Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010029272020
Presented on 06-03-2020
Registered on 12-10-2020
Decided on 25-04-2025
Duration Year Month Days
05 01 19
CNR No. MHCC010029272020
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
SUMMARY SUIT NO.338 OF 2020
Falco Auto Corporation,
A proprietary firm
Having its office at
22, Dilip Niwas, Benham Hall Lane, Opera House,
Mumbai – 400004.
Through its Proprietor
Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur Chadha, aged 52 years,
Indian, Inhabitant of Mumbai. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Sonpari Automobiles
Proprietor firm having their address at, Makranpur,
Kannad – 431103,
Dist. Aurangabad, State – Maharashtra.
2. Mr. Narayan Popatrao sonawane
Adult, Indian Inhabitant Proprietor of
Defendant No.1 address at, Makranpur, Kannad,
Dist. Aurangabad-431103. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Geet Chadda For plaintiff
Ex parte For defendants.
-- 1 of 5 --
Suit 338 of 2020 .. J/2 .. Judgment
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
N. B. LAVTE
(C.R.No.83)
DATED: 25th April, 2025
J U D G M E N T
(Suit under Order XXXVII OF C.P.C.)
This is a Summary Suit filed under Order XXXVII of the
Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs.22,241/- with
18% p.a.
2. In short the case of the plaintiff is that :
The plaintiff is sole proprietor of Falco Auto Corporation
dealing in motor spare parts and defendant are in the business of retail
trading of motor spare parts. In view of the valid confirm order placed
by defendants, goods were supplied and delivered on credit basis vide
invoice No.758 dated 28.03.2018 for Rs.16,684/- sent through Batco
Roadlines vide lorry reciept No.07018385 dated 29.03.2018. The
defendants were having running credit account. The bill and lorry
reciept were sent by speed post. By demand notice dated 21.01.2019
defendants were called upon to make payment which they failed to
comply. Thus there is an outstanding amount of Rs.22,241/-. Hence,
the suit.
3. The defendants were duly served by way of paper
publication, but they failed to appear, hence, by an order dated
02.03.2024 suit was directed to proceed ex-parte.
-- 2 of 5 --
Suit 338 of 2020 .. J/3 .. Judgment
4. From the pleadings of plaintiff, following points arise for
my consideration and determination to which I have given my findings
alongwith reasons as under:
Sr. Points Findings
1. Is plaintiff entitled for recovery of an amount of
Rs.22,241/- with 18% p.a from defendants ?
Partly
Affirmative.
2. What order and decree ? As per final
order
REASONS
5. In order to prove the suit claim Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur Chadha
filed her evidence vide (Exh.5). Whereas, reliance is placed on the
following documents namely, Sec.65-B Certificate (Exh.7), invoice
alongwith lorry receipts (Exh.8 Colly), Legal demand notice and RPAD
postal receipts and acknowledgment (Exh.9 colly) and particulars of
claim (Exh.10).
AS TO POINT NO. 1.
6. Heard Adv. Baaz Singh Chadha for plaintiff and gone
through the documents filed on record. It is plaintiff's case that spare
parts were sold and supplied to defendants through Batco Roadlines
Corporation. Thereafter, invoice was raised, but, the amount was not
paid. Inspite of legal notice, defendants failed to pay the amount, which
led to filing of the present suit. The invoice and lorry reciept Exh.(8
Colly) shows goods were sold, supplied and delivered to defendants.
The particulars of claim (Exh.10) reveals there is an outstanding
amount of Rs.22,241/-. Legal demand notice was issued on
21.01.2019, however, no any payment was made.
-- 3 of 5 --
Suit 338 of 2020 .. J/4 .. Judgment
7. As discussed above, as the suit proceeded ex-parte, hence
the evidence affidavit of the plaintiff which is verbatim of the plaint has
gone unchallenged. Therefore, considering the documents on record,
plaintiff proved there is an outstanding amount of Rs.16,683/-. The
plaintiff claimed 18% p.a, however, it was not an agreed rate of interest.
However, the transaction being commercial in nature, interest of 12%
p.a on the principal amount from the date of demand notice dated
21.01.2019 would be reasonable rate of interest. Hence, the point No.1
is answered partly affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.2:
8. In view of my finding to Point No.1, plaintiff is entitled to
recover an amount of Rs.16,683/- (principal amount) with 12% p.a
from from the date of demand notice dated 21.01.2019 till realization
with costs. In the result, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. The Summary Suit No.338 of 2020 is partly decreed with costs.
2. The defendants are directed to pay to plaintiffs an amount of
Rs.16,683/- (Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Three only)
with 12% p.a from the date of demand notice dated 21.01.2019 till
its realization.
3. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. The R & P be sent to Record Department.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
Dt.:25-04-2025 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI MUMBAI
Dictated on : 25-04-2025
Transcribed on : 28-04-2025
checked on : 28-04-2025
Signed on : 28-04-2025 (N. B. Lavte)
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
City Civil Court, Mazgaon, MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
Suit 338 of 2020 .. J/5 .. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
28.04.2025 at 03.50 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Shri. N. B. Lavte
(COURT ROOM NO.83)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
25.04.2025
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 28.04.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on
due to mistake of date
28.04.2025
-- 5 of 5 --