankhurd (West), Mumbai400
043. ...Defendant.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Mr.S.S. Kharat for plaintiff.
None for defendant. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 13th December,2018
-- 1 of 5 --
.. j/2 .. Summary Suit No.72/2018
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.3,24,650/ with interest.
2. In short, plaintiff came with a case that, plaintiff is residing at the
address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. Defendant is also
residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint.
3. Plaintiff submitted that, plaintiff and defendant are acquaintance
with each other since long. Defendant approached to plaintiff and
requested for friendly loan and as such on 25.02.2015 plaintiff
advanced friendly loan of Rs.2.15,000/ to defendant in order to invest
in Mahila Bachat Gat Centre in presence of Mrs.Savita Jadhav and
Mr.Dhanaji D. Kogad with promise to return the same to plaintiff.
Defendant in order to repay the amount had issued cheque bearing
NO.178954 dt.25.06.2015 for Rs.2,15,000/ in favour of plaintiff. On
05.08.2015 under instruction of defendant plaintiff deposited the said
cheque in the bank for encashment. However, same was dishonoured
with remark “Fund Insufficient”. Thereafter, plaintiff contracted
defendant on phone and requested her to pay the amount advanced to
her. But defendant used to make false promise to repay the said
amount. As defendant failed and neglected to pay the amount, finally
plaintiff issued legal notice dt.15.08.2015 to defendant on 20.08.2015
and called upon her to pay the friendly loan amount within 15 days.
However, defendant did not comply the said notice.
4. Plaintiff submitted that, as cheque issued by defendant in favour
of plaintiff got dishonoured, plaintiff initiated the proceedings under
-- 2 of 5 --
.. j/3 .. Summary Suit No.72/2018
Section 138 of NI Act against defendant in the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai.
5. After repeated requests and demand defendant did not make the
payment, plaintiff approached before this Court against against
defendant by filing this suit for recovery of amount. Hence, this suit.
6. Writ of summons came to be issued against defendant. In spit of
service none appeared on behalf of defendant. Hence, suit proceeded
exparte against defendants.
7. In order to substantiate his claim plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of
examinationinchief at Exh.6 and list of documents at Exh.7.
8. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused record and
proceedings.
9. On perusal of record and averments of plaintiff, it is apparent
that, he has given friendly loan to defendant looking to the relations
between them. Defendant also to discharge her liability issued the
cheque in favour of plaintiff, which came to be dishonoured. Therefore,
plaintiff filed complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act against
defendant, which is pending. In spite of repeated requests and
opportunity given to defendant, she has failed and neglected to pay the
friendly loan amount.
10. The casual attitude of defendant is seen from the absence of her
before this Court in spite of service of writ of summons. Therefor, claim
of plaintiff remains unchallenged and unrebutted. The documents
-- 3 of 5 --
.. j/4 .. Summary Suit No.72/2018
produced and proved by plaintiff are also remain uncontroverted.
Hence, I accept the claim put forth by plaintiff vide this suit for recovery
under O.XXXVII R.2 of C.P.C. Defendant neither present nor rebutted
the claim of plaintiff. Which clearly establishes the claim of plaintiff.
Being friendly loan transaction, plaintiff is entitled to recover amount
with interest @ 18% per annum. In spite of repeated demand and
opportunity defendant has not paid the amount. Therefore, costs of this
suit needs to be saddled on defendant.
11. The suit remains unchallenged and undefended. Therefore,
under partIII, R(E), schedule I of Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court
Rule, 1948 plaintiff becomes entitled for refund of 2/3rd court fee
voucher, if prayed. In the result, suit deserves to be decreed with costs.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant do pay Rs.3,24,650/ along with interest
@ 18 % per annum on principal outstanding amount of
Rs.2,15,000/ to plaintiff from the date of filing of this
suit till realization of entire decreetal amount.
3. Defendant do bear her own costs with costs of plaintiff.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. The 2/3rd Court fee refund voucher, as per rule, be
issued in favour of plaintiff, if prayed.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 13/12/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 13.12.2018
Transcribed on : 13.12.2018
Signed on : 13.12.2018 kps/
-- 4 of 5 --
.. j/5 .. Summary Suit No.72/2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
14.12.18 at 11.35 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 13.12.18
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 13.12.18
Judgment/order uploaded on 14.12.18
-- 5 of 5 --