Delhi District Court
Through vs Mohd. Alim on 6 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH MATHUR,
SCJ Cum RC (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
M/S TEKNOBYTE INDIA PVT. LTD.
Through its Director/Authorised Signatory
Sh.Jitender Kumar Aggarwal,
At Plot no.10, Sector-4, Pocket-D,
DSIDC Industrial Estate,
Bawana,
New Delhi - 110039.
........... Plaintiff
Through
Mr. Ankit Mangla,
Advocate.
VERSUS
MOHD. ALIM
Proprietor M/s City Plastic
S/o Sh. Mohd. Wasi Ahmed,
At :
1. Shop no.3, Satgharwa Masjid,
West Side, Machhar Hatta,
Patna City, Patna - 800008.
AND
2. Baghmalu Khan,
Patna City, Patna - 800008.
........... Defendant
Through
NEMO
(CS No. 271/13) (Page No. 1 /4 )
JUDGMENT
1. New No. : 535054/16.
2. Under Section : Civil Suit.
3. Date of Institution : 05/10/2013.
4. Date of Final Order : 06/10/2016.
5. Final Order : Suit decreed.
BRIEF FACTS
1. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of plastic bottles since 1997 as per incorporation certificate Ex. PW1/2. The defendant had business dealings with the plaintiff whereby he purchased pet preforms vide invoices and consignment notes Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/6. A running account Ex. PW1/7 in respect thereof was maintained for 2012-13. In respect of his running account, the defendant was liable to pay a balance of Rs. 1,25,064/-. Repeated requests and reminders in the form of SMS Ex. PW1/9 dated 13.12.2012 and legal notice Ex. PW1/10 dated 07.02.2013 were sent to the defendant. Instead of complying, the defendant replied to the legal notice vide reply Ex. PW1/17 dated 04.05.2013, which was replied by the plaintiff vide its reply Ex. PW1/18 dated 29.07.2013. Further legal notice Ex. PW1/21 dated 31.07.2013 was sent to the defendant vide postal receipt Ex. PW1/22 and service reports Ex. PW1/23 and Ex.PW1/24. It also failed to produce the desired effect and hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,25,064/- came into being on 05.10.2013.
2. The defendant could not be served by ordinary means. He was served vide publication in the newspaper "Veer Arjun" dated 05.05.2016 for the hearing dated (CS No. 271/13) (Page No. 2 /4 ) 11.05.2016. However the defendant did not appear and was proceeded ex parte. He remained ex parte thereafter.
TRIAL
3. During the trial, the plaintiff examined its director PW1 Jitender Kumar Aggarwal vide its affidavit Ex. P1. Other than the contents of the plaint and documents as noted above, he proved his resolution of authorisation Ex. PW1/1 and certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence Act Ex. PW1/8 with regard to the electronic account book Ex. PW1/7.
Needless to say, he was not cross examined since the defendant remained ex parte.
4. The entire oral and documentary testimony of PW1 Jitender Kumar Aggarwal has gone unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. This unrebutted testimony proves the factum of the business dealings between the parties and the failure of the defendant to clear his dues to the extent of Rs. 1,25,064/-.
The suit is within limitation CONCLUSION
5. For the reasons assigned herein above, the plaintiff has successfully proved its case.
Hence a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,25,064/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the recovery of the decreetal amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The plaintiff is also awarded the costs of the suit.
(CS No. 271/13) (Page No. 3 /4 ) Decree sheet be prepared after the plaintiff pays the requisite court fees. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the Open Court on 06.10.2016 (SIDHARTH MATHUR) SCJ-cum-RC (North), Rohini, Delhi (CS No. 271/13) (Page No. 4 /4 )