Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010119252019
Presented on 21-11-2019
Registered on 22-01-2020
Decided on 12-01-2022
Duration Yrs. M. Days
02 01 21
CNR No. MHCC010119252019
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.118 OF 2020
Mr. Santosh Nagurao Gadge
of Mumbai an adult Indian Inhabitant,
Age: 27 years, Occupation Business at
Address: Room No. 4, N.M. Gadge Chawl, Makadwala
Compound, Jai Shankar Chowk, Halavpool Road,
Kurla West,
Mumbai - 400 070. ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Mr. Sandeep Govind Jadhav
of Kurla East Mumbai, an adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Aged about 38 years,
Occupation : Service,
Address: Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai,
Employee No. 4362375, Ps No. 6205, M-Ward, B.M.C.
Office, Saff Safai Khatte, Ground Floor, Near To Natraj
Cinema, Near To Chembur Station Chembur,
Mumbai - 400 071. And also having
His residence address at Anand Nagar,
Block Nub/1, Pop. To An and Nagar Liabrerary, Near To
Lal Dongar, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur East,
Mumbai - 400 071.
.Defendants.
M
-- 1 of 6 --
Suit 118 of 2020 .. J/2 .. Judgment
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Mr.Balbhim Patil for plaintiff.
None present for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR AD-HOC JUDGE
SMT. C.V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.15)
DATED : 12th January, 2022
J U D G M E N T
(Ex-parte)
1. This is the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.
Five Lacs only) alongwith interest rate as per Nationalise Bank from the
date of decree till realisation of the amount.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
The plaintiff is carrying on business at Makadwala
Compound, Jai Shankar Chowk, Halav Pool Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai –
400 070. The defendant is residing at Mumbai and working with
Municipal Corporation, Mumbai. The plaintiff and defendant are
friends. They know each other. Therefore, the defendant approached
to the plaintiff for friendly help of Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.10.2017. On the
same date the plaintiff has given Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant without
interest. For the security of amount the defendant has executed
promissory note of Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.10.2017. As per promissory
note the defendant promised to pay the said amount without interest
but inspite of repeated demands and reminders the defendant failed to
pay the amount to plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff issued notice on
07.05.2018 and called upon defendant to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to him as
against the promissory note. Even thereafter the defendant failed to
pay the amount. The promissory note is executed at Kurla, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 6 --
Suit 118 of 2020 .. J/3 .. Judgment
The defendant is also residing at Mumbai, therefore, this Court has
jurisdiction to try the suit. The cause of action i.e. amount has been
given by plaintiff to defendant on 02.10.2017. The suit is filed on
21.11.2019 therefore, the suit is within the limitation. Accordingly the
plaintiff has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- with interest.
3. Roznama dated 15.11.2021 disclosed that the suit
summons is duly served to defendant but failed to appear on record,
accordingly the suit is proceeded Ex-parte against him.
4. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of witness Santosh Gadge.
The witness has reiterated facts of the plaint in his evidence. The
plaintiff has also filed the documents i.e. promissory note, demand
notice, postal dispatched receipt, acknowledgment receipt, close
envelope and copy of Aadhar card of defendant. All these documents
filed by plaintiff below Exh.7.
5. From pleadings and documents following points arise for
consideration to which the reasons are given by me before them.
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether plaintiff prove that he has given
Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant ?
In the Affirmative
2. Whether plaintiff prove that the defendant
failed to reply the above said amount ?
In the Affirmative
3 Is plaintiff entitled for recovery of
Rs.5,00,000/- ?
In the Affirmative
4. Is the plaintiff entitled for interest ? In the Affirmative
5. What Order ? Suit is decreed.
-- 3 of 6 --
Suit 118 of 2020 .. J/4 .. Judgment
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 to 4:
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant
are friend. The defendant has demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from him. On
02.10.2017 he has given Rs.5,00,000/- to him. For security of the said
amount the defendant has executed promissory note. The said
promissory note is filed below Exh.7. As per the case of the plaintiff,
the plaintiff and defendant are friends therefore he has given
Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant without interest and in the suit he has
claimed amount without interest. The plaintiff submitted that for
repayment of the said loan amount the defendant has executed
promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. On perusal of the promissory
note it appears that the plaintiff is having money lending license and
therefore, he has charged 18% p.a. interest on due amount. The said
receipt has been signed by plaintiff as well as defendant. Thereafter,
the plaintiff has issued demand notice on 07.05.2018 and called upon
defendant. The said notice is issued on 07.05.2018, dispatched to
defendant on 10.05.2018. The postal acknowledgement shows that the
defendant has received the same on 11.05.2018. Inspite of service of
demand notice the defendant failed to reply it. However the suit
summons is also duly served to him but he failed to appear on record
and challenged the documentary and oral evidence of the plaintiff.
Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence which is
unchallenged, it shows that the plaintiff has given Rs.5,00,000/- to
defendant but defendant failed to refund the same amount inspite of
repeated demands from the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer to point
Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
-- 4 of 6 --
Suit 118 of 2020 .. J/5 .. Judgment
7. Though the plaintiff submitted in the suit that he has given
amount to defendant without interest. On the contrary, the promissory
note disclosed repay of interest of 18% p.a. on Rs.5,00,000/-. Apart
from that now the plaintiff has not claimed interest on Rs.5,00,000/-
but he has claimed interest on Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of decree. It
is proved in earlier para that the plaintiff has given Rs.5,00,000/- to
defendant. The defendant failed to refund the said amount. In such
circumstances, the defendant is liable to pay interest on Rs.5,00,000/-
at least at the rate of any Nationalise Bank from the date of decree till
realisation of the amount. Therefore, I answer to point Nos.3 and 4 in
the affirmative and for point No.5 proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant do pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff along with
interest of any Nationalize Bank from the date of decree till
realization of full amount within 6 months from the date of this
order.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(C. V. Patil)
Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 12.01.2022 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on : 12-01-2022
Transcribed on : 13-01-2022
checked on : 14-01-2022
Signed on : 14-01-2022
-- 5 of 6 --
Suit 118 of 2020 .. J/6 .. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
18/01/2022 12.55 a.m. V. U. Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil (CR 15)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT
/ORDER
12/01/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 14/01/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 18/01/2022
-- 6 of 6 --