Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010126042019 Presented on : 03122019
Registered on : 04 012020
Decided on : 17092021
Duration : Y M D
1 7 13
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by S. U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.496 OF 2021
(SUMMARY SUIT NO.55 OF 2020)
Ex.07
Nitin Gulab Gohil,
Adult Indian Inhabitant
of Bombay, aged 32 years,
carrying on business in
the name and style of
Laxmi Krupa Money Lenders,
a Proprietory Concern as its
Sole Proprietor at Hillview
Bldg, Gala No.29, Paper Mill Bus
Stop, M.G.Road, Vikroli
(West), Mumbai400 083. ..Plaintiff
Versus
Dinesh Kanji Sapria, Adult, Indian
Inhabitant of Bombay, working for
gain at S.W.M Department, N. Ward,
Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai400 077.
And at
Madhumati Factory Gali T.333, Old
Barracks, D.G.Road, Chembur Camp,
Mumbai400 074. ..Defendant
-- 1 of 5 --
2
_____________________________________________________
Ld. Advocate Kavita Lalwani plaintiff.
DefendantEx parte.
______________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
(Dated this 17th day of September, 2021.)
1. Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.3 lacs with
interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its
realization.
2. Briefly stated, plaintiff's case, is as under:
Plaintiff does the business of money lending in the
name and style of 'Laxmi Krupa Money Lenders'. On 14/05/2019,
defendant executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff
in the sum of Rs.3 lacs for the valuable consideration. On
14/06/2019, plaintiff presented said demand promissory note for
payment, but, defendant did not honour the demand promissory
note. Plaintiff approached defendant for several times and asked
for payment of Rs.3 lacs, but, defendant failed to pay the same.
Plaintiff by notice dated 01/10/2019, through advocate, called
upon defendant to pay the amount of Rs.3 lacs, but, defendant
failed to pay the said amount. Hence, this suit.
3. As per Service Affidavit (Ex.2), defendant deemed to
be served with summons issued as per Order 37 R.2(2)of C.P.C.
But, defendant failed to tender his appearance before the Court.
Therefore, suit proceeded without appearance of defendant.
-- 2 of 5 --
3
4. Following points arise for determination, findings
thereon for the reasons to follow are as under:
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Does the plaintiff prove that an
amount of Rs.3 lacs is outstanding
against the defendant?
Proved
2. What order? Suit is decreed as
per final order.
REASONS
Point No.1
6. In order to substantiate the claim, plaintiff filed claim
affidavit of PW1 Gulab Govind Gohil at Ex.3. He testified that
defendant executed demand promissory note of Rs.3 lacs on
14/05/2019 for a valuable consideration. He further testifies that
on 14/06/2019, said demand promissory note was presented to
defendant by plaintiff for payment, but, defendant failed to
honour demand promissory note. The oral evidence of PW1
Gulab Govind Gohil is further supported by demand promissory
note dated 14/05/2019. Before institution of suit, notice was
issued to defendant, but, defendant refused to take said notice.
As discussed supra, defendant failed to appear before the Court
as per Order 37 R. 2(2)of C.P.C., Oral evidence of PW1 Gulab
remain unchallenged and uncontroverted. It is further supported
by documents filed on record. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to
the decree of suit amount. As per demand promissory note,
defendant agreed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. The interest
claimed by plaintiff, is the interest agreed by defendant, therefore,
-- 3 of 5 --
4
plaintiff is also entitled for interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of
Rs.3 lacs. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. In the result,
following order:
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/
(Three Lacs only)alongwith interest @ 18 percent p.a.
to plaintiff from the date of the suit till it's realization
within two months.
3. Court fees be refunded as per Schedule 1 of (E) Rules
framed under Section 11(2) of the Bombay City Civil
Court Act, 1948, for the refund of Institution Fee.
4. Decree thus follow.
17/09/2021 S.U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 17/09/2021
Transcribed on : 17/09/2021
Signed on : 17/09/2021
-- 4 of 5 --
5
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
17/09/21 at 05.30 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
17/09/21
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 17/09/21
Judgment/order uploaded on 17/09/21
-- 5 of 5 --