Final Order 3

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010099542019 Presented on 27/09/2019
Registered on 17/10/2019
Decided on 13/11/2025
Duration 06 Y : 01 M : 17 D
Exhibit 15
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1015 OF 2019
Smt. Sushila Suresh Yendhe ]
Aged about 51 years, Indian Inhabitant ]
Occupation : Business, Room No.12, ]
Ambedkar Nagar, Near Barvenagar, ]
Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400 084 ]
Mob : 7045224591. ]...Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Pramod Bhaurao Dhage ]
Aged about 61 years, Indian Inhabitant ]
At – Navalewadi, Post – Pimparipedhar, ]
Taluka – Junnar District – Pune – 410504. ]
Mob : 8652771575 ]...Defendant
Appearance :
Ld. Advocate Navnath Tambade for the plaintiff.
Defendant absent (Ex-parte).
CORAM : HHJ SHRI SANGRAM SHRIHARI SHINDE
C. R. NO. : 81
DATE : 13/11/2025
-- 1 of 8 --
2 SUM SU NO.1015/2019
J U D G M E N T
( Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
01. This suit is filed under Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of Code of
Civil procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) for recovery of Rs. 10,88,000/-
alongwith interest from the defendant.
Brief facts of plaintiff’s case may be summarized as under :-
02. As per the plaintiff, she is doing business of selling Milk
since 2005. She is relative of defendant. Further, defendant
approached plaintiff in the month of March, 2016 as he was in need of
financial assistance to repay loan of Pathpedi and to pruchase the land
in the village. Therefore, plaintiff lent an amount of Rs. 10,88,000/- on
various dates as a friendly loan. Defendant had given written
assurance on 16/03/2016 that he will repay the said amount till
16/01/2018. However, defendant failed to repay the said amount.
Further, after long pursuance on 10/10/2018 defendant had issued
cheque bearing No.129355 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Ale,
Sudharama Complex, Kalayan Nagar for Rs. 15,000/- in favour of
plaintiff towards repayment of part liability of loan. On the
instructions of the defendant, plaintiff deposited said cheque on
15/11/2018 however, it was dishonoured and returned with remark,
“Payment Stopped by drawer” on 16/11/2018. Further, on
11/01/2019, at the instructions of defendant, plaintiff had again
deposited said cheque however, it was dishonoured for reason,
“Payment Stopped by drawer” on 14/01/2019. Therefore, plaintiff
issued legal notice on 25/01/2019 through advocate to the defendant
by RPAD and called upon to make the payment. Defendant received
the said notice however, failed to pay cheque amount. Therefore,
-- 2 of 8 --
3 SUM SU NO.1015/2019
plaintiff filed criminal complaint bearing No.569/SS/2019 before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, 50th Court Vikhroli. Defendant replied on
24/04/2019 and falsely denied contentions in the notice of the
plaintiff. The defendant failed and neglected to make the payment and
therefore, cause of action arose on 15/06/2019 and suit is filed within
limitation. Further, plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,88,000/-
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit
till its realization. Hence, this suit.
03. On perusing roznama, it appears that defendant has
appeared in the matter on 30/01/2020 and taken out Notice of Motion
No. 529/2020. The said notice of motion came to be allowed on
10/02/2020 and defendant was allowed to cause his appearance and
to file Vakalatnama. As defendant failed to file Vakalatnama and cause
his appearance till 06/12/2022, order was passed to proceed matter
exparte against defendant.
04. In support of claim, the plaintiff has filed her affidavit of
claim as P.W.1 at Exh. 2 and reiterated her contention for recovery of
Rs. 10,88,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The plaintiff
has also adduced evidence of Deepak Baburao Nawale as P.W.2 at
Exh. 13. The plaintiff has filed and relied upon the following
documents vide list vide Exh. 3 and 5. The plaintiff closed her
evidence vide pursis Exh. 14.
Sr.
No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1 Exh. 6 Original Written Assurance dated 16/03/2016
2 Exh. 7 Original copy of cheque & memo.
3 Exh. 8 Original copy of memo.
-- 3 of 8 --
4 SUM SU NO.1015/2019
4 Exh. 9 Oriignal copy of advocate demand notice alongwith
postal receipt, acknowledgment card and notice-
reply.
5 Exh. 10 colly Photo copy of advocate demand notice, postal
receipt, acknowledgment card.
6 Exh. 11 Bank Statement.
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. 10,88,000/-
from defendant ? If yes, at what
rate of interest ?
Yes, entitled to interest at the
rate of 7% per annum on
Rs. 10,88,000/- from
27/09/2019, the date of
filing of suit till its full
realization.
2. What order and decree? As per final order.
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 plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has filed her claim
affidavit as P.W.1 at Exh. 2 in support of her contentions and reiterated
contentions in the plaint. As per plaintiff, she is carrying business of
Milk since 2005. Further, it has come in her evidence that she is
relative of defendant. Defendant approached plaintiff in the month of
March, 2016 and requested for friendly loan as he was in need of
money to repay the loan of Pathpedi and purchase land in the village.
It is the contention of plaintiff that she had lent total amount of
-- 4 of 8 --
5 SUM SU NO.1015/2019
Rs. 10,88,000/- on various dates to the defendant. Further, it is
contention of plaintiff that defendant had given assurance in writing
on 16/03/2016 at Exh. 6. On perusing said document, it appears that
defendant had contended that he has received an amount of
Rs. 10,88,000/- as a hand loan on 16/03/2016 in presence of Deepak
B. Navale and Ajay Suresh Zende. Further, he has assured that he will
return said amount till 16/01/2018. Plaintiff has examined Deepak B.
Navale P.W.2 to support her contention and who has supported
contention of the plaintiff. On perusing evidence of Deepak Navale
P.W. 2, it appears that he has deposed that in his presence defendant
had borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,88,000/- on 16/03/2016 and
agreed to return till 16/01/2018. Defendant has not appeared and
cross examined both these witnesses. Defendant has not appeared and
cross examined both these witnesses therefore, evidence of plaintiff
and her witness has remained unchallenged.
07. Further, Sushila P.W. 1 has stated that defendant issued
cheque bearing No.129355 dated 15/10/2018 for sum of Rs. 15,000/-
in favour of plaintiff towards discharge of part payment out of Rs.
10,88,000/-. However, said cheque when presented for encashment on
15/11/2018 and 11/01/2019 and at both times it was dishonoured for
the reasons, “Payment Stopped by the drawer” on 16/11/2018 and
14/01/2019 respectively. Plaintiff has filed copy of said cheque and
cheque return memos at Exh. 7 & 8 colly. Further, as said cheque was
dishonoured, plaintiff issued notice dated 25/01/2019 by RPAD to the
defendant and called upon him to repay the loan amount. The said
notice is received by the defendant. Plaintiff in support of her
contention has filed office copy of said notice along with original
postal receipt and acknowledgment card on record at Exh. 9 colly.
-- 5 of 8 --
6 SUM SU NO.1015/2019
Defendant replied on 24/04/2019 at Exh. 9 colly. to the notice of
plaintiff. On perusing said reply, it appears that defendant has denied
that he has borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,88,000/-. However, he has
stated that there was an transaction between plaintiff and defendant
only for sum of Rs. 15,000/- accordingly cheque has been issued to the
plaintiff. Thus, it appears that defendant has admitted issuance of
cheque at Exh. 7. However, defendant has neither cross examined
plaintiff nor adduced his evidence to prove that he had not borrowed
an amount of Rs. 10,88,000/-.
08. As per the plaintiff, as defendant failed and neglected to
pay an amount of Rs. 10,88,000/-, therefore, she issued notice dated
15/04/2019 at Exh. 10 colly by RPAD to the defendant. The said
notice is received by the defendant however, he failed to file the reply
to the said notice. The plaintiff has filed original postal receipt and AD
card on record to support her contention that said notice is served on
defendant. Thus, on perusing oral and documentary evidence on
record, it appears that plaintiff has proved that she had lent and
amount of Rs. 10,88,000/- to the defendant and on 16/03/2019.
Further, defendant had assured in writing refund the said amount till
16/01/2018. Admittedly, there is no agreement so far as rate of
interest on the said amount between the parties. The plaintiff has filed
suit on 27/09/2019 and it appears that it is within limitation.
Therefore, I am of the view that plaintiff has proved that she is entitled
for an amount of Rs. 10,88,000/- from the defendant.
09. So far as, further interest is concerned plaintiff has
claimed interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on principal amount of
Rs. 10,88,000/- from the date of filing of suit. However, I am of the
-- 6 of 8 --
7 SUM SU NO.1015/2019
view that the same is excessive as compared to rate of interest of
Nationalized Banks. Therefore, having regard to the provision of
section 34 of the C.P.C., I am of the view that granting the interest at
the rate of 7% p.a. on the principal amount would be just, proper and
reasonable. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the
rate of 7% p.a. on the principal amount, from the date of filing the suit
till its full realization. Hence, I answer point No. 1 in affirmative and
in answer to point No. 2, I proceed to pass following order :-
O R D E R
1) Summary Suit No. 1015 of 2019 is hereby decreed with the
costs.
2) The defendant shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,88,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand only) to the plaintiff at the
rate of 7% p.a. from 27/09/2019, the date of filing of suit till its
full realization.
3) The plaintiff may be entitled to get refund the court fees paid, if
provided for in Rules.
4) The decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Sangram S. Shinde)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court Mazgaon, Mumbai
Court Room No.81.
Date: 13/11/2025
Dictated on: 13/11/2025
Corrected & signed on: 15/11/2025
-- 7 of 8 --
8 SUM SU NO.1015/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
15/11/2025 (Typed by Mrs. V. V. Malgaonkar)
(Uploaded by 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 13/11/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on6 pt 15/11/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 15/11/2025
-- 8 of 8 --