Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: ..1.. Sum Suit No.858/2018
MHCC010021122018 Presented on : 09/02/2018
Registered on : 20/08/2018
Decided on : 17/11/2025
Duration : 07 Y : 09 M : 08 D
Exhibit : 16
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT
MAZGAON
SUMMARY SUIT NO.858 OF 2018
Miss. Laxmidevi M. Bist,
Adult, Occ.: Service, residing at flat No.805,
Soham Apartment, Gate No.3, Gufa Road, Andheri
(East), Mumbai – 400060.
]
]
]
] ..Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Gajanand Usatkar
Adult, Occ. Business, Prop. M/s Shree Nirman
Builders & Developers,
Office at -
1. Akash Ganga Building, Flat No.3, 1st floor,
Sector No.9, Road No.13, Opp. Post Office
New Panvel (East), Navi Mumbai.
2. 2nd Address at Shiv Kusar Bldg. Sector 15. A,
Survey No.7, Opp. CKT School, New Panvel
(East), Navi Mumbai.
3. 3rd address at Shop No.18, Plot No.15A,
Sec 17, Maruti Corner Behind Bikaner Sweets,
New Panvel (East) Navi Mumbai.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ..Defendant
Appearance :-
Ld. Adv. Vipin Pathak for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
(Ex-parte)
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
COURT ROOM NO.84.
DATE : 17/11/2025.
-- 1 of 5 --
..2.. Sum Suit No.858/2018
J U D G M E N T
1) This summary suit is filed for recovery of amount vide Order
XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2) The facts in brief are as under -
In the year 2014, plaintiff had agreed to purchase flat in Sai
Shrushti Complex situated at Nere, Panvel, Navi Mumbai for a total
consideration of Rs.10,08,000/-. Out of the total consideration of
Rs.10,08,000/-, plaintiff had paid part payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to
defendant. Defendant did not complete the transaction. Hence, started
avoiding the same. Thereafter, on demand defendants issued three
cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards the repayment of advance
consideration. However, those cheques got dishonoured with remark
“FUND INSUFFICIENT”. Defendant failed to make the payment as
agreed. The demand notice was issued to defendant. Defendant did not
reply/comply the same. Defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of
18% p.a. Amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is due from defendant. Hence, this
suit.
3) The first writ of summons was served upon the defendant.
Defendant did not appear. Hence, matter proceeded ex-parte against
the defendant.
4) Heard the arguments of plaintiff. In view of aforesaid facts,
following points arise for my determination. I have recorded my
findings thereon for the reasons as under :
-- 2 of 5 --
..3.. Sum Suit No.858/2018
POINTS DECISIONS
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
recovery of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with
interest ? Yes
2. What order and decree ? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5) The plaintiff Laxmidevi M. Bist has filed affidavit of examination-
in-chief vide Exh-06. Plaintiff has relied upon documentary evidence
produced at Exh-09 and Exh-13 colly.
AS TO POINT NOS.1 & 2 :-
6) PW-1 Laxmidevi Bist has deposed that, in the year 2014, plaintiff
had agreed to purchase flat in Sai Shrushti Complex situated at Nere,
Panvel, Navi Mumbai for a total consideration of Rs.10,08,000/-. Out of
the total consideration of Rs.10,08,000/-, plaintiff had paid part
payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant. Defendant did not complete
the transaction. Hence, started avoiding the same. Thereafter, on
demand defendants issued three cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each
towards the repayment of advance consideration. However, those
cheques got dishonoured with remark “FUND INSUFFICIENT”.
Defendant failed to make the payment as agreed. The demand notice
was issued to defendant. Defendant did not reply/comply the same.
7) On perusal of documents produced by the plaintiff at Exh-09 and
Exh-13 colly, it is evident that plaintiff had made part payment of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant. One writing cum agreement has been
executed between plaintiff and defendant. Defendant had issued the
receipt to that effect. Defendant had issued three cheques in favour of
-- 3 of 5 --
..4.. Sum Suit No.858/2018
the plaintiff which have been dishonoured. The defendant has not
made the repayment of amount. The plaintiff has produced the demand
notice. Defendant has not replied the demand notice. Evidence of
plaintiff has remained unchallenged. The defendant has not contested
the suit by filing appearance and written statement. Therefore, in my
view, the claim of plaintiff deserves to be allowed. The plaintiff has
claimed interest at the rate of 18% p.a. However, plaintiff has not
produced any document or evidence to show that interest at the rate of
18% p.a. was agreed between them. Thus, said interest seems to be
excessive. Hence, while answering point Nos.1 in affirmative, I pass the
following order :-
ORDER
1. Summary Suit No.858 of 2018 is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs Only) to plaintiff with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of
decree with further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of decree till realization of the amount.
3. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court)
( Sachin Suryakant Patil )
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai, Court No.84
Dated : 17/11/2025
Dictated and typed on : 17/11/2025.
Signed by HHJ on : 17/11/2025.
-- 4 of 5 --
..5.. Sum Suit No.858/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Sonali S. Naik
Name of Stenographer18/11/2025 05.00 p.m.
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
(COURT ROOM NO.84)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT / ORDER
17/11/2025
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by
P.O. on
17/11/2025
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 18/11/2025
-- 5 of 5 --