Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: S.C.Suit No. 1067/18. 1 Ex-parte Judgment.
Filed on : 26.02.2018
Registered on : 16.04.2018
Decided on : 09.01.2020
Duration : Years Months Days.
01 08 24
Exhibit 18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 1067 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010028802018)
BHARATI RATAN KUTE
Age about 47 years, Occ. Service
Through its Constituted Attorney
Mr. Siddesh Ratan Kute,
Age.19 years, Occ.: Student
Both residing at C/301, Eureka CHS Ltd.,
N.G. Acharya Marg, Opp. Acharya College,
Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071 ...Plaintiff
Versus
1) SAJANIDEVI OMPRAKASH NAWAL
Age 48 years, Occ : Housewife,
2) MISS. SWEETY OMPRAKASH NAWAL
Age 19 years, Occ : Student
Both are residing at
14/093, 1st floor, Tata Power,
Thakkar Bappa Colony, S.G. Barve Marg,
Opp. Ambika Hotel, Chembur,
Mumbai – 400 071 ...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI U. J. MORE
(C.R.NO.08).
DATE : 09th JANUARY, 2020.
-- 1 of 6 --
S.C.Suit No. 1067/18. 2 Ex-parte Judgment.
Mr. Girish Kedia a/w Ms.Shashwati, Advocate for Plaintiff.
None for Defendant.
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.4,60,000/ (Rupees Four
Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) with interest @ 18% p.a.
Plaintiff's case is narrated as follows :
2. It is stated that, the defendant No.1 and her deceased
husband under an Agreement for sale dated 26th July, 2006 executed by
and between Shri Sumerji Bhikamchand Jain, Shri. Hemraj
Bhikamchand Jain and Shri Chandrashekhar Bhikhamchand Jain, of the
First part and Mr. Omprakash H. Nawal and Mrs. Sajanidevi Omprakash
Nawal as the purchasers of the Second Part, the Second part purchased
Flat No.301 and 302 on 3rd Floor in the building known as Sonigrav
Bhavan situated at Chembur. For the valid consideration and as per
terms and conditions as mentioned therein. The agreement for sale
dated 26th July, 2006 duly registered under bearing No.BDR1306481
2006.
3. It is stated that, the defendant No.1 and her husband
Omprakash Nawal was in Joint possession and having Joint ownership
right in respect of the Flat No.301 and 302. The plaintiff states that
defendant No.1 and defendant's No.1 deceased husband have agreed to
sell the said flats to Plaintiff in month of January,2017 for the sum
consideration of Rs. 1,30,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs
Only).
4. It is stated that, she had transferred through RTGS from
-- 2 of 6 --
S.C.Suit No. 1067/18. 3 Ex-parte Judgment.
India Bank, Chembur Branch through her Account No.864224745 on
dated 23.01.2017 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Only)
drawn from Indian Bank, in favour of “Prakash Trading” as a token
amount and on the same day i.e. on 23.01.2017 the plaintiff had also
transferred the money through her Bank namely THE MUNICIPAL CO
OP BANK LTD, MUMBAI, through her Account 301000007395877
NEFT transferred the sum of Rs. 1,45,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Forty
Five Thousand Only) to “Prakash Trading” in connection with the flat.
5. It is stated that, on 24.01.2017 the plaintiff had transferred
the money through RTGS/NEFT from his Dombivii Nagri Sahakari Bank
Ltd. In favour of “Prakash Trading” account lying with Union Bank of
India, Chembur Branch, Mumbai a sum of Rs. 55,000/ (Rupees Fifty
Five Thousand Only) in connection with the said flats.
6. It is stated that, after the death of the defendant's No.1
husband the defendant No.1 kept on posting to sell the said flats and
nearly after a year the defendant No.1 denied to sell the said flats and
therefore the Plaintiff through their advocate issued Legal Notice dated
26.12.2017 to the defendant No.1 & defendant No.2 and call upon the
defendants within 15 days to refund the token money along with
interest total amounting to Rs. 4,60,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty
Thousand Only) but defendant has refused to accept the said notice for
the reason best known to them and it came to be returned unclaimed by
the defendants.
7. It is stated that, the above circumstances states that the
defendants owes to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees Four
Lakhs only) (Principal amount) plus Rs.60,000/ being the interest from
-- 3 of 6 --
S.C.Suit No. 1067/18. 4 Ex-parte Judgment.
the period 01.02.2017 to till date 30.01.2017 (interest calculated @
18% on principal amount) and therefore for the purpose of the present
suit therefore the total amount of Rs.4,60,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs
Sixty Thousand Only) due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff
as per the particulars. With further interest at the rate of 18% per
annum on the sum of Rs.4,60,000/ from the date of filing the suit till
payment and/or realization.
8. It is stated that, defendant however failed and neglected to
pay the amount due as per bank transactions. In view of the bank
transactions maintained by plaintiff, the amount of Rs.4,60,000/
(Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) is due towards defendant.
Despite demand and a notice through advocate dated 26/12/2017,
defendant is failed for repayment. Hence this suit.
9. Summons is duly served on defendant. However,
defendant is failed to appear. Hence suit is proceeded exparte.
10. To substantiate the claim of plaintiff, plaintiff Mr. Siddesh
Ratan Kute submitted claim affidavit vide Exh.6 and Addi. Affidavit
vide Exh. 8. In view of affidavit and Addl. Affidavit of PW 1, the
relevant documents are marked Exh.10 Original UTR Certificate from
Indian Bank, Exh.11 Original UTR Certificate from Municipal
Corporation Bank, Exh.12– Original UTR Certificate from DNS Bank,
Exh.13 Original receipt from Indian Bank, Exh.14–Original Receipt
from Municipal Coop bank ltd , Exh.15–Original Receipt from DNS
bank, Exh.16–Legal Notice packet original. On perusal of bank receipts,
the amount due towards defendants is Rs.4,60,000/ (Rupees Four
Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only). The notice issued by plaintiff through
-- 4 of 6 --
S.C.Suit No. 1067/18. 5 Ex-parte Judgment.
advocate Rajarathnam Baddam on 26/12/2017.
11. According to plaintiff, there is no payment received from
the defendant. The suit is well within limitation. The evidence laid by
plaintiff remains unchallenged. Therefore, by oral as well as
documentary evidence the plaintiff have prove that defendants are
jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs. 4,60,000/( Rupees
Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) to the plaintiff. The absence of
defendant infers that he admits the claim. Resultantly, it deserves to
decree the suit.
12. The interest @ 18% p.a. claimed by the plaintiff appears to
be exorbitant. The interest @ 9% p.a. is reasonable. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Suit is partly decreed with cost.
2. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to
pay the amount of Rs.4,60,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty
Thousand Only) with further interest @ 9% p.a. to plaintiff
from the date of suit till realization, within three months
from the date of decree.
3. Decree shall be drawn accordingly.
(U.J.MORE)
AdHoc Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 09.01.2020 Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 09.01.2020
2. Transcribed on : 09.01.2020
3. Signed on : 09.01.2020
-- 5 of 6 --
S.C.Suit No. 1067/18. 6 Ex-parte Judgment.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
10.01.2020. 12.00 p.m. Mr.G.R.Suryawanshi
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri U.J.MORE.
(Court Room No.08).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 09.01.2020
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 09.01.2020
Judgment/Order uploaded on 10.01.2020
-- 6 of 6 --