Delhi District Court
Smt Shashi vs Amit Kumar Sharma on 31 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK VATS
ASCJCUMJSCCCUMGJ
DISTRICT: SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 370/22
SMT. SHASHI VS. AMIT KUMAR SHARMA
SMT. SHASHI
W/o Sh. Rohit Kumar,
R/o B750, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi110062. .................Plaintiff.
Versus
AMIT KUMAR SHARMA
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chander,
R/o A437/3, Durga Vihar,
New Delhi110062. ................Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF SUM OF Rs. 62,000/ ( SIXTY TWO
THOUSAND ONLY) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 36 % P. A.
Date of institution of case : 08.04.2022
Final arguments heard on : 31..05.2024
Date of judgment : 31.05.2023
1.By this order, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.60,000/ _____________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 370/22 Smt. Shashi Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma Page no. 1 of 5 alongwith interest @ 36 % p.a.
2. Briefly stated the case of plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendant are close relative as the defendant is the brotherinlaw of the plaintiff. It is averred that in the month of November, 2019, the defendant approached the plaitniff for some financial help. Due to close relation, plaintiff advanced a loan amount of Rs. 62,000/. It is averred that in discharge of his liability, defendant issued two cheques i.e. cheque bearing no. 054222 of Rs. 50,000/ and cheque bearing no. 054225 of Rs. 12,000/, both drawn on Allahabad Bank, both dated 03.12.2020. Upon presentation of both the cheques in Union Bank of India Branch at Devli, New Delhi, the same got dishonoured with remarks 'funds insufficient' vide returning memo dated 05.12.2020.
3. It is averred that on being disappointed by the dishonour of the cheques and on being refused to pay the amount of cheques on oral demand, the plaintiff issued a legal demand notice dated 11.10.2021 to the defendant which were duly served upon the defendant, but to no avail. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 62,000/.
4. Summons of the suit were issued upon the defendant received back duly served with date of service as 22.06.2022. However, no WS was filed on his behalf. Hence, defence of the defendant was struck off vide order dated 16.12.2022.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed _____________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 370/22 Smt. Shashi Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma Page no. 2 of 5 on 16.12.2022 :-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.
62,000/- along with interest @ 36 % per annum, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.
2. Relief.
6. Plaintiff evidence has been led, arguments have been heard & record has been carefully perused.
7. In plaintiff evidence in order to prove its case the, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex. PW1/G. The witness reiterated and reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the plaint on oath. Certain documents were also exhibited which are as under :
1.Ex. PW1/A (Cheque bearing no. 054222 dated 03.12.2020), 2.Ex. PW1/B (Cheque bearing no. 054225 dated 03.12.2020), 3.Ex.PW1/C (colly) (Two cheque returning memos both dated 05.12.2020), 4.Ex.PW1/D (Legal notice dated 11.10.2021),
5.Ex.PW1/E (Original receipts dated 11.10.2021) and 6.Ex.PW1/F (Mediation Center order dated 29.03.2023).
8. The testimony of PW1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted and I find no reason to disbelieve the same. The documents have been duly proved as per law.
9. The unrebutted averments made in the plaint and the documents produced by the plaintiff show that defendant enjoyed the _____________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 370/22 Smt. Shashi Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma Page no. 3 of 5 loan amount advanced by the plaintiff and failed to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.62,000/.
10. The suit has been filed on 08.04.2022 which is within the limitation period. It is further averred that defendant is the residence of South Delhi. Hence, this court has territorial jurisdiction to pass the decree against the defendant.
11. Thus, in view of the aforementioned unrebutted averments and documents, the plaintiff has established on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that defendant is liable to pay sum of Rs. 62,000/.
12. The plaintiff has also sought interest at the rate of 36% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. In my view, the claim of the plaintiff qua interest is excessive and in the facts and circumstances of this suit, the ends of justice would be met, if the plaintiff is granted interest at the rate of 10% per annum from date of filing of the suit till the realization.
13. Accordingly, in view of the above said discussion, the present suit is disposed of in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for uncontested sum of Rs. 62,000/ along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this suit till the date of realization. The cost of the suit is also awarded against the defendant, as per rules.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 370/22 Smt. Shashi Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma Page no. 4 of 5
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
(DEEPAK VATS) ASCJcumJSCCcumGJ (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi Announced in the open Court On 31.05.2024 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 370/22 Smt. Shashi Vs. Amit Kumar Sharma Page no. 5 of 5