Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Sum.Suit No. 594/2018 1
Registered on : 13.03.2018
Decided on : 02.02.2019
Duration : 00 10 19
Y M D
EXHIBIT
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.594 OF 2018
Hanumant Yallappa Kunchikorve
Age 34 years of Mumbai an adult Indian Inhabitant
having his address at Block No.04
(Row) P, Room No.1, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar
90 feet Road, Transit Camp, Dharavi,
Mumbai 400017. .....Plaintiff
V/s.
Rajan Lena Thorat
age not known of Mumbai an adult Indian Inhabitant
working at B.M.C. “H West” Ward, Prabhat Colony,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055
Employee No.1661552, Paysheet No.P.S.No.5170
and residing at Room No.FN/9/8337/3, Kobra
Mithagar, MT. Pholewadi, Wadala (E), Mumbai 400037.
....Defendant
CORAM :HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. M.M.UMAR
(C. R. No.: 28)
DATED :02/02/2019.
Advocate Mr.Ramesh Jain for the plaintiff
Exparte against defendant.
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed this summary suit for recovery of an amount
of Rs.2,83,904/ alongwith further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on
-- 1 of 4 --
Sum.Suit No. 594/2018 2
the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/ from the date of filing of the suit till
its realization.
2. The facts of the case can be briefly stated as under:
It is the case of plaintiff that he is doing the business of money
lending and having money lending license. On 02/06/2007, the
defendant executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff for valuable
consideration of Rs.2,50,000/, after receiving the said amount from the
plaintiff. The defendant agreed/promised to pay interest at the rate of
18% p.a. on demand. It is contended that the plaintiff demanded the
said amount alongwith accrued interest thereon from time to time. But
the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. Ultimately, the
plaintiff issued a letter dated 22/2/2018 through his advocate, but the
defendant did not comply the same. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed
the present suit
3. The plaintiff has filed on record affidavit of service of summons
at Exhibit 5. Defendants inspite of service of Writ of Summons did not
appear in the suit.
4. Plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence in support of suit claim
at Exhibit 6, in which he has reiterated the contents of the plaint,
elaborately. So also, he has filed the List of documents at Exhibit 7. He
has filed the documents like Promissory Note dated 2/6/2017, Copy of
Notice dated 22/2/2018 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant etc.
5. Heard the argument of the learned advocate for plaintiff. On
going through the pleading in plaint and affidavit filed in lieu of
examination in chief at Exhibit 6, it appears that the plaintiff has come
-- 2 of 4 --
Sum.Suit No. 594/2018 3
with a specific case that the defendant executed a promissory note of
Rs.2,50,000/ on 2/6/2007. On going through the documentary
evidence placed on record it appears that the plaintiff has not filed any
documentary evidence to demonstrate that defendant executed the
Demand promissory note on 2/6/2007. Since the case is based on the
promissory note, it was desirable that the plaintiff should file vital
documents Promissory Note dated 2/6/2007, but the plaintiff has failed
to do so hence without going into the other aspect of the case, it
appears that plaintiff has failed to prove the case as pleaded in the
plaint and adduce the evidence. Therefore, suit claim of the plaintiff
must fail. Suit deserves to be dismissed. In the result, following order.
: ORDER :
1. The Summary Suit No.594/18 is dismissed.
2. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(M.M.UMAR)
Judge,
Date : 02/02/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 02/02/2019
Transcribed on : 02/02/2019
Signed on : 05/02/2019
-- 3 of 4 --
Sum.Suit No. 594/2018 4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
5/2/19 1.30p.m. Mrs.Jyoti R.Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.M.Umar(CR No.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
2/2/19
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 5/2/19
Judgment/order uploaded on 5/2/19
-- 4 of 4 --