Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 23.04.2026
Sr. No. 51
SUM CIVIL SU
338/2017 @ SJ
51/2018
CORAM :- H.H.J. SHRI SANJIV PRABHAKAR PINGLE(CR. 84)
Parties are absent.
Adv. Ramesh Jain for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
ORDER IN SJ 51/2018
The present SJ No. 51/2018 dtd. NIL January 2018, is
tendered by plaintiff Maheshkumar HUF Hardasmal Kakvani against
firm respondent/original defendant Niraj Kakkad construction for
recovery of sum of Rs.2,53,276.71/- with future interest on
Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of 1.75% per annum from the date of filing
of suit till its realization.
SJ in supported by affidavit of Maheshkumar H. Kakvani,
adult, karta and Manager of Maheshkumar H. Kakvani HUF
supporting his claim in suit contending that there is no defense to
the suit though appearance have caused by the defendant with a
view to delay and protract the proceeding of the suit causing delay
in passing decree. Thus adopted , repeated, retreated and confirmed
the statement made in the plaint
Points:-
1. Does plaintiff HUF is entitle for making SJ absolute ?Ans.- Yes.
2. Does defendant sought to leave to defend after appearing in Suit
and filing VP at Exh.05 dtd. 12.04.2017 and subsequently, at
Exh.05A dtd. 19.01.2019 through LD. advocate Shreya Srivastava,
Adv. Shanti Komati and Adv. Jameer Khan and subsequently,
through Adv. Lavekush Sharma ? Ans. No.
3. What Order ? Ans. SJ made absolute with the cost of suit.
Reasons:-
Heard the Ld. advocate Sh. Ramesh Jain who brought the
attention to the court the original documents tendered vide list of
documents at Exh.06.
The first documents is the original receipt dttd. 24.02.2014
whereby proprietor of defendant Niraj Construction acknowledged
the receipt of sum of Rs. 2Lac vide cheque No. 809279 dtd.
24.02.2014 drawn on Union Bank of India, Khand Bazar Branch, as
loan on interest at the rate of 1.75% per month.
-- 1 of 3 --
Second documents is the original account pay cheque with
memo bearing No.283411 drawn on City Bank for Rs.2Lacs drawn
on the account NO. 0857219112 in the name of plaintiff HUF dtd.
28.01.2017 with memo showing dishonor of cheque of account of
“account closed”.
The third documents is plaintiff’s legal notice/advocate letter
dtd. 11.02.2017 addressed to the defendant and its proprietor
demanding the amount in view of the dishonor of the cheque duly
served and received by the defendant being three postal receipts and
two acknowledgments have been tendered.
Further perusal of list of documents at Exh.06 goes to show that
the documents referred at Sr. No. 04 is stated to be the bank
statement and bank records however, not tendered and found
though referred in the Exh.06.
Similarly Income Tax record though referred at Sr. No. 05 is
also not tendered.
However, when not only defendant Niraj Kakkad Construction
put due appearance not only through one advocate but total four
advocates for the best reasons known to the defendant no leave to
defendant has been sught. Hence, it goes to the roots and I have no
hesitation to allow the SJ being it is rightly pointed by the Ld.
Advocate Ramesh Jain that the appearance was put with only
intention to drag and protract the hearing of the suit.
Hence, I noted my affirmative finding to the point NO.01 and
negative to the Point NO.02 and proceed to pass following order:-
1. The SJ No. 51/2018 in Sum SU No. 338/2017 is made absolute
with cost of the suit.
2. Defendant do pay Rs.2,53,276.71/- to plaintiff with interest at the
rate of Rs.1.75% per month from the date of filing of the suit till its
realization.
3. The Sum Suit 338/2017 is decreed accordingly with the cost.
4. Decree be drawn of accordingly.
-- 2 of 3 --
5. SJ No. 51/2018 and SUM SU No. 338/2017 both are disposed-of
accordingly.
Proceeding is closed.
R and P to be given to the Record Room.
Judge
-- 3 of 3 --