Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Presented on 18.01.2018
Registered on 01.02.2018
Decided on 13.11.2018
Duration Yrs. M. Days
10 12
CNR No.
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO129 OF 2018
Mahendra Murlidhar Desai, age 45 years.
Of Mumbai, an adult, Indian inhabitant, having
his address at Sainath Chawl, Takiya Ward,
P.B. Desai, Building No.50, Kurla (W),
Mumbai400 070. ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Mangesh Kashinath Nachare
Age not known, an Indian Inhabitant, working
for gain with Kamgar Shikshan Kendra, Ribike
and Patil Bldg., Near Ganesh Vyayam Shala,
Jail Road, Nashik, Residing at A305, Dharma
Residency, Achole Gaon, Ambedkar Nagar,
Nalasopara East. Dist.Palghar, and also at
Central Board for workers Education Shramic
Shikshan Bhavan, Near Kurla Court (West),
Mumbai400070. ...Defendant
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Mr.Ramesh Jain 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 November,2018
MHCC01-001042-2018
-- 1 of 5 --
.. j/2 .. Summary Suit No.129/2018
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.3,96,775.34 with interest.
2. In short, plaintiff came with a case that, Plaintiff came with a case
that, plaintiff is doing business of money lending at the address
mentioned in the title clause of plaint. Defendant is the resident at the
address mentioned in the title clause of plaint.
3. Plaintiff submitted that, on 15.04.2017 defendant a demand
promissory note in favour of plaintiff for valuable consideration of
Rs.3,50,000/. By the said demand promissory note defendant
promised to pay Rs.3,50,000/ to plaintiff along with interest @ 18%
per annum on demand. Plaintiff time to time demanded said amount
from defendant with interest. But defendant failed and neglected to
pay the said amount or part thereof. Therefore, plaintiff issued letter to
defendant through Advocate on 23.12.2017 and requested to pay the
amount. Defendant failed and neglected to comply the above demand
notice. Therefore, plaintiff has come before this Court by way of
present suit for recovery of amount.
4. Writ of summons of this suit served upon defendant. Affidavit of
service is filed at Exh.5. In spite of service defendant has not appeared
nor contested the suit. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against
defendant.
5. In support of his claim plaintiff filed evidence on affidavit at
Exh.7 along with list of documents at Exh.8 and proved the documents
-- 2 of 5 --
.. j/3 .. Summary Suit No.129/2018
viz. promissory note dt.15.04.2017 at Exh.9, demand notice/Advocate
letter dt.23.12.2017 at Exh.10, money lender license at Exh.11, Forms
under Bombay Money Lending Act at Exh.12 and books of accounts at
Exh.13.
6. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused record and
proceedings.
7. On perusal of documents tendered and proved by plaintiff It is
apparent that defendant has borrowed the amount from plaintiff and
executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff and promised to
pay the sum on demand. But defendant has not paid the sum as
demanded by plaintiff. Even after service of writ of summons neither
defendant or his Advocate, has appeared to contest the suit. Therefore,
documents submitted and proved by plaintiff remain uncontroverted
and unchallenged. Hence, claim put forth by plaintiff and his testimony
remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, suit filed by plaintiff
for recovery under O.XXXVII R.2 of C.P.C. needs to be accepted.
Defendant neither present nor rebutted the claim of plaintiff. Which
clearly establishes the claim of plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is
entitled to recover amount which borrowed by defendant along 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.
8. 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.
-- 3 of 5 --
.. j/4 .. Summary Suit No.129/2018
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant do pay Rs.3,96,775.34/ along with interest
@ 18 percent per annum on principal amount of
Rs.3,50,000/ to plaintiff from the date of filing of this
suit till realization of entire decreetal amount.
3. Defendant do bear his 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.: 13/11/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 13.11.2018
Transcribed on : 15.11.2018
Signed on : 15.11.2018
kps/
-- 4 of 5 --
.. j/5 .. Summary Suit No.129/2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
15.11.18 at 5.31 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 13.11.18
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 15.11.18
Judgment/order uploaded on 15.11.18
-- 5 of 5 --