Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: SJ 150/18 IN SUIT 703/17 1 ORDER
MHCC010058002018
EXHIBIT
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.150 OF 2018
( CNR No. MHCC010058002018 )
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 703 OF 2017
(CNR NO. MHCC010050082017)
Mr. Subhash Yelappa Kutade
Address Shop No. A. L. H. 345, D. K. Bag shop,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla West Mumbai 400070. … Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Yuvraj Manga Ishi
Address Samarat Ashok Nagar, Near to Nana
Pawar House, Ulhas Nagar No. 3, Ulhas Nagar,
Dist Thane 421003 ..Defendant
Appearance :
Advocate Mr.B.S. Patil for the plaintiff.
None for Defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
SMT. C.V. PATIL (C.R.NO.15)
DATE : 02nd May, 2022
ORDER
The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of principal
amount of Rs.2,00,000/ plus Rs. 33,000/ interest amount thereon. In
the said suit, the plaintiff has tendered summons for judgment. The
-- 1 of 7 --
SJ 150/18 IN SUIT 703/17 2 ORDER
plaintiff is money lender carrying on business of money lending under
license No.RBE/995 in his name in the cited address of the title. The
defendant is serving with central government. The defendant has asked
Rs.2,00,000/. Accordingly, the plaintiff has given Rs.2,00,000/ to him.
For security, the defendant has executed promissory note of
Rs.2,00,000/ in favour of the plaintiff on 20.05.2016 at the same time,
the defendant had promised to pay the amount with interest of 18% per
annum on demand of the plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff has made
several demands and reminders but no use. Said promissory note was
dishonored by the defendant. Therefore, on 25.03.2017, the plaintiff
sent legal notice. In spite of service of notice, defendant failed to pay
amount. Therefore, the defendant is now liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/
principal amount plus Rs.33,000/ interest thereon. The interest is
calculated from 20.05.2016 to 20.04.2017 i.e. till filing of the suit. As
per statement of the plaintiff, the promisor had executed the note at
Kurla, Mumbai. Both the parties are residents of Mumbai. Therefore,
this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The promissory
note is executed on 20.05.2016. Plaintiff has filed suit on 05.05.2017.
Therefore, the suit is very well within limitation. Accordingly, plaintiff
has tendered summons for judgment for claiming the decretal amount.
02. Defendant appears on record and filed reply for summons
for judgment. It is the statement of defendant that the plaintiff filed
false and bogus suit. As per statement of defendant he had never
obtained the sum of Rs.2,00,000/ from the plaintiff. On the contrary,
plaintiff has given only Rs.25,000/ to him. At the same time, plaintiff
has deducted from the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,500/ (10%). At the same
time, the plaintiff has also obtained thumb impression and signature on
blank promissory note. The plaintiff has filled details as per his own
-- 2 of 7 --
SJ 150/18 IN SUIT 703/17 3 ORDER
wish and asking Rs.2,00,000/ with 18% per annum interest. The
plaintiff has misused blank demand promissory note. However, the
plaintiff has also failed to procure 3 postdated cheques which he had
obtained for security purpose. The defendant further submitted that at
the time of transaction, plaintiff has taken his ATM card. The plaintiff
was used to take him in the ATM for collecting interest. Accordingly, till
his reply the defendant has paid Rs.45,000/ against Rs.25,000/ to the
plaintiff. As per statement of defendant, on the some pretext, he had
taken back his ATM card from the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff
abused him in filthy language and also threatened him to teach lesson.
At the same time of transaction, the defendant came into contact with
Subhash Ghadge but the suit has been filed by Subhash Kutade.
Actually, defendant is unaware of the Subhash Kutade. He did not know
whether Subhash Ghadge and Subhash Kutade are same and one
person. With this defendant requested to dismiss summons for
judgment and suit with costs.
03. Heard Ld. Advocate for plaintiff. Thereafter, suit was
posted for argument on summons for judgment, by defendant but no
one has turned up for argument from the side of defendant.
04. From arguments, pleadings documents for record,
following points arise for consideration to which I have given reasons
before them.
Sr. No. Points / Issues Findings
1. Does plaintiff is entitled for summons for
judgment? In the Affirmative
2. Does defendant entitled for leave to defend In the Negative
-- 3 of 7 --
SJ 150/18 IN SUIT 703/17 4 ORDER
the suit unconditionally?
3. What order? Summons for
Judgment is
made absolute.
AS TO POINT NOS. 1 AND 2.
05. As per statement of plaintiff, he has given Rs.2,00,000/ to
the defendant for security. The defendant has executed promissory note
in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed summary suit for
recovery of amount. The plaintiff has produced copy of promissory note
along with plaint. From the said copy, it appears that the defendant has
signed the said document; However, from defence of defendant, he has
admitted signature and thumb impression over promissory note. The
promissory note is for Rs. 2,00,000/ with 18% per annum interest. The
said amount is given on 20.05.2016. From the statement of defendant,
he has only taken Rs.25,000/ against that liability, the plaintiff has
obtained his thumb impression and signature on blank promissory note.
From the statement of the defendant, it appears that he has issued
promissory note on 18.12.2015. Promissory note on record is dated
20.05.2016. When the defendant has admitted his signature and thumb
impression over promissory note produced by plaintiff on record. Then,
it is for defendant to show on record the said blank promissory note is
used against payment of Rs.25,000/only. Here, defendant has not
brought these facts on record. The statement of defendant is without
supporting any document. As per statement of defendant when the
plaintiff has obtained his ATM, he was directing him to withdraw
money and pay him against interest on Rs.25,000/. As on the date,
against Rs.25,000/, the defendant has paid Rs.45,000/. Even
thereafter the plaintiff has threatened him. If it is the fact then it is not
-- 4 of 7 --
SJ 150/18 IN SUIT 703/17 5 ORDER
understood why the defendant had not taken any action against the
plaintiff. Because just putting facts on record is not sufficient. The
person who wants to believe his facts to be true then at least prima facie
he shows that the said facts are true. As per statement of defendant he
was aware with Subhash Ghodake who is plaintiff. But in the suit the
plaintiff has come with the name Subhash Y. Kutade. This may be the
statement by defendant, then it is not understood why the defendant
kept mum instead of taking necessary action. This shows that defence
put by defendant before court is unbelievable. On the contrary, the
admission of defendant regarding thumb impression/ signature on
promissory note shows that defendant has taken Rs.2,00,000/ from
plaintiff. In the said promissory note, the rate of interest 18% per
annum is mentioned. The said document is tendered by plaintiff.
Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for summons for judgment. In the suit
and Summons for Judgment, plaintiff has claimed amount with interest.
As discussed above the plaintiff is entitled for amount with interest. In
such circumstances, no use to keep pending the suit. Accordingly, I
answer point No. 1 in affirmative, point No. 2 in negative and proceed
to pass following order.
O R D E R
1. Summons for Judgment No.150 of 2018 in Suit No.703 of
2017 is made absolute.
2. The defendant do pay Rs.2,33,000/ along with 18% per
annum interest on principal amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/ from the date of
suit till realization of the amount within 6 months from the date of
order.
-- 5 of 7 --
SJ 150/18 IN SUIT 703/17 6 ORDER
3. Summons for Judgment No.150 of 2018 and Suit No.703 of
2017 stand disposed of.
(C.V.Patil)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 02.05.2022 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on: 02.05.2022
Typed on : 02.05.2022
Signed on : 11.05.2022
-- 6 of 7 --
SJ 150/18 IN SUIT 703/17 7 ORDER
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
12/05/2022 3.10p.m. Mr. Prasad S. Pednekar
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil (CR 15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
02/05/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 11/05/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 12/05/2022
-- 7 of 7 --