Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: SS No. 91/2020 Sanjesh Vs. Suresh Judgment (Exh.17) 1 of 6
MHCC010129992019 Suit Lodged on : 10.12.2019
Suit Admitted on : 06.01.2020
Suit Decided on : 16.09.2026
Duration : 06 Y : 09 M : 06 D
Exhibit : 17
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 83 – Summary Court
Summary Suit No. 91 OF 2020
Sanjesh Chunilal Jain, Age : 50 years,
of Mumbai, an adult inhabitant,
having his address at : Room No.70,
2nd Floor, Swadheshi Market, Kalbadevi Road,
Mumbai – 400 002.
… Plaintiff.
Versus
Suresh Lalbachan Gupta,
Age not known, of Mumbai, an adult Indian
Inhabitant, working for gain with T. C. Office,
Platform No., Western Railway, Dadar Station,
Dadar, Mumbai – 400 025. AND
R/a. : 405, Gagan Dream Society, Near Fire
Brigade, Vasant Nagari, Vasai – 401 208. … Defendant.
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. Ramesh Jain.
defendant : Ex-parte
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO. 83.
DATE : 16.09.2026
***************************************************************
-- 1 of 6 --
SS No. 91/2020 Sanjesh Vs. Suresh Judgment (Exh.17) 2 of 6
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 16th day of September, 2026)
Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.2,01,641.91 with interest.
1. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover Rs.2,01,641.91 and also
prayed for interest @ 18% per annum on principal amount
Rs.1,35,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization of entire
amount.
Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under :
2. On 18.04.2017, defendant borrowed Rs.1,35,000/- and
executed Demand Promissory Note in favour of plaintiff. Defendant
agreed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. Defendant paid Rs.15,000/- on
29.05.2018 by cheque. However, defendant failed to make the payment
as agreed. So, plaintiff issued letter dated 01.07.2019 to defendant.
Inspite of receiving the same, amount is not paid. Hence, this suit is
filed.
3. Writ of summons was issued against defendant. Plaintiff filed
service affidavit Exh.02 and Exh.07 before the then Presiding Officer.
Inspite of service of writ of summons, defendant did not appear. Hence,
suit proceeded ex-parte against defendant vide order dated 03.10.2024.
4. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself vide
Exh.08 and Exh.13 and relied on Promissory Note Exh.10, Legal notice
Exh.11, Money Lending License Exh.15. I have heard Ld. Advocate for
plaintiff.
-- 2 of 6 --
SS No. 91/2020 Sanjesh Vs. Suresh Judgment (Exh.17) 3 of 6
5. Considering nature of dispute, following points arise for my
determination and I have recorded my findings for the reasons
discussed as follows:
Sr. Points Findings
1. Does plaintiff prove that defendant on
18.04.2017 borrowed Rs.1,35,000/-
and executed promissory note in
favour of plaintiff ?
In the Affirmative.
2. Does plaintiff prove that defendant
failed to pay the amount as agreed?
In the Affirmative.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover
any amount from defendant with
interest? If yes, what would be that
amount and rate of interest?
Plaintiff is entitled to
recover Rs. 1,35,000/-
with 9% interest p.a.
from 01.07.2019 till
realization of entire
amount.
4. What Order and decree? Suit is partly decreed
with costs.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Point Nos. 1 to 4
As all points are interconnected with each other, so he are discussed
together as under :-
6. I have gone through evidence affidavit of plaintiff Exh.03 and
Exh.13. Plaintiff reiterated contents of plaint in evidence affidavit
Exh.03. Additional evidence affidavit is filed to prove money lending
license Exh.15. Said license is for a period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.
Date of transaction 18.04.2017 is covered within said period.
-- 3 of 6 --
SS No. 91/2020 Sanjesh Vs. Suresh Judgment (Exh.17) 4 of 6
7. Plaintiff deposed defendant executed Demand Promissory
Note Exh.10 after borrowing Rs.1,35,000/-. Plaintiff filed primary
evidence i.e Promissory note vide Exh.10. Said document is properly
signed by defendant. Despite of having opportunity, defendant did not
appear and contested the claim on merit. Therefore, there is no reason
to disbelieve oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff.
8. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount
Rs.1,35,000/-. So far as rate of interest is concerned, plaintiff is
claiming 18% p.a. which is exorbitant. In the facts and circumstances of
present case interest @ 9% p.a. would be justified. Plaintiff issued
notice to defendant on 01.07.2019. So plaintiff is entitled to get the
interest from 01.07.2019 on principal amount till realization of entire
amount.
9. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative and point
No.3 as ‘Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,35,000/- with 9%
interest p.a. from 01.07.2019 till realization of entire amount.’ Suit
thus deserves to be partly decreed with costs. As answer to point No.4,
following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Summary Suit No. 91/2020 is partly decreed with costs.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs. One Lakh
and Thirty Five Thousand only) from defendant with 9%
interest p.a. from 01.07.2019 till realization of entire amount.
3. Defendant shall pay above referred amount with interest to
plaintiff within three months from date of this Judgment.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
-- 4 of 6 --
SS No. 91/2020 Sanjesh Vs. Suresh Judgment (Exh.17) 5 of 6
5. Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
6. After compliance and period of Appeal, Sheristedar and AS to
consign Record of the suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 16.09.2026
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.83 - Summary Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 5 of 6 --
SS No. 91/2020 Sanjesh Vs. Suresh Judgment (Exh.17) 6 of 6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16.09.2026 16.38 p.m. MANISHA SRINATH
STENOGRAPHER (GRADE - I)
Name of the Judge Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 83)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
16.09.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 16.09.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 16.09.2026
-- 6 of 6 --