Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: ..1.. Summary Suit No.282/2020
MHCC010026702020 Presented on : 02/03/2020
Registered on : 12/03/2020
Decided on : 02/04/2024
Duration : 04Y 01M 02D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT MAZGAON
EXHIBIT NO.13
SUMMARY SUIT NO.282 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC01-002670-2020)
KAVITA PRAMOD NAGTODE
Of Mumbai, an adult Indian Inhabitant, having
her address at Jungleshwar Mahadev Society - 4,
Room No. 22, Aslfa Village, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai - 400 084.
]
]
]
]
] ..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RENUKA N PHADKHLE
Of Mumbai, an adult Indian Inhabitant, working
for gain with Arya Vidya Mandir, 9 x Road, J.V.P.D.
Juhu Scheme, Andheri (W), Mumbai and residing
at 1/1B, Shivram Mistry Chawl, Om Datta Krida
Mandal, Krishna Nagar, Bandrekar Wadi,
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400 060.
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ..DEFENDANT
Appearance :-
Mr. Ramesh Jain, learned advocate for plaintiff.
None for defendant (
Ex-parte).
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHAIKH AKBAR SHAIKH JAFAR
COURT ROOM NO.84.
DATE : 02/04/2024.
J U D G M E N T
1 This summary suit is filed for recovery of amount under
the demand promissory note. The plaintiff has come with the case that
she had advanced loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant, who
-- 1 of 5 --
..2.. Summary Suit No.282/2020
executed demand promissory note on 20/05/2018. The defendant had
agreed to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on demand alongwith
interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However, defendant did not pay
the loan amount, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2 The writ of summons was served upon defendant vide
Exhibit-06, but the defendant failed to appear before the Court and
hence, as per the order in
roznama dated 29/01/2024, suit proceeded
ex-parte against defendant.
3 Having regard to the contentions of plaintiff, following
points arise for my determination and I have recorded my findings
thereon for the reasons thereunder :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does the plaintiff prove that the
defendant has executed demand
promissory note of Rs.2,00,000/- ?
Affirmative
2 Does the plaintiff prove that she is
entitled to charge interest as prayed for ?
Partly Affirmative
3 Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs
sought ?
Partly Affirmative
4 What order ? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
4 In order to substantiate the contentions, the plaintiff
entered the witness box and relied on various documents under list
(Exhibit-09). Heard learned advocate for plaintiff.
-- 2 of 5 --
..3.. Summary Suit No.282/2020
As to point Nos.1 to 3 :-
5 The plaintiff has tendered her Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-08)
alongwith documents as per list (Exhibit-09). On perusal of demand
promissory note (Exhibit-10), it reveals that it bears signature and
thumb impression of the defendant. Inconsequence of failure to pay
the amount under the demand promissory note, the plaintiff has issued
a notice on 03/10/2019. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
amount under the demand promissory note. The plaintiff is a money
lender having license bearing No.RBE-745, hence, she is entitled to
recover the amount as a money lender. She filed another document
related to her license, copy of Form-10 and also cashbook. Thus, there
is no reason to disbelieve the contentions of plaintiff, which remains
unchallenged. Hence, suit deserves to be decreed as per the provisions
of Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6 There is nothing on record to show that the defendant has
ever paid any amount under the demand promissory note. The absence
and omission to appear before the Court on being served with the writ
of summons shows that she has no substantial defence and has
admitted the claim of plaintiff. Therefore, it is established that the
defendant has executed the demand promissory note for
Rs.2,00,000/-.
7 So far as interest is concerned, the plaintiff is claiming
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the defendant, however, I
am of the view that it is an exorbitant rate of interest. No doubt the
plaintiff has suffered loss in business and profit, due to failure to repay
the amount by the defendant. Had it been paid to the plaintiff as per
demand, she would have invested and would have earned profit
-- 3 of 5 --
..4.. Summary Suit No.282/2020
therefrom. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default i.e. notice
of advocate of plaintiff dated 03/10/2019, till its full realisation. In
view of above discussions, I answer point No.1 in affirmative and point
Nos.2 and 3 in partly affirmative.
8 As the defendant has made plaintiff constrained to file the
suit, he is also liable to pay the costs. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following order :-
ORDER
1. Summary Suit No.282 of 2020, is hereby partly
decreed with costs.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from 03/10/2019, till its full realisation from
the defendant.
3. Court fees, if any, be refunded as per rule.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court)
sd/-
( Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar )
Judge, City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
Mumbai, C.R. No.84.
Date: 02/04/2024.
Dictated and Typed on : 02/04/2024.
Signed by HHJ on : 02/04/2024.
-- 4 of 5 --
..5.. Summary Suit No.282/2020
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
03/04/2024
at about 5.30 p.m.
(Ms. Sonali S. Sawant)
Stenographer (Grade-III)
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar,
Judge, City Civil Court &
Addl. Sessions Judge, Court
Room No.84, Mazgaon, Mumbai
Date of pronouncement of Order : 02/04/2024
Order signed by Hon'ble Judge on : 02/04/2024
Order uploaded on : 03/04/2024
at about 5.30 p.m.
-- 5 of 5 --