Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01006143201824 Feb 2020
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 24 Feb 2020 · CNR MHCC010061432018

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: SUMMARY SUIT NO.691/2018 1
Received on : 04-05-2018
Registered on : 05-07-2018
Decided on : 24-02-2020
Duration : 01Y 09M 22D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 691 OF 2018
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)
( CNR NO.: MHCC01-006143-2018)
Manoj Dhondiba Magdum,
Age: 37 years,
Residing at Laxmi Niwas,
New Mill Road, Kurla(West),
Mumbai-400 070. ....Plaintiff
Versus
Ramsajivan Bhagvatprasad Gupta
Age: Adult,
Residing at Room No.407, A-Wing,
4th floor, Jankalyan Society,
Omkar Building, Match Factory Road,
Kurla(West), Mumbai-400 070. ...Defendant
Appearances:-
Advocate Mr.Vasant Bansode for the Plaintiff.
Defendant Ex-parte.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R.NO.28)
DATE : 24th FEBRUARY 2020
J U D G M E N T
1. This is Summary Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.10,40,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) with pendente lite and future
interest.
-- 1 of 4 --
SUMMARY SUIT NO.691/2018 2
2. According to the plaintiff, on the request of defendant on
10.05.2012, he paid Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant as a loan repayable
with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month (18% p.a.). The defendant
executed a promissory note dtd.10.05.2012 for Rs.7,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 1.50% p.m. in favour of the plaintiff. However, the
defendant paid Rs.2,00,000/- only in cash as a part-payment to the
plaintiff in several installments from December 2014 to January 2016.
The defendant also admitted payment of said amount in a statement
recorded by police on 08.09.2016. Still the defendant did not pay the
remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Despite legal notice
of demand dated 12.11.2016, the defendant failed to pay the said
amount. At the institution of the suit the amount due and payable by
the defendant was Rs.10,40,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed
decree for recovery of said amount with pendente lite and future
interest.
3. Despite service of summons the defendant failed to appear.
Therefore, the suit proceeded ex-parte against the Defendant.
4. Considering the material on record and submissions made on
behalf of the plaintiff points arise for determination along with my
findings thereon for the reasons recorded are as under:-
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recovery of amount as prayed?
Yes
2. At what pendente lite and future interest
?
At the rate of 7% p.a.
3. What order and decree? As per final order
-- 2 of 4 --
SUMMARY SUIT NO.691/2018 3
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO.1 to 3 :-
5. The plaintiff filed his Evidence Affidavit at Exh.6 and also
produced documents with list Exh.7. The Affidavit and the document as
promissory note dtd.10.05.2012 reveal that the defendant executed said
promissory note for Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The
Promissory Note mentions about interest at the rate of 1.50 % p.m..
Despite legal notice dtd.12.11.2016, the defendant failed to pay the
amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the Evidence Affidavit, documents on
record and the circumstance that defendant failed to appear and
contest/challenge the suit, prove that the defendant executed
promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by obtaining loan of
Rs.7,00,000/-. As regards the limitation, though the promissory note
was executed on 10.05.2012,it is specific contention of the plaintiff in
the plaint that since Dec 2014 to June 2016 in several parts the
defendant has made payment of total Rs.2,00,000/-. The same
contention is Un-rebutted. Since, Dec 2014, the defendant has been
making the part payment in cash. The part-payment has been made
lastly in June 2016. Therefore the suit is within limitation. Considering
all these circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the
amount. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. However, as
regards pendente lite and future interest considering overall
circumstances it is just and proper to grant interest at the rate of 7%
p.a.. Hence, point No.2 is answered as that the plaintiff is entitled to
pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7% p.a.. In view of Para-
499 of Civil Manual Court fees has to be refunded to the plaintiff, this
being summary suit where the defendant did not appear. In answer to
-- 3 of 4 --
SUMMARY SUIT NO.691/2018 4
point No.3 order as follows is passed:-
ORDER
1. The suit is ex-parte decreed with costs as under.
2. The Defendant shall pay to the plaintiff amount of Rs.10,40,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) with simple interest at the
rate of 7% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000 from the date of
suit till realization of the amount.
3. Court fees be refunded to the plaintiff as per rules.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
Ad-Hoc Judge,
Date: 24/02/2020 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 24/02/2020
Signed on : 26/02/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
27/02/2019 at 2.20p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Shri.D.L.Bhagwat
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order 24/02/2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 26/02/2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 27/02/2019
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.