Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
Received on : 19.06.2018
Registered on : 11.07.2018
Decided on : 11.10.2021
Duration : 03Y 03M 22
EXHIBIT12
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 710 OF 2018
( CNR No.MHCC010073342018)
KANTILAL BASTIMAL JODHAVAT ]
of Mumbai an adult Indian Inhabitant ]
aged about 51 years, Occupation:Business ]
having his address at Room No.1603, ]
Siddhesh Apartment, Khataralli Lane, ]
C.P. Tank, Mumbai – 400 002. ].. Plaintiff.
V/s.
MR. SANTOSH LAXMAN SLAVI ]
of Mumbai an adult Indian Inhabitant, ]
Aged about 46 years, Occupation: Service, ]
Having his work place address at Bai ]
Jerabai Wadia Hospital for Children, ]
Designation: Substitute Hamal, E.C. No.599]
Acharya Donda Marg, Parel, ]
Mumbai – 400012. Having his residence ]
address at Staff quarters 33/2, B.J. Wadi, ]
H.P. Acharya Donda Marg, Parel, ]
Mumbai 400 012. ]..Defendant.
Advocate Mr. Balbheem Patil for the plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR
(C.R.No.15).
DATE : 11th OCTOBER 2021
-- 1 of 6 --
2
JUDGMENT
The suit is instituted for recovery of amount of Rs.
2,90,000/ with interest on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/ at the
rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the
realization of the total decreetal amount.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant approached
plaintiff on 05.12.2015 for a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/. The
plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ to the defendant. On
receiving the said amount, the defendant has issued a postdated cheque
of Rs.2,00,000/. On several times the plaintiff asked defendant for
presentation of the said cheque for encashment, but the defendant told
the plaintiff not to deposit the said cheque. Thereafter, on each and
every occasion the defendant kept the plaintiff on false and baseless
promises and till date the plaintiff did not pay the said amount. Hence
plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that as the defendant failed to
pay the loan amount, the plaintiff has issued demand notice through his
advocate upon the defendant. The plaintiff was constrained to institute
the suit for recovery of amount.
4. The summons of the suit was duly served upon the
defendant. The Affidavit of Service of Summons along with the
unclaimed RPAD envelope containing summons shows that the
defendant did not claim the same despite delivery of intimation by the
postal authority. Thus, there has been proper service of summons on the
defendant. However, defendant failed to appear before the Court.
-- 2 of 6 --
3
Hence, suit proceeded ex parte against the defendant. Service affidavit
is filed at Exhibit 5.
5. Considering the plaint, documents on record and claim
affidavit filed by plaintiff, following points arise for my determination
and my findings to them are as stated below for the following reasons.
Sr.
No
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the plaintiff proves that he advanced
friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/ to the
defendant ?
In the
Affirmative
2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as
prayed for ?
In the
Affirmative
3 What Order and decree ? As per Final Order
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2:
6. The plaintiff has filed a claim affidavit at Exhibit6. The
plaintiff has filed Original Loan receipt for Rs.2,00,000/ is at Exhibit9.
It bears the signature of the defendant. Original cheque for
Rs.2,00,000/ dated 25.11.2017 is at Exhibit10. It is duly signed by the
defendant. The plaintiff has filed on record Demand Notice dated
03.02.2018 issued by his advocate to the defendant demanding the
amount is at Exhibit11 . All the above documents produced on record
by the plaintiff are supported by his claim affidavit.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
7. The defendant, though duly served with the summons of
the suit, failed to appear before the court and contest the claim of
plaintiff. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence produced by
plaintiff on record has gone unchallenged and the court has to rely
upon the same as there is no otherwise illegality in the claim of the
plaintiff.
8. In view of all above discussion, I have come to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that he advanced of the amount
of Rs. 2,00,000/ to defendant as a friendly loan and defendant
executed a demand promissory note of the same amount in favour of
plaintiff as a security. The plaintiff has further proved that the
defendant failed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ along with interest
thereon on demand by the plaintiff. Therefore, claim of plaintiff is
bound to be allowed. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed
for. In view of all about discussion I answer points Nos. 1 and 2 in the
affirmative and in answer point No.3, I proceed to pass following order.
O R D E R
1. The suit is decreed with costs.
2. The Defendant is directed to pay the amount of
Rs.2,90,000/ to the plaintiff along with interest on the
amount of Rs.2,00,000/– at the rate of 18% per annum
from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of
the total decreetal amount within 60 days of the date of
this order.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
4. Court fees be refunded as per the rules and
entitlement.
5. The summary suit No.710/2018 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 11.10.2021 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on: 11.10.2021
Typed on : 20.10.2021
Signed on : 26.10.2021.
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
26.10.2021 AT 3.30 P.M. MRS. SUPRIYA S. PAWAR
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
no.)
HHJ SHRI VIDYADHAR B.
KAKATKAR (C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
11.10.2021
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 26.10.2021
Judgment/Order uploaded on 26.10.2021
-- 6 of 6 --