Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Order in SJ 139/19 in Summary Suit 237/19
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 139 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 237 OF 2019
CNR NO. : MHCC010047832019
Mr. Mani Subhayya Nadar …. Plaintiff
V/s.
Mr. P. Kovilraj …. Defendant
Appearance:
Shri. S.S. Kharat, Advocate for the plaintiffs.
Shri. Santosh Jagtap, Advocate for the Defendant.
CORAM : SMT. S.S. NAGUR,
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.04)
DATE : 16.12.2021
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
The Summons for Judgment is filed by the plaintiff to
decree the suit on the ground that the claim for recovery of the amount
is admitted by the defendant. The Summons for Judgment is supported
by Affidavit of Mr. Mani Subhayya Nadar. The plaintiff has filed the suit
against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,74,000/ along with interest
at the rate of 18% per annum.
2. The plaintiff stated that as plaintiff and defendant belongs
to the same community, they know each other. The plaintiff has
advanced friendly loan of Rs.4,00,000/ in the month of 2015 to the
...1/
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Order in SJ 139/19 in Summary Suit 237/19
defendant. The defendant has issued cheque of Rs.4,00,000/ bearing
no. 276392 dated 30.07.2016 towards payment of the said friendly
loan. The said cheque was dishonoured when presented in the bank
with remark “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. The defendant failed to pay the
amount of loan. Hence, the suit for recovery.
3. The defendant filed reply to the Summons for Judgment
through Affidavit of I.P.Kovilraj. The defendant has denied that the
plaintiff has paid any friendly loan to the defendant. The defendant
stated that somewhere in the year 2011 he issued cheque to one
Mr.Packyanathan Nadar, who do the business of selling electronic
appliances and also do the business of cable network in the vicinity. The
defendant lives under the name J.P.R. Digital Channel. The said cheque
was issued towards the payment of monthly charges of availing the
cable network without putting any date or amount on the said cheque.
The defendant has not received any amount of friendly loan from the
plaintiff, the suit is not tenable. Hence, prayed for unconditional leave
to defend the suit.
4. Heard Advocate Shri. Kharat for the plaintiff and Advocate
Shri. Santosh Jagtap for the defendant. Perused the contents of
Summons for Judgment and reply supported by Affidavit. I have also
gone through the contents of plaint and documents relied by the
plaintiff and defendant in the reply to the Summons for Judgment.
5. The plaintiff has come with a case that he has paid an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/ to the defendant as a friendly loan in the year
...2/
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Order in SJ 139/19 in Summary Suit 237/19
2015. The defendant towards discharge of the said liability issued
cheque of Rs.4,00,000/ bearing no. 276392. The said cheque was
dishonoured on its presentation to the bank for clearance. The plaintiff
has relied on the said cheque and the written memo. On the other hand,
the defendant has relied on the bank statement to show that he has
issued the said cheque to one Packyanathan Nadar. The said cheque
was issued without putting date or amount for monthly charges of
availing cable network. The bank statement of Tamilnad Mercantile
Bank Ltd. shows that the defendant has issued cheque till the number
276395 and the present cheque is number 276392. The cheque of
276395 is issued on 29.10.2011. Therefore, the question of issuance of
cheque no. 276392 in the year 2015 does not arise.
6. It is the defence of the defendant that he couldn't have
issued the cheque no. 276392 to the plaintiff in the year 2015, as his
bank statement shows the entry of the cheque folio issued in the year
2011. The said cheque was issued for payment of monthly cable
network charges to Mr. Packyanathan Nadar. The said defence is prima
facie improbable without the proof of issuance of the said cheque to
Mr.Packyanathan Nadar. The defendant has stated that he has not put
any date or amount then according to him the cheque should bear the
name of the person to whom he issued the said cheque. The cheque
shows the name of Mani Subhayya. It is also not probable that a person
will issue a blank cheque for payment of monthly cable network charges
without putting amount in the said cheque. Hence, I hold that the
defendant is not entitled for unconditional leave to defend the suit.
Hence, pass following order:
...3/
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Order in SJ 139/19 in Summary Suit 237/19
ORDER
1. Conditional leave is granted to the defendant to defend
the suit on deposit of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rs.Four Lakh
Only) on or before next date.
2. On payment of the above cost within the above period,
the defendant to file Written Statement within one
month.
3. Accordingly, the Summons for Judgment is disposed of.
(SMT.S.S.Nagur)
Date :16/12/2021 Judge
City Civil Court,
Greater Mumbai.
Pronounced on : 16.12.2021
Dictated on : 16.12.2021
Transcribed on : 18.12.2021
Checked & Signed on : 18.12.2021
...4/
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Order in SJ 139/19 in Summary Suit 237/19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
20/12/2021 3.10 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer – Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Smt. S.S. Nagur
(C.R.NO.4)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
16/12/2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 18/12/2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 20/12/2021
...5/
-- 5 of 5 --