Final Order 2

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010049342019 Presented on 03/05/2019
Registered on 17/06/2019
Decided on 11/02/2026
Duration 06 Y: 09 M: 10 D
Exhibit 26
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 614 OF 2019
Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. ]
Having registered office at Sun Paradise ]
Business Plaza, First Floor, Senapati Bapat ]
Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ]
Through its Assistant Legal Manager ]
Mrs. Neha Nachiket Kulkarni ]
Age : 28 years, Occupation : Service. ]...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Mr. Sandeep Bhure (Director) ]
Age : Not known, Occ : Business ]
Hadgaon – 431 712 Tal : Hadgaon ]
Dist. Nanded, Maharashtra ]
Add : - Hadgaon, Tamsa Road, Hadgaon, ]
Dist. Nanded, Maharashtra – 431712 (Deleted) ]
Tamsa Road, Taluka : Hadgaon ]
Dist: Nanded, Maharashtra – 431712. ]
2. Riddhi Good Shepherd S – Pre Primary ]
English Medium School ]
Hadgaon – 431 712 Tal : Hadgaon ]
Dist. Nanded, Maharashtra ]
Add : - Hadgaon, Tamsa Road, Hadgaon, ]
-- 1 of 9 --
2 SUM SU NO.614/2019
Dist. Nanded, Maharashtra – 431712 (Deleted) ]
Tamsa Road, Taluka : Hadgaon ]
Dist: Nanded, Maharashtra – 431712 ]...Defendants
Appearance :
Ld. Advocate Mr. J. R. Vakil for the plaintiff.
None for the defendants (Ex-parte).
CORAM : HHJ SHRI SANGRAM SHRIHARI SHINDE
C. R. NO. : 81
DATE : 11/02/2026
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 11th February, 2026)
01. This is the suit filed under Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of Code
of Civil procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) for recovery of Rs.82,676/- alongwith
interest and prayed for further interest from defendants. The plaintiff
has amended cause title of plaint i.e. addresses of defendants vide
order dated 04/08/2022 passed in chamber summons No.630 of 2021
and 09/08/2024 passed in chamber summons No.1383 of 2024 during
pendency of the Suit.
Brief facts of plaintiff’s case may be summarized as under :-
02. As per the plaintiff, it is Private Limited Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff company
has authorized Mrs. Neha Nachiket Kulkarni vide Board Resolution
dated 25/02/2019 to file the suit on behalf of plaintiff company. The
plaintiff company carries on business as Education Publisher under the
name and style of Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. previously it was
known as Jeevandeep Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. Defendants used to place
verbal and purchase order from time to time and accordingly, plaintiff
-- 2 of 9 --
3 SUM SU NO.614/2019
used to sold, supply and deliver the goods to the defendants. Further,
defendants have acknowledged said goods without raising any
objection as to the quality, quantity of the said goods. Accordingly,
plaintiff raised invoice bearing No.PT71002 dated 03/10/2016 for
sum of Rs.78,795/-. The defendants failed to make the payment.
However, after lot of persuasion, defendants failed to make the
payment and credit note bearing No.PD62264 dated 21/12/2016 for
sum of Rs.8,677/- and credit note bearing No.PR65936 dated
17/01/2017 for sum of Rs.13,720/- total amounting to Rs.22,397/-.
Further, after giving credit of said amount an amount of Rs.56,398/- is
due and payable by the defendants. As per terms and conditions of
invoice, if defendants fails to make payment on due date then plaintiff
is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till its realization.
Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.82,676/- including
interest upto 30/04/2019. The cause of action has occurred in the
jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try
and decide the Suit. Suit is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff is
entitled for further interest. Hence, this Suit.
03. The defendants refused to accept the writ of the suit
summons. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of service at Exh.05. The
defendants have not caused their appearance and therefore, the suit
proceeded ex-parte against them by the order dated 15/03/2024.
04. In support of claim, the plaintiff has filed evidence
affidavit of Ms. Swati Arvindkumar Kalatme, Authorized
Representative of plaintiff as PW-1 at Exh.09 and additional evidence
on affidavit at Exh.09-A and reiterated her contention for recovery of
Rs.82,676/-. along with the further interest. The plaintiff has filed and
relied upon the following documents.
-- 3 of 9 --
4 SUM SU NO.614/2019
Sr.
No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1 Exh.13 Original Board Resolution dated 25/02/2019.
2 Exh.14 Original Board Resolution dated 05/08/2023.
3 Exh.15 colly Original Purchase Order No.20316, 20317 and
20318 dated 13/04/2016.
4 Exh.16 Printout of Purchase Order No.19892 vide email
dated 17/05/2016.
5 Exh.17 Printout of Purchase Order No.35332 vide email
dated 25/05/2016.
6 Exh.18 Printout of Purchase Order No.19838 vide email
dated 05/06/2016.
7 Exh.19 Office copy of Invoice No.T71002 dated
03/10/2016.
8 Exh.20 Office copy of Credit Note No.PD62264 dated
21/12/2016.
9 Exh.21 Office copy of Credit Note No.PR65936 dated
17/01/2017.
10 Exh.22 Office copy of Sales Ledger from 01/04/2016 to
26/04/2019.
11 Exh.24 Certified copy of lorry reciept dated 05/05/2016.
05. To decide the present suit, following points arose for
consideration to which my findings are recorded against each of them
for the reasons given below:
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recover amount of Rs.82,676/-
from defendants? If yes, at what
rate of interest?
No.
2. What order and decree? As per final order.
-- 4 of 9 --
5 SUM SU NO.614/2019
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 and 2 :-
06. Perused plaint, oral and documentary evidence. Heard
learned counsel for the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed claim affidavit
of Ms. Swati Arvindkumar Kalatme, Authorized Representative of
Plaintiff Company at Exh.09 and Exh.09-A in support of her
contentions and reiterated contentions in the plaint. The plaintiff has
filed extract of Board Resolution dated 25/02/2019 at Exh.13 to
demonstrate that Mrs. Neha Nachiket Kulkarni was authorized to file
this Suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. On perusing said extract, it
appears its supports the contentions of the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff
has filed extract of Board Resolution dated 05/08/2023 at Exh.14 to
demonstrate that Ms. Swati Arvindkumar Kalatme is authorized to
depose on behalf of plaintiff company.
07. It has come in the evidence of Ms. Swati (PW-1) that
defendants had placed purchase order vide email bearing No.20316,
20317 and 20318 dated 13/04/2016 at Exh.15 colly, email purchase
order bearing No.19892 dated 17/05/2016 at Exh.16, email purchase
order bearing No.19838 dated 05/06/2016 at Exh.18. The said email
orders are supported by Certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act at Exh.11. It is pertinent to note that there it no specific
pleading of the plaintiff with respect to the said purchase order in the
plaint, even plaintiff had not filed and relied on the said purchase
orders at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff has not sought
leave of this Court to file the said purchase orders on record. However,
it was only contended in the plaint that defendants used to place
-- 5 of 9 --
6 SUM SU NO.614/2019
verbal purchase orders from time to time. Therefore, it appears
plaintiff has proved that purchase orders at Exh.15 colly, Exh.16 and
Exh.18 were placed by the defendants. So far as the purchase order
bearing No.35332 vide email dated 25/05/2016 at Exh.17 is
concerned, there is no pleading in the plaint as well as it is not stated
in the evidence on affidavit. Therefore, I am of view that plaintiff has
failed to prove said purchase order as placed by the defendants.
08. It is the contention of the plaintiff, said goods were
delivered by delivery challan to the defendants. The plaintiff has
referred lorry receipts No.III 7600 dated 05/05/2016 and No.JJJ 1921
dated 31/05/2016 issued by Shraddha Mange Roadlines, lorry receipt
No.333 dated 20/05/2016 issued by Chintamani Travels, lorry receipt
No.13981/82135 dated 09/06/2016 issued by Chanakya Parcel
Service and lorry receipt No.751 dated 01/07/2016, No.869 dated
12/07/2016 and No.900 dated 18/07/2016 issued by Chintamani
Travels alongwith list at Exh.10. However, said documents are neither
pleading nor referred in the plaint. The plaintiff has filed certified
copies of said delivery challans in additional evidence and said
certified copies are at Exh.24. However, there is nothing on record to
show that said lorry receipts bears acknowledgment of the defendants.
Therefore, said receipts cannot be read in evidence.
09. It has come in the evidence of plaintiff, as per purchase
order placed by the defendants, plaintiff has sold, supplied and
delivered goods and raised invoice bearing No. PT71002 dated
03/10/2016 at Exh.19. On perusing said invoice, it supports the
contention of the plaintiff. Further, it appears that plaintiff has raised
said invoice for sum of Rs.78,795/- against defendants. It is also the
case of the plaintiff that they have given credit of Rs.22,397/- vide
-- 6 of 9 --
7 SUM SU NO.614/2019
credit note No.PD62264 dated 21/12/2016 for sum of Rs.8,677/- and
vide credit note No.PR65936 dated 17/01/2017 for sum of
Rs.13,720/-. The plaintiff has filed said credit notes on record at
Exh.20 and Exh.21 respectively to support his contention. Therefore,
after giving credit of Rs.22,397/- from outstanding amount of
Rs.78,795/- an amount of Rs.56,398/- was due and payable by the
defendants. Further, to support said contentions, plaintiff has filed
extract of ledger account at Exh.22.
10. Thus, on perusing oral and documentary evidence of the
plaintiff, it appears that though plaintiff has contended that in view of
purchase orders placed by the defendants, they have sold, supplied
goods to the defendants. However, on perusing lorry receipts at
Exh.24, there is nothing on said receipt to show that it bears
acknowledgment, seal or signature of the defendants. Further, there is
nothing on record to show that ledger extracts was served to the
defendants and they have acknowledged and admitted their liability.
There is no single document on record to show that defendants have
received the goods delivered by the plaintiff. As well as there is
nothing on record to show that invoice and credit note raised against
defendants were delivered to the defendants. Thus, it appears except
purchase orders placed by defendants, there is nothing on record to
show that plaintiff has delivered the goods to the defendants.
Therefore, I am of view that plaintiff has failed to prove that goods
were delivered to the defendants and they are liable to pay amount
claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to claim the
amount. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative and in answer to
point No.2, I proceed to pass following order :-
-- 7 of 9 --
8 SUM SU NO.614/2019
O R D E R
1) Summary Suit No.614 of 2019 is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) The decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Sangram S. Shinde)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court Mazgaon, Mumbai
Court Room No.81.
Date: 11/02/2026
Dictated and Typed on : 11/02/2026.
Corrected & signed on : 12/02/2026.
-- 8 of 9 --
9 SUM SU NO.614/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
13/02/2026 Mrs. Sonali S. Naik
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Shri S. S. Shinde
C.R. No.81
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER 11/02/2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on 12/02/2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 13/02/2026
-- 9 of 9 --