Anil Kumar Sharma vs . Sakha Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 3 March, 2016

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Anil Kumar Sharma vs . Sakha Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 3 March, 2016

CS. No. 383/14
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. Sakha Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
03.03.2016
Present: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Vikram Bhardwaj, Ld. counsel for defendants.
An application under Section 151 CPC for substituting the name of
AR has been filed alongwith original board resolution. Copy supplied.
Counsel for plaintiff has no objection if the same is taken on
record.
In view of the same, present application under Section 151 CPC
stands allowed.
Arguments on the application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC heard.
Put up for orders at 4.00 pm.

(Surya Malik Grover)
SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts,
New Delhi/03.03.2016
At 4.00 pm.

Present: None.
By virtue of this order, application U/o VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking
condonation of delay in filing the written statement is being disposed of.
It is argued by Ld. counsel for defendants that on receipt of
summons, they had contacted one Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Advocate to put in his
appearance. However, when the defendants tried to contact the said counsel,
there was no response from him on account of which another counsel Sh.
Vikrant Bhardwaj had to be appointed, who was given two weeks time by the
Court to file the written statement. It is further argued that on account of
personal difficulty of the counsel as his wife had undergone a major surgery, the
written statement could not be filed within two weeks as directed on 16.04.2015
and ultimately could be filed only on 08.05.2015. Hence, it is prayed that written
2
statement may be taken on record.
In rebuttal, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the reasons
advanced are not at all cogent and there is malafide on the part of the
defendants, who merely wants to delay the court proceedings, hence
application should be dismissed.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced in
the light of the judicial record.
Summons were issued on 21.01.2015. However, no service report
was received back to corroborate as to the exact date when the same were
served upon the defendant. However, service being of Gurgaon, presumption
can be drawn that the same was served in about a week from the date of
issuance through registered post. Further, the newly engaged counsel was
having a personal difficulty which is reflected from the medical documents of
his wife which have been placed on record.
It is now settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the period of 90
days for filing of WS is directory in nature and Court is at liberty to accept the
same in case cogent and sufficient reasons have been advanced and procedural
law should not come in the way of justice and have been formulated to aid and
advance the same.
Hence, even though written statement has been filed beyond the
period of 90 days of tentative date of service, as I am satisfied that delay was on
account of a bonafide and sufficient reasons, I am inclined to take the WS on
record, subject to costs of Rs.5000/ to be paid to the plaintiff.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
Put up for completion of pleadings/ filing of original documents/
admission denial and framing of issues on 07.05.2016.

(Surya Malik Grover)
SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts,
Plaintiff is at liberty to file photographs alongwith newspaper of the date on
which the same are taken from all angles of the suit property to ascertain the
present status of the construction thereupon.

U/o XXXIX Rule1 and 2
Vide separate detailed order of the even date, application U/o XXXIX Rule 1
and 2 CPC stands disposed of.
Put up for admision denial/framing of issues on 22.04.2016.

Further, Ld. counsel for respondent has submitted that witness is suffering from
cancer and unable to come to court, he may be examined by appointment of
Local Commissioner. Respondent is ready to bear expenses of Local
Commissioner. Request of Ld. counsel for respondent has not been opposed by
Ld. counsel for petitioner. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate
that testimony of respondent witness be recorded at his residence before the
Local Commissioner.
At this stage, Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate, Mob. 9968237117,
9312263874 Chamber No. F6, LGF, Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi is appointed
as Local Commissioner. Respondent is directed to pay remuneration of Rs.
10,000/ for recording of evidence. Any objection if raised before Local
Commissioner shall be disposed of by the Court at time of final adjudication
of the case
On joint request, put up for recording of testimony of witness on
13.10.2015.
Jr. Judicial Asstt. shall take the file to the residence of repsondent
witness on the said date for recording of evidence. Diet money of Rs.500/ be
paid to Jr. Judicial Asstt. by the respondent on the above mentioned date. LC
shall file orignal evidence duly signed by both counsels and the witness
alongwith two copies thereof for the parties on or before the next date of
hearing.
..2..
Matter be listed for filing of cross examination and for further
proceedings for 06.11.2015.
Copy of order be given dasti to Local Commissioner as well as
both the parties as prayed for.

Let fresh warrants of attachment of movable property be issued to the JD on
filing of PF for 06.01.2016.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ (South) for appointment
of bailiff on
I am making this statement voluntarily and under legal instructions.

Junior Judicial Assistant/Ahlmad is directed to separate the
application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as well as application under
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and make a separate file and register it in the
miscellaneous register.
Copy of this ordersheet be also placed in the
miscellaneous file.
........ No.

25.04.2015
Present:

Ld. Presiding Officer has gone to attend the training programme
at Dwarka.
Lawyers are abstaining from work.
As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for purpose already fixed
for ......................................

(Reader)
in the Court of
(Ms. Surya Malik Grover)
Ld. SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts,
New Delhi/25.04.2015.
Reader in the Court of
No.
22.05.2015
Present:

Ld. PO is on leave today.
As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for purpose already fixed
for ..............................................

(READER)
In the Court of Ms. Surya Malik Grover
Ld. SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts,
New Delhi/22.05.2015
CS No. 52/12
Umesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Kehar Singh Bhullar & Anr.
22.05.2015
Fresh suit received by way of assignment.
Present: Ms. Meema Saini, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Ld. PO is on leave today.
As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for proper order for 25.05.2015.

(READER)
In the Court of Ms. Surya Malik Grover
Ld. SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts,
New Delhi/22.05.2015
E No. 01/15
Shakuntala Devi Vs. Kiran Aggarwal
22.05.2015
Fresh petition received by way of assignment.
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Ld. PO is on leave today.
As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for proper order for 27.05.2015.

(READER)
In the Court of Ms. Surya Malik Grover
Ld. SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts,
New Delhi/22.05.2015

No.
17.04.2014
Present: None.
Matter stands settled and disposed off before Lok Adalat.
File be consigned to Record Room.

(Shelly Arora)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
17.04.2014
CS No.
....2014
Present: None.
Matter already stand settled. Statement of AR for plaintif/
plaintiff already recorded. In terms thereof, present matter stands disposed
off as withdrawn having been settled.
File be sent back to the Ld. Concerned Court for the purpose of
consignment.

(Shelly Arora)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
02.04.2014
No.

Present: None.
File taken up to explore possibility of settlement in view of
scheduled Lok Adalat to be held on 12.04.2014.
Court Notice be issued both the parties for

(Shelly Arora)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
MC*
At the joint request of both the parties, the present suit is
referred to the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi. Consent proforma
duly signed by Ld. counsels for both parties is placed on record. Parties shall
appear before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi
on..............at............Noon. Parties shall report to this Court, in case of failure
of compromise, on .......................

Issues*
No Admission/Denial of documents is to be carried out as per
respective counsels.
From the pleadings of parties following issues are framed.
Issues:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.
2,05,100/ from defendants?OPP

2. In case Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff,
whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest on claimed
amount and if yes, at what rate and for what period?
OPP
3. Relief.
No other issues arises or pressed for. Both the parties are
directed to file their list of witnesses on NDOH.
Be put up on .......... for PE and advance copy of affidavit be
supplied to defendants, atleast one week before from NDOH.

On the basis of pleadings and documents on record, following issues are
being framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court
with clean hands?OPD1 to 4.

2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred under the
provisions of Section 41(j) of Specific Relief Act?OPD1
to 4.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the
provisions of Section 477/478 of DMC Act?OPD6

5. Relief.

No other issues arise or pressed for. Both the parties are directed
to file their list of witnesses within 15 days from today. Further, evidentiary
affidavits of all plaintiff witnesses be filed.
Be put up on ,,,,,,,,, for PE.
Advance copy of affidavit be supplied to defendants, atleast one
week before from NDOH.

RR
Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties
entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties
filing certified copies thereof on record.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Punit Kumar Gaur & Ors. Vs. M/s Profile India

01.03.2013
Fresh appeal received by way of assignment from Ld. Sr. Civil
Judge, Saket, New Delhi. It be checked and registered.
Present: Sh. Shyam Dutt, counsel for appellants.
This is an appeal against the money decree of Rs. 1,95,000/
along with interest pendentelite and furture interest @ 9% p.a. from date of
filing of suit till realization passed against appellants by court of Ms. Richa
Manchanda, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide decree dated
24.01.2013. However, this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal against the money suit exceeding Rs. 1000/ . Hence, present appeal
is returned back to the appellant to be filed before the competent court of
jurisdiction subject to filing of certified copy and fulfillment of other
condition as per rules after due endorsement.

(Sonu Agnihotri)
JSCC/ASCJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
01.03.2013
NR*
This is an appeal against order of Ms. Shreya Arora, Ld. Civil
JudgeI, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi dated 01.02.2013 in a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction. The value of suit for the purpose of
court fee and jurisdiction has been mentioned in the plaint to be of Rs.
25000/ each. The suit is concerning land. However, as per notification of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing F No. 442/GAZ./VIE2(a)2000, this
court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against land suit
which has been valued above Rs.250/. Hence, present appeal is returned
back to the appellant to be filed before the competent court of jurisdiction
subject to filing of certified copy and fulfillment of other condition as per
rules after due endorsement. Let TCR be returned to Trial Court.
File be consigned to Record Room (containing certified copy of
complete appeal).
Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties
entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties
filing certified copies thereof on record.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. VS. Sh. Rathin
CS No. 09/13
07.03.2013
Present: Counsel for plaintiff.
Ordersheet of last date of hearing perused. Ahlmad is directed
to report as to whether an application for appearance has been filed by
defendant or not today itself at 12.00 pm.

(Sonu Agnihotri)
JSCC/ASCJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
07.03.2013
At 12.00 pm.
Present: As above.
Ahlmad of the Court has made the report as per which
appearance has not been made by defendant. Arguments addressed by
counsel for plaintiff heard.
Be put up for order at 3.00 pm.

(Sonu Agnihotri)
JSCC/ASCJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
07.03.2013

At 3.00 pm.
Present: As above.
This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil
Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of
sum of Rs. 2,48,693/ along with interest @ 21% per annum from date of
filing of suit till the date of realization.
The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the
defendant U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 and
of an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC vide order dated 05.01.2013.
The defendant was duly served in ordinary manner at his Chitranjan Park
Address on 23.02.2013, but despite service, the defendant remained absent
and did not put in his appearance within 10 days from the date of service.
I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record
carefully.
Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a body corporate
incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and registered as Securitization
and Assets Reconstruction Company pursuant to Section 3 of SARFAESI Act,
2002. Sh. Gajendra Singh is a constituted attorney of plaintiff company who
has appointed as Authorized Representatie vide Board Resolution dated
05.11.2012. Plaintiff company negotiated with Axis Bank Ltd. for
assignment/transfer/devolution of its interest in the present debt in its
favour and after negotiations, Axis Bank agreed to transfer/assign its debt in
loan account no. 24501060100393805 recoverable from defendant on terms
and conditions as contained in deed of assignment dated 09.03.2010.
Plaintiff company has therefore now become owner of debt recoverable from
defendant with incidental rights thereto. Defendant approached the Axis
Bank Ltd. for personal loan for his personal needs and on his request a loan
of Rs.1,50,000/ was sanctioned on 25.04.2006. The said loan amount
alongwith interest and other charges was repayable by defendant in 48
monthly installments of Rs.4,645/ each. Defendant in order to secure
abovementioned loan, executed agreement for personal loan dated
25.04.2006 which was accepted vide loan agreement no. 2450106010393805.
Defendant in order to secure the said loan also exhibited a DP Note delivery
cum waiver letter and demand promissory note. After availing the said loan
from Axis Bank Ltd., defendant failed to adhere to terms and conditions of
loan agreement regarding repayment amount towards principal as well as
interest. Several ECS instructions as well as several reminders were issued to
defendant to pay amount on account of abovesaid dishonourment but to no
avail. Legal demand notice dated 10.10.2012 was also issued. Cause of
action to file present suit arose when defendant failed to pay complete loan
amount till date of 48th installment i.e. 25.04.2010. Hence, the present suit.
The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The
plaintiff has also placed on record certified true copy of resolution passed by
Mangement Committee vide its meeting dated 05.11.2012, copy of
assignment agreement, agreement for personal loan, demand promissory
note, DP Note deliverycumwavier letter, application for personal loan,
statement of account of defendant, separate statement of sum due from
defendant and various identity papers of defendant. The suit filed by the
plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does
not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.
It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as
under:
Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.
(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff
shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve
on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures
thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten
days of such services, enter an appearance either in
person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file
in court an address for service of notice on him.
Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.
(3) The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to
in sub rule(1) unless he enters an and in default of
his entering an appearance the allegations in the
plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the
plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not
exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons,
together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up
to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may
be determined by the High Court from time to time by
rules made in that behalf and such decree may be
executed forthwith.
In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if
the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days
from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in
the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be
entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant stood served with the
summons of the suit in prescribed proforma in ordinary manner on
23.02.2013. Till date as per report of Ahlmad, no appearance has been
entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the
plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to
a decree straightway.
In view of aforesaid discussions, suit of the plaintiff is decreed
for principal amount of Rs. 2,48,693/ with interest @9% per annum from the
date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. Plaintiff is also entitled to the
cost of the suit. Decreesheet be prepared. Application filed by plaintiff
under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is hereby dismissed being infructuous.
File be consigned to record room.

(Sonu Agnihotri)
JSCC/ASCJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
07.03.2013
CS No. 78/13
07.03.2013
Present: None.
Vide my separate order announced in open court today,
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by
plaintiff is hereby allowed.
Be put up for filing of replication, if any, A/D of documents and
framing of issues for 29.04.2013.

(Sonu Agnihotri)
JSCC/ASCJ(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
07.03.2013
PF*
on filing of appropriate PF, RC and authorized courier for
Com*
I am counsel for plaintiff and I have instructions from plaintiff to
state that matter has been amicably settled between the parties and plaintiff
has already received settlement amount. I have instructions to withdraw
present suit. I may be permitted to withdraw present suit as settled.
Excom*
I am counsel for DH and I have instructions from DH to state that matter has
been amicably settled between the parties and DH has already received
settlement amount and now nothing remains due towards arbitration award
regarding which present execution was filed. I have instructions to withdraw
present Execution Petition. I may be permitted to withdraw present
Execution Petition as satisfied.
Ordcom*
Sh. Gautam Kumar, counsel for plaintiff.
Counsel for plaintiff has sought permission to withdraw present
suit as matter stands settled between parties and plaintiff having been in
received of settlement amount. Separate statement of counsel for plaintiff
recorded in this regard.
In view of statement of counsel for plaintiff, present suit is
hereby dismissed as withdrawn being settled.
Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties
entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties
filing certified copies thereof on record.
File be consigned to Record Room.

Bailiff*
On 16.08.2012, I alongwith Sh. Jai Kishan, AR of DH have
reached the address of JD No. 1 i.e. Vijay, House No. A17, Ambedkar Basti,
Sector1, R. K. Purma, New Delhi and where JD no. 1 was found. JD no. 1
when asked about decreetal amount, stated that he has nothing to pay in this
case, JD No. 1 called JD no. 2 at the spot and both the JDs stated that they
have not to give anything with regard to this case. Thereafter, JD nos. 1 & 2
have denied to give the decreetal amount. Decreetal amount hence could
not be recovered.

Ten1
I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. ..... which
bears my signatures at poit A & B. I rely upon the documents which are
exhibited as Ex.............
Ex. RW3/H is to RW3/J are original registered AD closed Envelop, original
slip, original AD Card, Ex. RW3/K is order dated 19.11.2009, Ex. RW3/L is
original AD Card, Ex. RW3/M is original registered AD closed envelop and
Ex. RW3/N is original AD Card, Ex. RW3/O is letter dated 18.02.2010, Ex.
RW3/P is C19 dated 18.02.2010, EX. RW3/Q is original registered AD closed
envelope, Ex. RW3/R is original AD Card, Ex. RW3/S is original registered
AD closed envelope, Ex.. RW3/T is original AD Card, Ex. RW3/U is demand
notice dated 25.02.2010.
M/s True Link Finance Ltd. Vs. Ms. Sarika Lal & Another
SC No. 44/12
...................

Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, AR of plaintiff.

Report of Ahlmad perused. As per report, appearance has not been received till date from any of the defendants.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders at 2.00 pm today itself.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi ...............

At 2.00 pm.
Present:    Sh. Amit Kumar, AR of plaintiff.

Defendant no. 1 has been served in ordinary manner on 28.01.2013 and as per courier tracking report on 08.01.2013. Defendant no. 2 has been served in ordinary manner on 09.10.2012.

As per the report of Ahlmad, appearance has not been filed by the defendants.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 3989/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 27.09.2012. The defendants no. 2 & 1 have been served with the summons on 09.10.2012 and 28.01.2013, but despite service, the defendants remained absent and did not put in their appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record carefully.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Limited NBF Co. incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The suit is instituted through director Shri Shashi Bhagria on behalf of company, which is engaged in the business of hire purchase and finance. Defendant no. 1 took on Hire Purchase Finance, One Samsung Mobile PhoneChate322 and defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor in the transaction. It was agreed that the defendant no. 1 would pay the liability in 9 monthly installments of Rs.735/ each. The parties executed Hire Purchase Agreement, Promissory Note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal all dated 08.03.2011. Pursuant to the documents, defendants undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions but have committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Hire Purchase Agreement, promissory note dated 08.03.2011, which is placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff has also filed statement of account of defendant no. 1 which shows that a sum of Rs. 3989/ is due and outstanding.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such services, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in court an address for service of notice on him.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

(3)The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub rule(1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendants no. 1 and 2 stood served with the summons of the suit in prescribed proforma on 28.01.2013 and 09.10.2012. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendants, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussions, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 3989/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decreesheet be prepared.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 fresh exe
Present:    Sh. Amit Kumar, AR of plaintiff.

Fresh execution filed. It be checked and registered. Civil Nazir to report for 18.03.2013.

Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.

                                    Vs.
                              Sandeep Sharma
CS No. 376/12
11.03.2013
Present:        Sh. ......................

Report of Ahlmad perused. As per report, appearance has not been filed by defendant.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders at 2.00 pm today itself.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.03.2013 At 2.00 pm. Present: Sh. ......................

This is a suit file under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs. 6,368/ along with interest @ 18% per annum from date of filing of suit till the date of actual realization.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendant U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 05.12.2012. The defendant was duly served with the summons on 22.12.2012 at his Gurgaon address and on 26.12.2012 at his Ludhiana Address through speed post (internet tracking report of both the addresses alongwith speed post receipts were filed on record by counsel for plaintiff), but despite service, the defendant remained absent and did not put in his appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record carefully.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies Act 1956. Major General M.S. Duggal is the Director of the company who has authorized Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Executive (legal) to file suits. The plaintiff company render international mobile phone services and the defendant had applied for international mobile connection. The defendant signed a statement and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement form dated 23.02.2011. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave international mobile connections to defendant bearing Nos. 0812574670 & 0812574672 under agreement Nos. M 1368350 & M 1368349. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is outstanding amount of Rs. 6,368/ due and payable by the defendant towards aforesaid mobile connections. The plaintiff company raised the invoices upon the defendant as per the ledger account and requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but the defendant failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 17.04.2012. Hence, the present suit.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 27.01.2011, original agreement forms, copy of tariff plan, copy of account ledger of defendant, copy of the itemized duplicate bills, copy of legal notice dated 17.04.2012, original speed post receipt and copy of passport Eticket of defendant and copy of cash receipt deposited by defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such services, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in court an address for service of notice on him.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

(3)The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub rule(1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant stood served with the summons of the suit in prescribed proforma on 22.12.2012 at his Gurgaon address and on 26.12.2012 at his Ludhiana Address (by way of speed post). Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussions, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 6,368/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decreesheet be prepared.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.03.2013 Service 37 Service report of summons against defendant not received back. Be awaited.

In the meanwhile, issue fresh summons against defendant in the prescribed format under Order 37 CPC on filing of appropriate PF, RC and authorized courier for 04.05.2013. Let a request letter be made in name of Ld. District Judge/Sr. Civil Judge, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP for service of defendant in ordinary manner and let it be attached with summons to be sent to defendant.

TC* Report of Civil Nazir perused. Counsel for DH has submitted that JD is not having any properties/assets in Delhi which can be attached for realization of the decreetal amount. He has requested that transfer certificate with regard to present execution petition may be issued. Heard.

Record perused. Address of JD is of Mumbai. Request of counsel for DH in these circumstances is allowed and present execution is allowed to be transferred to the Ld. District Judge, Mumbai, Maharastra for execution of decree.

Transfer certificate be issued.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Wa* Counsel for DH has submitted that till date JD has not made any payment towards decreetal amount. He has requested for issuance of warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD. Heard.

Issue warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD on DH filing list alongwith PF on filing of appropriate PF on 09.04.2013. DH is directed to file an affidavit to the effect that there is no stay from any higher court regarding present execution.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 28.03.2013.

Counsel for DH has requested for issuance of warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD. Heard.

Issue warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD as per list already filed with execution on filing of appropriate PF on 24.01.2014. DH is directed to file an affidavit to the effect that there is no stay from any higher court regarding present execution.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 21.12.2013.

M/s True Link Finance Ltd.

Vs. Smt. Sudha & Other CS No. 433/12 20.03.2013 Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for plaintiff.

Original courier receipts alongwith internet tracking report with regard to service of defendants filed by AR for plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 and 2 have been served with summons for judgment in ordinary manner on 05.02.2013.

Ahlmad is directed to report as to whether leave to defend applications have been filed by defendants or not today itself at 12.00 pm. (Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 20.03.2013 At 12.00 pm. Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for plaintiff.

Defendant no. 1 in person.

Report of Ahlmad perused. As per report, no leave to defend applications have been filed on behalf of defendants. On an inquiry from defendant no. 1, she has submitted that no leave to defend application has been filed by her. She could not give any cogent reason as to why leave to defend application was not filed by her within 10 days of service of summons for judgment.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders at 2.00 pm today itself.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 20.03.2013 At 2.00 pm. Present: None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 26327/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 08.11.2012. Initially defendants were served with summons of suit on 11.12.2012. Thereafter, appearance was filed by defendants on 02.01.2013. My Ld. Predecessor failed to appreciate that defendants filed their appearance beyond period of 10 days from date of service. Plaintiff also did not note this anomaly. However, at this stage when plaintiff had already filed an application for issuance of summons for judgment and summons for judgment already being issued to defendants, this aspect becomes immaterial. Thereafter on an application filed by plaintiff, summons for judgment were issued against defendants. Defendants no. 1 & 2 were served with the summons for judgment on 05.02.2013 but despite service, defendants did not file any leave to defend application till date.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Limited NBF Co. incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The suit is instituted through director Shri Shashi Bhagria on behalf of company, which is engaged in the business of hire purchase and finance. Defendant no. 1 took on Hire Purchase Finance, one NOKIA Mobile Phone 5800 D and one Samsung Washing Machine 7.5 kg and defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor in the transaction. It was agreed that the defendant no. 1 would pay the liability in 12 monthly installments of Rs. 2382/ each, the first hire payable on 25.08.2010. The parties executed Hire Purchase Agreement, Promissory Note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal all dated 23.07.2010. Pursuant to the documents, defendant no. 1 made part payment against hire dues installment but failed to pay rest of outstanding amount to plaintiff company. Defendant no. 1 committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Hire Purchase Agreement, promissory note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal all dated 23.07.2010, which is placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff has also filed Accounting details of defendant no. 1 which shows that a sum of Rs.26327/ is due and outstanding.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC.

The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court of Judge to be Just:

Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant to not indicate that he has a substantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious:

Provided further that, where a part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in Court.

Order XXXVII Rule 3(6) CPC.

AT the hearing of such summons for judgment:

(a) if the defendant has not applied for leave to defend, or if such application has been made and is refused, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith; or

(b) if the defendant is permitted to defend as to the whole or any part of the claim, the Court of judge may direct him to give such security and within such time as may be fixed by the Court or Judge and that, on failure to give such security within the time specified by the Court or Judge or to carry out such other directions as may have been given by the Court or Judge, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant has not applied for leave to defend within 10 days from service of summons for judgment, plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith. As per record, defendants no. 1 and 2 stood served with the summons for judgment in prescribed proforma on 05.02.2013. Till date, no leave to defend application has been filed by the either of defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendants by fiction of law, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussions, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 26327/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decreesheet be prepared.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 20.03.2013 COm*st I am counsel for plaintiff and giving present statement out of my own free will and without any force, threat or coercion. Matter has been amicably settled with defendant for a sum of Rs.22000/. I have received in cash Rs.22000/ from defendant today in the court towards payment of settlement amount. I am fully authorized to receive any amount on behalf of plaintiff. On receipt of settlement amount, I have instructions to withdraw present suit. I may be permitted to withdraw present suit as settled.

Exparte* No one appeared on behalf of defendant despite matter been called thrice. It appears that defendant is not interested in contesting present case on merits. Defendant is hereby proceeded exparte.

Be put up for exparte PE on Counsel for plaintiff has sought permission to withdraw present suit as matter stands settled between parties and plaintiff having been in received of settlement amount. Separate statement of counsel for plaintiff recorded in this regard.

In view of statement of counsel for plaintiff, present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn being settled.

Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties filing certified copies thereof on record.

File be consigned to Record Room.

SuitR* Fresh suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered as per rules.

Present suit has been filed by plaintiff for possession and declaration and plaintiff has valued suit for declaration to be Rs.200/ and for possession to be Rs.3,00,000/. Hence, composite value of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction has been mentioned in the plaint to be of Rs. 3,00,200/. Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court is up to Rs.3,00,000/ meaning thereby that this Court is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain present suit. Hence, present suit is returned back to plaintiff to be filed before the competent court of jurisdiction subject to filing of certified copy and fulfillment of other condition as per rules after due endorsement.

File be consigned to Record Room (containing certified copy of plaint and other documents/affidavit annexed with it). I am giving present statement voluntarily and without any force, threat or coercion. I am fully authorized to give present statement before this Court on behalf of DH. I on behalf of DH state that DH has already received the decreetal amount from JD no. 1. I may be permitted to withdraw present execution petition on behalf of DH against all the JDs as satisfied. Process* He has requested that AR for plaintiff may be allowed to accompany Process Server when he goes for execution of process. Heard and allowed.

Issue fresh summons against defendant on filing of fresh address, if any alongwith PF/at address of defendant already on record on filing of appropriate PF, RC and authorized courier for 05.07.2013. AR for plaintiff is permitted to accompany Process Server when he goes for execution of process. Let a noting in this regard be done on summons to be issued against defendant.

Letter of Police Aid has been received. Counsel for DH has requested for reissuance of warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD with police aid with permission to break open locks in case premises of JD is found to be locked.

Counsel for DH has submitted that DH has already moved an application for grant of police aid and for breaking open locks. Record perused. Submissions of counsel for DH are correct.

Issue warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD to the tune of decreetal amount on DH filing list alongwith PF on filing of appropriate PF on 07.05.2013 with direction to break open the locks in case premises of JD is found to be locked. DH is directed to file an affidavit to the effect that there is no stay from any higher court regarding present execution. Let Copy of order of Additional DCP, South District dated 14.02.2013 be appended with warrants so that SHO concerned may be in position to provide police aid in case the need so arises.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 25.04.2013.

CS No. 395/12 **** 14.05.2013 PW1: Sh. Neeraj Kohli, S/o Late B. K. Kohli working as Company Secretary & Head Legal with Everent Industries Ltd., Genesis, A32, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi110044.

On SA I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. P1 which bears my signatures at poit A & B. I rely upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/8. Mark A is photocopy of Authorization letter (Ex. PW1/1 is deexhibited as Mark A in my affidavit), Mark B is photocopy of certificate of incorporation (Ex. PW1/2 is deexhibited as Mark B in my affidavit), Ex. PW1/3 is appointment letter dated 29.09.2010, Ex. PW1/4 is agreement dated 12.10.2010, Ex. PW1/5 is indemnitycumsurety bond dated 12.10.2010, Ex. PW1/6 is letter dated 28.05.2012, Ex. PW1/7 (Colly) are legal notice dated 18.06.2012, post receipts and A/D Card and Ex. PW1/8 (Colly) are legal notice dated 07.08.2012, post receipts and A/D Card.

RO&AC                                                 (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                      JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                      Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                      14.05.2013
 CS No. 188/12
23.05.2013
PW1:        Sh. Mukesh Jain, Proprietor of M/s Kwality Jeweller, 99E,    Hari 
Nagar Ashram, New Delhi110014.
On SA

I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. P1 which bears my signatures at point A & B. I rely upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7. Ex. PW1/1 is office copy of invoice, Ex. PW1/2 is transaction slip, Ex. PW1/3 is statement of bank account, Ex. PW1/4 (Colly) is emails, Ex. PW1/5 is legal notice, Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. 1/7 are courier receipts and Reply to the notice is mark A. RO&AC (Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 23.05.2013 affixation* Counsel for plaintiff has requested that defendants be ordered to be served by way of affixation in case of non availability of defendants at the given addresses within reasonable time as unauthorized construction at suit site is going at full swing. Heard.

Defendants are permitted to be served by way of affixation in case of non availability of defendants at the given addresses within reasonable time. Let photographs of affixation be taken at expenses of plaintiff and a direction be written upon summons to be issued to defendants for process server to appear in person for getting his statement recorded in this regard in case service is effected through affixation.

Application perused.

Counsel for appellant has submitted that inadvertently on account of typographical mistake, name of appellant has been typed again in memo of parties as respondent no. 13. Heard.

Let addresses of respondents no. 8 to 12 as mentioned in the application be taken on record. Name of respondent no. 13 is directed to be deleted from array of parties in view of submissions made by counsel for appellant.

Appellant is directed to file amended memo of parties alongwith PF.

RCA No. 16/13

15.07.2013 Present: Ms. Shobhna Tanwar, proxy counsel for Sh. S. P. Jha, counsel for appellant/applicant.

File taken up today on an application filed by appellant/applicant for supplying of complete address of respondents no. 8 to 12 and deletion of name of respondent no. 13.

Application perused.

Counsel for appellant has submitted that inadvertently on account of typographical mistake, name of appellant has been typed again in memo of parties as respondent no. 13. Heard.

Appellant is directed to file amended memo of parties alongwith PF.

Be put up on date already fixed i.e. 07.08.2013.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 15.07.2013 wP* wp Counsel for DH has requested for issuance of warrants of possession of suit property. Heard.

Issue warrants of possession of suit property in favour of DH on DH filing certified copy of site plan and on filing of appropriate PF on 17.08.2013. DH is directed to file an affidavit to the effect that there is no stay from any higher court regarding present execution.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 03.08.2013.

uO37* Issue fresh summons of the suit to defendant in prescribed format under Order 37 CPC on filing of appropriate PF, RC and authorized courier 11.09.2013. AR/counsel of plaintiff is permitted to accompany process server as and when process server goes for execution of summons. Let a noting in this regard be written upon summons to be issued to defendant in ordinary manner.

Ex. No. 36/12

17.07.2013 Statement of Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for DH.

On SA I am giving present statement voluntarily and without any force, threat or coercion. I am fully authorized to give present statement before this Court on behalf of DH. I on behalf of DH state that I have received decreetal amount by way of cheque bearing no. 778631 dated 02.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.3805/ which has been sent by employer of JD no. 2. I am fully authorized to receive any amount on behalf of DH. I may be permitted to withdraw present execution petition on behalf of DH against all the JDs as satisfied. I am making this statement voluntarily and under legal instructions.

RO&AC                                                   (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                        JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                        Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                        17.07.2013
 Ex. No. 36/12 
17.07.2013
Present:       Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for DH. 
               JD No. 2 (Sukhvir), in person.

Cheque bearing no. 778631 dated 02.07.2013 for a sum of Rs. 3805/ has been received from employer of JD No. 2 alongwith covering letter. The same is handed over to AR for DH after endorsement in favour of DH. AR for DH has submitted that he is fully authorized to receive any amount on behalf of DH. He has sought permission to withdraw present execution as with receipt of aforesaid cheque, payment of decreetal amount stands complete. Separate statement of AR for DH recorded in this regard.

In view of statement of AR for DH, present execution is hereby dismissed as withdrawn being satisfied.

Let copy of Order be given Dasti to JD No. 2 i.e. Mr. Sukhvir as prayed for.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 17.07.2013 On SA On 26.03.2013, I alongwith clerk of counsel for plaintiff have reached at address which is mentioned in summon i.e. Singh Song Marketing Pvt., 2B SFS Category1, Sheikh Sarai Phase1, New Delhi and there one person met me and who informed that no address of this company and one Board was fixed in name of H. C. Bhatt. Thereafter, I affixed the summons at the aforesaid address and clerk for counsel for plaintiff got the photographs of the same. I have seen the photographs filed by counsel for plaintiff today on record which are true and correct and the same are exhibited as Ex. PS3. My report is exhibited as Ex. PS4 which bears my signatures at points A. RO&AC Ex. No. 42/13 06.08.2013 Statement of Sh. Ashok Sharma, Bailiff, Nazarat Branch, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

On SA On 10.06.2013, I alongwith Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Partner of DH reached at address of firm of JD i.e. Senior Builder Ltd., B109, Defence Colony, New Delhi. There employee of JD namely Mr. Rashid Khan met us and he called Mr. Rakesh, Advocate and one Mr. Arora. Later on Advocate Mr. Rakesh reached at the spot and told us that they have got stay order from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with regard to present execution and that they are going to show copy of the same to us. After waiting for quite some time, they were unable to produce any stay order. Thereafter staff of JD, counsel Mr. Rakesh Kumar, staff members Mr. Rashid Khan and Mr. Arora called some threefour persons from outside who manhandled, abused and misbehaved with Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav. Then Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav made a call at 100 number but before PCR came at the spot, employees of JD locked office of JD firm/company and ran away. PCR Official SI Ram Pal Goswami alongwith other police officials came at the spot and expressed their inability to do any thing as officials of JD firm/company had already locked JD company/firm and ran away. Warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD cannot not be executed without police aid.

RO&AC                                              (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                   JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                   Saket Courts, New Delhi

Statement of Sh. M. S. Sharma, Bailiff, District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

On SA On 05.08.2013, I alongwith Sh. Vinod, AR of DH have reached the address of JD No. 2 i.e. Mr. Arun Kumar, House No. 877, IInd Floor Saraswati Puram, JNU, New Delhi and where his wife was found but she did not disclose her name. We told wife of JD No. 2 regarding warrants of attachment and she was asked to call JD No. 2. On this wife of JD No. 2 talked with JD No 2 on phone and stated that decreetal amount will be paid by person who took the goods. Thereafter when process of attachment of movable properties of JD No. 2 began, wife of JD No. 2 started quarrelling and stated that she will not allow taking of any goods upon which AR for DH stated that he does not want any quarrel and that he will get warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD No. 2 executed with help of police. Decreetal amount hence could not be recovered. Police Aid in the present case is required to execute warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD No. 2.

RO&AC                                                 (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                      JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                      Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                      17.09.2013

Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff with Mr. Tarun Yadav, proposed AR for plaintiff.

An application under Order 3 Rule 1 CPC for substitution of AR of plaintiff company alongwith copy of board resolution filed by counsel for plaintiff.

Application perused. Copy of board resolution dated 25.07.2013 appended with application perused (OSR). Application allowed. Mr. Tarun Yadav is allowed to be substituted as AR for plaintiff in place of earlier AR.

 At 2.00 pm.
Present:    None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.2,63,568/ along with interest @ 18% per annum from date of filing of suit till the date of actual realization.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendant U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 03.11.2012. As per report, defendant has been served by way of refusal on 07.08.2013 and defendant has also been served by way of registered post on 10.08.2013, the defendant remained absent and did not put in her appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies Act 1956. Major General M. S. Dugal is the Director of the company who has authorized Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Executive (legal) to file suits. The plaintiff company render international mobile phone services and the defendant had applied for international mobile connection. The defendant signed a statement and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement forms. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave international mobile connections to defendant bearing No. 92396403, 7550046520, 691276366, 7943846097, 3025697351, 675924524, 7942845365, 96574314, 7550046270, 7943846097, 7942851540, 7550049824, 3026829116, 3022656451, 7942851540, 3027539472, 3027661801, 473754825, 3026821434, 3027459518, 3027662640 and 2015322199 under agreements No. M1046360, M1506414, M1077761, M1280801, M1077829, M1212478, M1004437, M1022658, M1322856, M1199847, M1319977, M1319978, M1178231, M1294769, M1280802, M1025335, M1322929, M1236815, M1168051 and M1144550. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is outstanding amount of Rs.2,63.568/ due and payable by the defendant towards aforesaid mobile connection. The plaintiff company raised the invoices upon the defendant as per the ledger account and requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but the defendant failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 31.03.2012. Hence, the present suit.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 27.01.2011, original agreement forms, copy of account ledger of defendant, original tariff plans, copy of legal notice dated 31.03.2012, original speed post receipt and original undertaking of payment given by defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such services, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in court an address for service of notice on him.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

(3)The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub rule(1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per report, defendant has been served by way of refusal on 07.08.2013 and defendant has also been served by way of registered post on 10.08.2013. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,63,568/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 16.09.2013 At 2.00 pm. Present: None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs. 65,884/ along with interest @ 18% per annum from date of filing of suit till the date of actual realization.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendant U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 08.02.2013. As per report, summons have been served to defendant in person on 25.02.2013 through speed post and defendant has also been served by way of refusal on 19.02.2013 in ordinary manner but despite service, the defendant remained absent and did not put in her appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies Act 1956. Major General M.S. Duggal is the Director of the company who has authorized Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Executive (legal) to file suits. The plaintiff company render international mobile phone services and the defendant had applied for international mobile connection. The defendant signed a statement and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement form dated 21.08.2006. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave international mobile connection to defendant bearing No. 3155603996 under agreement No. S 087972. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is outstanding amount of Rs. 65,884/ due and payable by the defendant towards aforesaid mobile connection. The plaintiff company raised the invoices upon the defendant as per the ledger account and requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but the defendant failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 08.08.2012. Hence, the present suit.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 27.01.2011, original agreement form, copy of account ledger of defendant, copy of the itemized duplicate bills, copy of legal notice dated 08.08.2012, original speed post receipt and copy of passport of defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per report, summons have been served to defendant in person on 25.02.2013 through speed post and defendant has also been served by way of refusal on 19.02.2013 in ordinary manner. As per report of Ahlmad, till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 65,884/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Application perused. Counsel for defendants has submitted that matter can be amicably settled between parties and that matter may be sent to Mediation Cell for the same. He has submitted that till the matter is referred to Mediation Cell, status quo may kindly be granted with regard to taking over of administration of defendant no. 2 by Administrator appointed by Court.

Record perused. Perusal of Order dated 10.10.2013 shows that it has been recorded in the same that defendants are not opposing appointment of Administrator to manage affairs of defendant no. 2. Counsel for defendants has submitted that defendant no. 1 on 10.10.2013 thought that Administrator was being appointed to hold elections of defendant no. 2 and that it was not intention of defendants to get an Administrator appointed to manage affairs of defendant no. 2.

Defendants on 10.10.2013 were represented by counsels and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that consent given by defendants with regard to appointment of Administrator to manage affairs of defendant no. 2 was given in ignorance.

Note : Ashok Bharadwaj, Satto, Mehar Chand Bharadwaj, Sushama, Kumud Sharma, Manju, Jai Swroop, Jagdish, Nitin Sharma, Nimesh Shandilaya, Satto Devi, Santosh Vats, Satish Sharma, Nirmala Sharma, Kailash Devi, Dev Dutt, Dev Sharma and Rohtash Bharadwaj.

Vidhya, Jagdish, Manju, Rohtash Bharadwaj, Ashok Bharadwaj, all the LR's of Rijak Ram.

.............

As per service report of summons against defendant, defendant has been served on 23.11.2013.

Report of Ahlmad perused. As per the report of Ahlmad, appearance has not been filed by defendant till date. Present suit has been filed by plaintiff under Order 37 CPC.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders today itself at 2.00 pm. (Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 05.12.2013 at 2.00 pm. Present: None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.20,000/ and interest @12% per month from date of filing of present suit till payment.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed format as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 12.11.2013. Defendant has been served on 23.11.2013 in ordinary manner. As per report of Ahlmad, defendant remained absent and did not put in her appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the counsel of the plaintiff and perused the record. Brief facts of the case is that plaintiff and defendant were friendly relations for last about 67 years. Defendant approached plaintiff and requested to extent monetary help as friendly loan for her family economic problem. Plaintiff agreed for the same and plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.20,000/ to defendant and she promised that she would return the same shortly. Defendant issued two cheques against loan amount vide cheques bearing nos. 641592 and 641593, both for a sum of Rs.10,000/ dated 15.06.2013 and 15.07.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Saket Branch, New Delhi respectively and the same were dishonoured. Plaintiff has requested defendant to repay the amount but she did not pay the same. On 06.08.2013, plaintiff again requested defendant to make payment but she refused her liability under the cheques. Seeing attitude of defendant, a legal demand notice dated 07.10.2013 has been sent to defendant which was duly served upon defendant but despite service she has not paid the said amount hence this suit. Two original cheques for a sum of Rs.10,000/ each filed by plaintiff on record. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant has been served on 23.11.2013 in ordinary manner. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendant entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.20,000/ with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant. Costs of suit are granted in favour of plaintiff.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 05.12.2013 Ture Raj bala Present: None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.2828/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed format as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 19.11.2013. Defendant has been served at her official address in ordinary manner on 02.12.2013 and by way of registered AD on 27.11.2013. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, defendant remained absent and did not put in their appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Limited NBF Co. incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The suit is instituted through director Shri Shashi Bhagria on behalf of plaintiff company, which is engaged in the business of hire purchase and finance. Defendant took on Hire Purchase Finance, One LG Refrigerator 190 Ltr. It was agreed that the defendant would pay the liability in 18 monthly installments of Rs.785/ each, first hire payable on 05.06.2012. The parties executed Hire Purchase Agreement, Promissory Note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal all dated 06.05.2012. Pursuant to the documents, defendants undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions but committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Hire Purchase Agreement, promissory note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal dated 05.06.2012, which are placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff has also filed accounting details of defendant which shows that a sum of Rs.2827.74/ is due and outstanding.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, Defendant has been served at her official address in ordinary manner on 02.12.2013 and by way of registered AD on 27.11.2013. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendants entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.2808/ with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant. Costs of suit are granted in favour of plaintiff.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. Pallavi Singh CS No. 472/12 02.01.2014 Present: Sh. Anil Yadav, proxy counsel for Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.1,09,553/ along with interest @ 18% per annum from date of filing of suit till the date of realization.

Initially summons of present suit in prescribed format under Order 37 were issued to defendant and that defendant put up his appearance not in time which delay was condoned by my Ld. Predecessor vide Order dated 01.05.2012. Thereafter, defendant was served with summons for judgment with regard to present suit through him mother on 07.06.2012. Leave to defend application was filed by defendant alongwith an application under Order 37 Rule 3(7) CPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act but that application was dismissed by me vide today's morning Order.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to defendant U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 13.12.2012. Service report of defendant available on record shows that defendant has not been served with summons of present suit. On 18.02.2013, defendant has appeared and put his appearance on 19.01.2013 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing her appearance. On 31.10.2013, counsel for defendant had submitted that defendant shall make payment of settlement amount in two installments but she has failed to make the same and on 12.12.2013, one last and final opportunity was granted to argune on application of condonation of delay in filing her appearance failing which, it was ordered that applications of defendant shall be dismissed for on the basis of pleadings. No one is appearing for defendant since last two dates of hearing.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies Act 1956. Major General M. S. Duggal is the Director of the company who has authorized Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Executive (legal) to file suits. The plaintiff company render international mobile rental services and the defendant had applied for international mobile connection. The defendant signed a statement and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement form dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave international mobile connection to defendant bearing No. 07550045289 under agreement No. T3, 290045987. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is outstanding amount of Rs.1,09,553/ due and payable by the defendant towards aforesaid mobile connection. The plaintiff company raised the invoices upon the defendant as per the ledger account and requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but the defendant failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 04.09.2012. Hence, the present suit.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 27.01.2011, original agreement form, copy of tariff plan, copy of account ledger of defendant, copy of the itemized duplicate bills, copy of legal notice dated 04.09.2012, original speed post receipt. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant was duly served with the summons on 14.08.2013 through its authorized signatory. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussions, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 40,416/ with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.

File be consigned to Record Room.

A cheque of Rs.10,925/, drawn on SBI bearing no. 616162 alongwith covering letter has been received from employer of JD.

Let the aforesaid cheque be handed over to counsel for DH/AR for DH after endorsement in name of DH against proper receipt and after due identification.

Be put up awaiting further remittance from employer of JD for Evidentiary affidavits of defendant witnesses be filed on the next date of hearing with advance copy to be supplied one week prior to the next date of hearing. List of witnesses be filed in this Court on behalf of defendant within one week from today.

CS No. 471/12

30.01.2014 PW1: Statement of Sh. Ramesh Chandra S/o Sh. Badri Dutt, R/o House No. DA/99A, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, New Delhi64 and Authorized Signatory of Super Freight (Delhi) Proprietor Value Frieght India Pvt. Limited having its office at 25, Community Centre Ist Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi65. On SA I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/X which bears my signatures at points A & B. I rely upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/11. Ex. PW1/1 is Board Resolution dated 22.11.2012, Mark A is photocopy of invoice dated 18.02.2012 (Ex. PW1/2 is being deexhibited as Mark A as the same is photocopy), Ex. PW1/3 is bill of lading dated 12.10.2011, Ex. PW1/4 is certificate of Measurement, Ex. PW1/5 is shipping bill for export dated 30.09.2012, Ex. PW1/6 is standard condition rules, Ex. PW1/7 is fright and charges, Ex. PW1/8 is legal notice dated 04.10.2012, Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 are postal receipts, Ex. PW1/11 is returned envelop.

RO&AC                                               (Shelly Arora)
                                                    JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                    Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                    30.01.2014

None has appeared on behalf of plaintiff past two dates of hearing today being the third consecutive date.

It appears that plaintiff is not interested in pursuing his case any further. Present suit is accordingly dismissed in default for non appearance as well as for non prosecution on behalf of plaintiff.

File be consigned to Record Room.

He has been apprised of the proceedings undertaken and the next date of hearing.

Dd None has appeared on behalf of plaintiff past two dates of hearing today being the third consecutive date.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 01.03.2014
Present:      None.

A letter bearing No. D1031/F101/Vig/14 dated New Delhi 28.02.2014 of Sh. Manoj Jain, Officer In Charage, Vigilance Branch, South District in respect of reconstruction and conducting fact finding inquiry regarding missing document in CS No. 72/13 tilted as "Anil Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sheikh Israr Ahmad has been received.

Ahlmad of the Court is directed to prepare a Miscellaneous File in this regard.

Put up for consideration on the same on 11.03.2014.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.03.2014 Present: None.

File taken up to explore possibility of settlement in view of scheduled Lok Adalat to be held on 12.04.2014.

Court Notice be issued both the parties for publication* Let defendant be served by way of publication in newspapers "Rashtriya Sahara" and "The Statesman" on PF to be filed and on deposit of publication expenses for break* Issue fresh warrants of attachment of movable properties of JDs with direction to break open the locks in case premises is found to be locked as per list already filed by DH on PF and affidavit already filed for 22.01.2014.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 20.12.2013.

affix* Issue fresh summons of the suit defendants on filing of receipt of costs and on filing of appropriate PF, RC, Speed Post and authorized courier for 26.05.2014. Defendants are permitted to be served by way of affixation in case of non availability or refusal of defendant at the given addresses. Steps be taken within 7 working days.

CS No. 438/12

01.05.2014 Present: Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff.

Copy of newspapers received with regard to publication. Publications were effected in newspapers Rashtriya Sahar and Statesman on 05.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 respectively.

Put up for appearance on behalf of defendant till 12.00 noon.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.05.2014 At 12.10 pm Present: Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff.

Put up for appearance on behalf of defendant till 2.00 pm. (Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.05.2014 At 2.12 pm Present: None.

No one appeared on behalf of defendant despite matter been called thrice. It appears that defendant is not interested in contesting present case on merits. Defendant is hereby proceeded exparte.

Be put up for exparte PE on 13.05.2014 (Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.05.2014 M/s Lord Fincap Ltd.

Vs. Sh. Saifuddin Malik & Ors.

CS No. 286/12

///// Present: Sh. Guru Prasad, counsel for plaintiff with AR for plaintiff.

Original Power of Attorney has been produced by the AR for plaintiff (original seen and matched with the photocopy of the same which is already placed on record and returned).

Present suit has been filed by plaintiff under Order 37 CPC. Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders today itself at 2.00 pm. At 2.00 pm. At 4.00 pm. Present: None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.22,680/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest @30.08% per annum.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed format as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 11.01.2013. Defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 were served with the summons of the suit on 08.11.2013, 11.11.2013 and 31.10.2013 respectively in ordinary manner. As per report of Ahlmad, defendants remained absent and did not put in their appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff company has been carrying on the business of financing of vehicles and is registered with the RBI. Sh. Anil Kumar on behalf of plaintiff was authorised by it to institute and represent itself in the present case.

The defendant no. 1 had approached the plaintiff with a request to get personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/ which was financed by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 vide cheque no. 170452 dated 18.03.2011 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/. Defendant no. 1 executed the Personal Loan Agreement bearing No. N11214 and as per the agreement there were 20 monthly installments of the amount of Rs.7560/ each and commencing date of paying the installment of the said loan was 18.04.2011. The defendant No.2 stood as guarantor to defendant no.1. Defendant no. 1 had issued the post date cheques bearing No. 457073, 457074 and 457075 dated 23.04.2012, 23.05.2012 and 23.06.2012 respectively of Rs.7560/ each totalling Rs.22,680/ as balance installments, but the same were dishonoured vide memo dated 03.07.2012. //////// Defendants had issued a Promissory Note of Rs.22,989/ in favour of plaintiff alongwith the interest @16% per annum on the said amount till realisation. Defendants failed to make the outstanding payment to plaintiff despite repeated request, plaintiff has compelled to send a legal notice on 25.07.2012 to defendants. Thus present suit was filed by the plaintiff.

The parties executed Personal Loan Agreement bearing No. N11214. Pursuant to the documents, defendants undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions but committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Personal Loan Agreement and cheques issued by defendant no. 1 in respect to installments, which are placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff has also filed accounting details of defendant no. 1 which shows that a sum of Rs.22,680/ is due and outstanding.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 were served with the summons of the suit on 08.11.2013, 11.11.2013 and 31.10.2013 respectively in ordinary manner. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendants entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.22,680/ with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants jointly and severely. Costs of suit are granted in favour of plaintiff.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.31,464/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest @16% per month.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants U/o XXXVII CPC in the prescribed format as defined under Order XXXVII (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 16.08.2012. Defendant no. 1 has been served on 02.11.2012 in ordinary manner. Case against defendant no. 2 has been withdrawn on 07.05.2014. As per report of Ahlmad, defendant no. 1 remained absent and did not put in her appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

the RBI. Sh. Anil Kumar on behalf of plaintiff was authorised by it to institute and represent itself in the present case.

The defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff with a request to get a Bajaj Platina Motorcycle financed. The total cost of the said vehicle was Rs.36,090/, out of which Rs.23,000/ was financed by the plaintiff company vide HirePurchase Agreement No. N3434. The defendant No.2 stood as Guarantor to defendant no.1. As per the said agreement, there were 18 monthly installments of the amount of Rs.1584/ each and the commencing date of payment of the installments of the said loan was 10.10.2008. Defendants had issued a Promissory Note of Rs.22,989/ in favour of plaintiff alongwith the interest @16% per annum on the said amount till realisation. Defendants failed to make the outstanding payment to plaintiff despite repeated request, plaintiff has compelled to send a legal notice on 30.12.2010 to defendants. Thus present suit was filed by the plaintiff.

The parties executed Hire Purchase Agreement (original filed today by counsel for plaintiff) and Promissory Note proposal dated 10.02.2010. Pursuant to the documents, defendants undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions but committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Hire Purchase Agreement and Promissory Note, which are placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is ..3..

covered within the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC and is also filed within limitation.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

to a decree. As per record, defendant no. 1 has been served on 02.11.2012 in ordinary manner and case against defendant no. 2 has already been withdrawn. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant No. 1 and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendant no. 1 entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.31,464/ with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1. Costs of suit are granted in favour of plaintiff.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Verified* Fresh/verified addressed be filed within two weeks. Issue fresh summons of the suit to defendant at the fresh/verified address on filing of appropriate PF, RC and authorized courier for 11.08.2014.

Receiving of CPU of Court No. 2 System of Personal Assistant.

CPU NO. 1103A1272385 installed for Personal Assistant in the Court Room No. 2 is not working properly and the same has been received from the Court for repearing purpose Signature of Computer Branch official M/s True Link Finance Limited Vs. Sh. Sagar & Anr.

CS No. 37/14

04.06.2014 Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for plaintiff.

Report of Asstt. Ahlmad perused. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, appearance has not been filed by defendants till date.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders today itself at 2.00 pm. (Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 04.06.2014 at 2.00 pm. Present: None.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.18,743/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed format as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated 24.03.2014. Defendants no. 1 and 2 have been served in ordinary manner on 02.04.2014. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, defendants did not file appearance.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Limited NBF Co. incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The suit is instituted through director Shri Shashi Bhagria on behalf of company, which is engaged in the business of hire purchase and finance. Defendant no. 1 took on Hire Purchase Finance, one Samsung Mobile Phone P 3100 and Defendant no. 2 stood guarantors in the transaction. It was agreed that the defendant no. 1 would pay the liability in 15 monthly installments of Rs.1650/ each, first hire payable on 20.01.2013. The parties executed Hire Purchase Agreement, Promissory Note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal all dated 20.12.2012. Pursuant to the documents, defendant undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions but committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Hire Purchase Agreement, promissory note dated 20.12.2012 and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal, which are placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff has also filed accounting details of defendant no. 1 which shows that a sum of Rs.18743/ is due and outstanding.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

(3)The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in subrule(1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendants no. 1 and 2 have been served on 02.04.2014. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendants, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.18743/ with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants jointly and severally. Costs of suit are granted in favour of plaintiff.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 04.06.2014 CS No. 120/14 23.09.2014 Present: Ms. Tamali Wad, counsel for plaintiff.

An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC accompanied with the main plaint is pending for consideration.

Ld. counsel for plaintiff has advanced her arguments on the said application. She has prayed for exparte ad interim injunction.

Arguments heard. Case record perused.

To come up for orders at 3.00 pm. (Ajay Singh Shekhawat) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 23.09.2014 At 3.00 pm. Present: Sh. Bir Singh, Ld. proxy counsel for Ms. Tamali Wad, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.

Vide my separate order pronounced in open court today, at this stage, the prayer for exparte ad interim injunction is hereby declined.

Summons of the suit as well as notice to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC be issued to defendant on filing of appropriate PF, RC and authorized courier for 07.10.2014.

(Ajay Singh Shekhawat) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 23.09.2014 DRC* After the deposition of rent and filing of treasury challan/deposit voucher by the petitioner, notice of DR Application be issued to respondent on PF, RC for 28.01.2015 with endorsement that the respondent may file objections, if any, within 30 days on receipt of notice.

At this stage, defendants no. 1 and 2 have stated that they shall not carry out any unauthorized construction in the suit property. Joint statement of defendants no. 1 and 2 recorded. In view of the status report filed by SDMC coupled with joint statement of defendants no. 1 and 2, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 stands allowed. Accordingly, defendants no. 1 and 2 are restrained from making any unauthorized construction in the suit property till final disposal of the present suit on merits. Nothing herein shall tantamount to my expression on the merits of the case.

withdrawal* Nothing herein shall be construed as sanctifying the alleged unauthorized construction in dispute. Needless to say, the defendant No.5/SDMC is at liberty, rather duty bound to take appropriate action against the parties in accordance with law.

One copy of this order be sent to DLSA (South) for information and record.

File be consigned to record room.

interim* Defendant has stated that he shall not carry out any unauthorized construction in the suit property. Separate statement of defendant no. 1 has been recorded to this effect. By virtue of the same, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 stands disposed of qua which defendant no. 1 is restrained from making any unauthorized construction in the suit property till final disposal of the present suit on merits. Nothing herein shall tantamount to my expression on the merits of the case.

Cloud* At this stage, I find that cloud has been over the title of the suit property in the WS filed by the Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1. Hence, in view of judgment "Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033", plaintiff is required to take steps for seeking comprehensive relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

At this stage, as plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are brothers, in view of Section 89 of CPC, at the joint request of both the parties, the present suit is referred to the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi. Consent proforma duly signed by Ld. counsels for both parties is placed on record. Parties shall appear before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi on 07.01.2015 at 2.00 pm. Parties shall report to this Court, in case of failure of compromise, on 04.02.2015 for further proceedings.

80(2)* Application under Section 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from service statutory notice under Section 80 upon defendant no. 1 alongwith affidavit placed on record.

Heard. Allowed due to urgency of the matter. 39** In the facts and circumstances, as the suit property has already been booked as verified by the status report filed by defendant no. 1 and the plaintiffs are having prima facie case in their favour on account of violation of building bye laws as well as agreement between the parties. Further, balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiffs and irreparable loss shall be caused to them in case unauthorized construction is allowed to be done.

In view of aforesaid discussions, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 stands allowed. Accordingly, defendant no. 2 is restrained from making any unauthorized construction in the suit property till final disposal of the present suit on merits. Nothing herein shall tantamount to my expression on the merits of the case.

Nothing herein shall be construed as sanctifying the alleged unauthorized construction in dispute. Needless to say, the defendant No.5/SDMC is at liberty, rather duty bound to take appropriate action against the parties in accordance with law.

Having heard the submissions, I am satisfied that plaintiff has been able to establish his prima facie case, and that irreparable loss shall be caused in case stay is not granted, hence exparte order is granted in favour of the plaintiff thereby directing that defendants no.1 and 2 shall not carry out any illegal/unauthorized construction in the suit property till the next date of hearing.

Vijdender Kumar (541//11) I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A which bears my signatures at Points X & Y. I rely upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/8.

Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of Relinquishment Deed, Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) is copy of GPA, Ex. PW1/3(OSR) is copy of Wills, Ex. PW 1/4 and Ex. PW1/5 are original death certificates Sh. Ram Singh and Sh. Hukum Chand respectively (Filed today), Mark A (Colly) are copies of letters dated 28.11.2006, 12.12.2006, 15.12.2006 and 01.03.2011 respectively (Ex. PW1/6 is deexhibited as mark A as the same have been filed photocopies), Ex. PW1/7 is copy of legal notice dated 18.10.2007 (the date of legal notice is wrongly mentioned in my affidavit as 19.10.2007 and the same may be read as 19.10.2007), Ex. PW1/8 is photograph.

Ld. counsel for the Decree Holder has relied upon notification no. 99/Rules/DHC dated 15.03.2010 and has prayed for issuance of warrants of possession along with request of police aid.

Heard. Considered.

Let warrants of possession in regard to premises bearing i.e. flat no. 45, Aurobindo Apartments (First Floor), Adhchini, near NCERT, New Delhi110017 be issued on filing of PF as per site plan and affidavit as regards no stay by any Higher Courts. The concerned SHO is directed to render requisite police aid, if required. Bailiff is also at liberty to remove any obstruction or hindrance by way of locks etc. in the eventuality of the same. The warrants of possession shall be returnable by 12.02.2016.

The Decree Holder shall appear before Ld. ACJ (South) for appointment of bailiff on 13.01.2016.

precious* Sh. Rajiv Bhardwaj, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 5.

Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has sought permission to withdraw present suit as matter stands settled between parties before Mediation Cell on 11.02.2015 and plaintiff has received of settlement amount. Separate statement of plaintiff recorded in this regard.

In view of the status report filed by the SDMC, it is apparent that there is unauthorized construction by the defendant no. 1 and 2 which has been booked SDMC and still in existence. Precious judicial time has been consumed in the Court proceedings and plaintiff now seeks to withdraw the suit on the grounds of out of court settlement.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case where costs should be imposed upon the plaintiff. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is disposed off as withdrawn. Plaintiff is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5000/ in the DLSA (South) within three weeks from today.

Nothing herein shall be construed as sanctifying the alleged unauthorized construction in dispute. Needless to say, SDMC is at liberty, rather duty bound to take appropriate action against the parties in accordance with law.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Fresh* 30.03.2015 Fresh suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered as per rules.

Present:     Sh. , Ld. counsel for plaintiff. 
             Heard. Considered.

Application under Section 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from service statutory notice under Section 80 upon defendant no. 1 alongwith affidavit placed on record.

Heard. Allowed due to urgency of the matter.

Let summons of the suit as well as notice to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC be issued to defendants on filing of PF & RC for Defendants are permitted to be served by way of affixation in case of non availability or refusal of defendant at the given addresses. Steps be taken within 7 working days.

Ld. counsel for plaintiff submits that he shall file the application under Order 478 (2) of DMC Act for exemption from issuing the statutory notice to defendant No.2/SDMC during the course of the day.

(Surya Malik Grover) SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/30.03.2015 interim* Today summons have been duly served upon defendant no. 1 by way of affixation.

Defendant no. 2 could not served as office was found to be closed.

Let fresh summons be issued to defendant no. 2 with direction to file status report on the next date of hearing, on filing of PF for the next date of hearing.

Site plan, photographs and copy of complaints dated 15.05.2015 sent to SDMC as well as concerned SHO with list of documents have been filed by Ld. counsel for plaintiff. Ld. counsel for plaintiff has submitted that suit property has been damaged on account of alleged unauthorized construction as sewerage pipe of their property has been broken. He has prayed for interim relief stating that unauthorized construction is going on at full swing.

In view of the photographs placed on record and the fact that neither defendant no. 1 has appeared nor has filed any sanctioned plan, defendants are restrained from carrying out any unauthorized construction in the suit property i.e. property bearing no. 5A, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi till further orders.

Defendant no. 2 and concerned SHO are directed to ensure the compliance of interim order.

Defendants are directed to file their WS within stipulated time with advance copy to be supplied to the opposite side.

..2..

Put up for reply/arguments on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for 05.06.2015.

Copy of order be given dasti to the plaintiff for supply to the defendant no. 2/SDMC as well as concerned SHO.

CS No. 34/15

Matrix Cellular Vs. Amit J. Bhalla 29.05.2015 Present: Sh. Abhinay Gupta, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.

Sh. Harish Pandey, Process Server in person Sh. Harish Pandey has submitted that on refusal of wife of defendant to accept the summons, he has affixed the summons. Separate statement of Sh. Harish Pandey has been recorded to this effect.

I am satisfied that defendant has been duly served by way of affixation on 22.04.2015.

Arguments heard.

Put up for judgment at 4.00 pm. (Surya Malik Grover) SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/29.05.2015 At 4.00 pm Present: None.

Vide my separate judgment pronounced in open court today, suit of plaintiff stands allowed.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Surya Malik Grover) SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/29.05.2015 DCLA* Parties have jointly stated that they are exploring possibilities of settlement and requested that their matter be referre to Lok Adalat. Referral form of Daily Continous Lok Adalat (DCLA) has been placed on record.

Put up before Daily Continuous Lok Adalat ....... and before this court on..............

CS No. 22222/17

03.05.2014 Statement of Sh.....................

on SA I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A which bears my signatures at poit A & B. I rely upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/Z. XXXXX by Sh. ......., Ld. counsel for petitioner/respondent. It is wrong to suggest that the portion where defendant is belongs exclusively to defendant. I have not filed anything on record to show that the said portion does not belong exclusively to the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

RO&AC by virtue of this order, appeal against order dated 28.01.2015 of Ld. Civil Judge02 Sh. Vishap Pahuja, is being disposed.

(Surya Malik Grover) SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/......10.2014 I am making this statement voluntarily and under legal instructions.

Heard. Considered.

Separate statement of parties recorded. In view of the application moved and the statements recorded, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed as withdrawn.

No order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.

CS No....

02.12.2015 File taken up today as per direction of Secretary DLSA that recovery matters may be preponed and sent for National Lok Adalat, in case there appears to be any possibility of settlement.

Present: None.

Let court notice be issued to the parties to appear before National Lok Adalat for exploring possiblity of settlement, if any for 12.12.2015.

In case settlement could not be arrived between he parties, matter shall be listed for the date already fixed.

(Surya Malik Grover) SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/02.12.2015 ........ No. 25.04.2015 Present:

Ld. Presiding Officer has gone to attend the training programme at Dwarka.

Lawyers are abstaining from work.

As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for purpose already fixed for ......................................

(Reader) in the Court of (Ms. Surya Malik Grover) Ld. SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/25.04.2015.

Reader in the Court of No. 22.05.2015 Present:

Ld. PO is on leave today.

As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for purpose already fixed for ..............................................

(READER) In the Court of Ms. Surya Malik Grover Ld. SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/22.05.2015 CS No. 52/12 Umesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Kehar Singh Bhullar & Anr. 22.05.2015 Fresh suit received by way of assignment.

Present: Ms. Meema Saini, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.

Ld. PO is on leave today.

As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for proper order for 25.05.2015.

Present:     Ld. counsel for plaintiff. 
             Ld. PO is on leave today.

As instructed by Ld. PO, put up for proper order for 27.05.2015.

(READER) In the Court of Ms. Surya Malik Grover Ld. SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/22.05.2015 No. 17.04.2014 Present: None.

Matter stands settled and disposed off before Lok Adalat. File be consigned to Record Room.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 17.04.2014 CS No. ....2014 Present: None.

Matter already stand settled. Statement of AR for plaintif/ plaintiff already recorded. In terms thereof, present matter stands disposed off as withdrawn having been settled.

File be sent back to the Ld. Concerned Court for the purpose of consignment.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 02.04.2014 No. Present: None.

File taken up to explore possibility of settlement in view of scheduled Lok Adalat to be held on 12.04.2014.

Court Notice be issued both the parties for (Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi MC* At the joint request of both the parties, the present suit is referred to the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi. Consent proforma duly signed by Ld. counsels for both parties is placed on record. Parties shall appear before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi on..............at............Noon. Parties shall report to this Court, in case of failure of compromise, on .......................

Issues* No Admission/Denial of documents is to be carried out as per respective counsels.

From the pleadings of parties following issues are framed. Issues:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.

2,05,100/ from defendants?OPP

2. In case Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest on claimed amount and if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP

3. Relief.

No other issues arises or pressed for. Both the parties are directed to file their list of witnesses on NDOH.

Be put up on .......... for PE and advance copy of affidavit be supplied to defendants, atleast one week before from NDOH.

On the basis of pleadings and documents on record, following issues are being framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands?OPD1 to 4.

2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Section 41(j) of Specific Relief Act?OPD1 to 4.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of DMC Act?OPD6

5. Relief.

No other issues arise or pressed for. Both the parties are directed to file their list of witnesses within 15 days from today. Further, evidentiary affidavits of all plaintiff witnesses be filed.

Be put up on ,,,,,,,,, for PE.

Advance copy of affidavit be supplied to defendants, atleast one week before from NDOH.

RR Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties filing certified copies thereof on record.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Punit Kumar Gaur & Ors. Vs. M/s Profile India 01.03.2013 Fresh appeal received by way of assignment from Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Saket, New Delhi. It be checked and registered.

Present: Sh. Shyam Dutt, counsel for appellants. This is an appeal against the money decree of Rs. 1,95,000/ along with interest pendentelite and furture interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of suit till realization passed against appellants by court of Ms. Richa Manchanda, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide decree dated 24.01.2013. However, this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the money suit exceeding Rs. 1000/ . Hence, present appeal is returned back to the appellant to be filed before the competent court of jurisdiction subject to filing of certified copy and fulfillment of other condition as per rules after due endorsement.

File be consigned to Record Room (containing certified copy of complete appeal).

Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties filing certified copies thereof on record.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. VS. Sh. Rathin 
CS No. 09/13
07.03.2013
Present:       Counsel for plaintiff.

Ordersheet of last date of hearing perused. Ahlmad is directed to report as to whether an application for appearance has been filed by defendant or not today itself at 12.00 pm. (Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 07.03.2013 At 12.00 pm. Present: As above.

Ahlmad of the Court has made the report as per which appearance has not been made by defendant. Arguments addressed by counsel for plaintiff heard.

Be put up for order at 3.00 pm. (Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 07.03.2013 At 3.00 pm. Present: As above.

This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,48,693/ along with interest @ 21% per annum from date of filing of suit till the date of realization.

The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendant U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 and of an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC vide order dated 05.01.2013. The defendant was duly served in ordinary manner at his Chitranjan Park Address on 23.02.2013, but despite service, the defendant remained absent and did not put in his appearance within 10 days from the date of service.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record carefully.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a body corporate incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and registered as Securitization and Assets Reconstruction Company pursuant to Section 3 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Sh. Gajendra Singh is a constituted attorney of plaintiff company who has appointed as Authorized Representatie vide Board Resolution dated 05.11.2012. Plaintiff company negotiated with Axis Bank Ltd. for assignment/transfer/devolution of its interest in the present debt in its favour and after negotiations, Axis Bank agreed to transfer/assign its debt in loan account no. 24501060100393805 recoverable from defendant on terms and conditions as contained in deed of assignment dated 09.03.2010. Plaintiff company has therefore now become owner of debt recoverable from defendant with incidental rights thereto. Defendant approached the Axis Bank Ltd. for personal loan for his personal needs and on his request a loan of Rs.1,50,000/ was sanctioned on 25.04.2006. The said loan amount alongwith interest and other charges was repayable by defendant in 48 monthly installments of Rs.4,645/ each. Defendant in order to secure abovementioned loan, executed agreement for personal loan dated 25.04.2006 which was accepted vide loan agreement no. 2450106010393805. Defendant in order to secure the said loan also exhibited a DP Note delivery cum waiver letter and demand promissory note. After availing the said loan from Axis Bank Ltd., defendant failed to adhere to terms and conditions of loan agreement regarding repayment amount towards principal as well as interest. Several ECS instructions as well as several reminders were issued to defendant to pay amount on account of abovesaid dishonourment but to no avail. Legal demand notice dated 10.10.2012 was also issued. Cause of action to file present suit arose when defendant failed to pay complete loan amount till date of 48th installment i.e. 25.04.2010. Hence, the present suit.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record certified true copy of resolution passed by Mangement Committee vide its meeting dated 05.11.2012, copy of assignment agreement, agreement for personal loan, demand promissory note, DP Note deliverycumwavier letter, application for personal loan, statement of account of defendant, separate statement of sum due from defendant and various identity papers of defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

(3) The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub rule(1) unless he enters an and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant stood served with the summons of the suit in prescribed proforma in ordinary manner on 23.02.2013. Till date as per report of Ahlmad, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

In view of aforesaid discussions, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for principal amount of Rs. 2,48,693/ with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decreesheet be prepared. Application filed by plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is hereby dismissed being infructuous.

File be consigned to record room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 07.03.2013 CS No. 78/13 07.03.2013 Present: None.

Vide my separate order announced in open court today, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by plaintiff is hereby allowed.

Be put up for filing of replication, if any, A/D of documents and framing of issues for 29.04.2013.

Ordcom* Sh. Gautam Kumar, counsel for plaintiff.

Counsel for plaintiff has sought permission to withdraw present suit as matter stands settled between parties and plaintiff having been in received of settlement amount. Separate statement of counsel for plaintiff recorded in this regard.

In view of statement of counsel for plaintiff, present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn being settled.

Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties filing certified copies thereof on record.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Bailiff* On 16.08.2012, I alongwith Sh. Jai Kishan, AR of DH have reached the address of JD No. 1 i.e. Vijay, House No. A17, Ambedkar Basti, Sector1, R. K. Purma, New Delhi and where JD no. 1 was found. JD no. 1 when asked about decreetal amount, stated that he has nothing to pay in this case, JD No. 1 called JD no. 2 at the spot and both the JDs stated that they have not to give anything with regard to this case. Thereafter, JD nos. 1 & 2 have denied to give the decreetal amount. Decreetal amount hence could not be recovered.

Ten1 I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. ..... which bears my signatures at poit A & B. I rely upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex.............

Ex. RW3/H is to RW3/J are original registered AD closed Envelop, original slip, original AD Card, Ex. RW3/K is order dated 19.11.2009, Ex. RW3/L is original AD Card, Ex. RW3/M is original registered AD closed envelop and Ex. RW3/N is original AD Card, Ex. RW3/O is letter dated 18.02.2010, Ex. RW3/P is C19 dated 18.02.2010, EX. RW3/Q is original registered AD closed envelope, Ex. RW3/R is original AD Card, Ex. RW3/S is original registered AD closed envelope, Ex.. RW3/T is original AD Card, Ex. RW3/U is demand notice dated 25.02.2010.

M/s True Link Finance Ltd. Vs. Ms. Sarika Lal & Another SC No. 44/12 ...................

Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, AR of plaintiff.

Report of Ahlmad perused. As per report, appearance has not been received till date from any of the defendants.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders at 2.00 pm today itself.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi ...............

At 2.00 pm.
Present:    Sh. Amit Kumar, AR of plaintiff.

Defendant no. 1 has been served in ordinary manner on 28.01.2013 and as per courier tracking report on 08.01.2013. Defendant no. 2 has been served in ordinary manner on 09.10.2012.

As per the report of Ahlmad, appearance has not been filed by the defendants.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record carefully.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 fresh exe
Present:    Sh. Amit Kumar, AR of plaintiff.

Fresh execution filed. It be checked and registered. Civil Nazir to report for 18.03.2013.

Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.

                                    Vs.
                              Sandeep Sharma
CS No. 376/12
11.03.2013
Present:        Sh. ......................

Report of Ahlmad perused. As per report, appearance has not been filed by defendant.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders at 2.00 pm today itself.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.03.2013 At 2.00 pm. Present: Sh. ......................

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record carefully.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant stood served with the summons of the suit in prescribed proforma on 22.12.2012 at his Gurgaon address and on 26.12.2012 at his Ludhiana Address (by way of speed post). Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.03.2013 Service 37 Service report of summons against defendant not received back. Be awaited.

Transfer certificate be issued.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Wa* Counsel for DH has submitted that till date JD has not made any payment towards decreetal amount. He has requested for issuance of warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD. Heard.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 28.03.2013.

Counsel for DH has requested for issuance of warrants of attachment of movable properties of JD. Heard.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 21.12.2013.

M/s True Link Finance Ltd.

Vs. Smt. Sudha & Other CS No. 433/12 20.03.2013 Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for plaintiff.

Defendant no. 1 in person.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders at 2.00 pm today itself.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 20.03.2013 At 2.00 pm. Present: None.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC.

Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant to not indicate that he has a substantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious:

Provided further that, where a part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in Court.

Order XXXVII Rule 3(6) CPC.

AT the hearing of such summons for judgment:

(a) if the defendant has not applied for leave to defend, or if such application has been made and is refused, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith; or

(b) if the defendant is permitted to defend as to the whole or any part of the claim, the Court of judge may direct him to give such security and within such time as may be fixed by the Court or Judge and that, on failure to give such security within the time specified by the Court or Judge or to carry out such other directions as may have been given by the Court or Judge, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith.

File be consigned to Record Room.

In view of statement of counsel for plaintiff, present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn being settled.

Let original documents of parties be handed over to parties entitled thereto against proper receipt and after due identification on parties filing certified copies thereof on record.

File be consigned to Record Room.

SuitR* Fresh suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered as per rules.

Counsel for DH has submitted that DH has already moved an application for grant of police aid and for breaking open locks. Record perused. Submissions of counsel for DH are correct.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 25.04.2013.

RO&AC                                                 (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                      JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                      Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                      14.05.2013
 CS No. 188/12
23.05.2013
PW1:        Sh. Mukesh Jain, Proprietor of M/s Kwality Jeweller, 99E,    Hari 
Nagar Ashram, New Delhi110014.
On SA

Application perused.

Counsel for appellant has submitted that inadvertently on account of typographical mistake, name of appellant has been typed again in memo of parties as respondent no. 13. Heard.

Appellant is directed to file amended memo of parties alongwith PF.

RCA No. 16/13

15.07.2013 Present: Ms. Shobhna Tanwar, proxy counsel for Sh. S. P. Jha, counsel for appellant/applicant.

File taken up today on an application filed by appellant/applicant for supplying of complete address of respondents no. 8 to 12 and deletion of name of respondent no. 13.

Application perused.

Counsel for appellant has submitted that inadvertently on account of typographical mistake, name of appellant has been typed again in memo of parties as respondent no. 13. Heard.

Appellant is directed to file amended memo of parties alongwith PF.

Be put up on date already fixed i.e. 07.08.2013.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 15.07.2013 wP* wp Counsel for DH has requested for issuance of warrants of possession of suit property. Heard.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff for 03.08.2013.

Ex. No. 36/12

17.07.2013 Statement of Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for DH.

RO&AC                                                   (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                        JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                        Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                        17.07.2013
 Ex. No. 36/12 
17.07.2013
Present:       Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for DH. 
               JD No. 2 (Sukhvir), in person.

In view of statement of AR for DH, present execution is hereby dismissed as withdrawn being satisfied.

Let copy of Order be given Dasti to JD No. 2 i.e. Mr. Sukhvir as prayed for.

File be consigned to Record Room.

RO&AC                                              (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                   JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                   Saket Courts, New Delhi

Statement of Sh. M. S. Sharma, Bailiff, District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

RO&AC                                                 (Sonu Agnihotri)
                                                      JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                      Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                      17.09.2013

Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff with Mr. Tarun Yadav, proposed AR for plaintiff.

An application under Order 3 Rule 1 CPC for substitution of AR of plaintiff company alongwith copy of board resolution filed by counsel for plaintiff.

 At 2.00 pm.
Present:    None.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 27.01.2011, original agreement forms, copy of account ledger of defendant, original tariff plans, copy of legal notice dated 31.03.2012, original speed post receipt and original undertaking of payment given by defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per report, defendant has been served by way of refusal on 07.08.2013 and defendant has also been served by way of registered post on 10.08.2013. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 16.09.2013 At 2.00 pm. Present: None.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies Act 1956. Major General M.S. Duggal is the Director of the company who has authorized Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Executive (legal) to file suits. The plaintiff company render international mobile phone services and the defendant had applied for international mobile connection. The defendant signed a statement and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement form dated 21.08.2006. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave international mobile connection to defendant bearing No. 3155603996 under agreement No. S 087972. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is outstanding amount of Rs. 65,884/ due and payable by the defendant towards aforesaid mobile connection. The plaintiff company raised the invoices upon the defendant as per the ledger account and requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but the defendant failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 08.08.2012. Hence, the present suit.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 27.01.2011, original agreement form, copy of account ledger of defendant, copy of the itemized duplicate bills, copy of legal notice dated 08.08.2012, original speed post receipt and copy of passport of defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per report, summons have been served to defendant in person on 25.02.2013 through speed post and defendant has also been served by way of refusal on 19.02.2013 in ordinary manner. As per report of Ahlmad, till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Vidhya, Jagdish, Manju, Rohtash Bharadwaj, Ashok Bharadwaj, all the LR's of Rijak Ram.

.............

As per service report of summons against defendant, defendant has been served on 23.11.2013.

Report of Ahlmad perused. As per the report of Ahlmad, appearance has not been filed by defendant till date. Present suit has been filed by plaintiff under Order 37 CPC.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders today itself at 2.00 pm. (Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 05.12.2013 at 2.00 pm. Present: None.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant has been served on 23.11.2013 in ordinary manner. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendant entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Sonu Agnihotri) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 05.12.2013 Ture Raj bala Present: None.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Limited NBF Co. incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The suit is instituted through director Shri Shashi Bhagria on behalf of plaintiff company, which is engaged in the business of hire purchase and finance. Defendant took on Hire Purchase Finance, One LG Refrigerator 190 Ltr. It was agreed that the defendant would pay the liability in 18 monthly installments of Rs.785/ each, first hire payable on 05.06.2012. The parties executed Hire Purchase Agreement, Promissory Note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal all dated 06.05.2012. Pursuant to the documents, defendants undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions but committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Hire Purchase Agreement, promissory note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal dated 05.06.2012, which are placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff has also filed accounting details of defendant which shows that a sum of Rs.2827.74/ is due and outstanding.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, Defendant has been served at her official address in ordinary manner on 02.12.2013 and by way of registered AD on 27.11.2013. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendants entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. Pallavi Singh CS No. 472/12 02.01.2014 Present: Sh. Anil Yadav, proxy counsel for Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies Act 1956. Major General M. S. Duggal is the Director of the company who has authorized Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Executive (legal) to file suits. The plaintiff company render international mobile rental services and the defendant had applied for international mobile connection. The defendant signed a statement and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement form dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave international mobile connection to defendant bearing No. 07550045289 under agreement No. T3, 290045987. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is outstanding amount of Rs.1,09,553/ due and payable by the defendant towards aforesaid mobile connection. The plaintiff company raised the invoices upon the defendant as per the ledger account and requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but the defendant failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 04.09.2012. Hence, the present suit.

The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 27.01.2011, original agreement form, copy of tariff plan, copy of account ledger of defendant, copy of the itemized duplicate bills, copy of legal notice dated 04.09.2012, original speed post receipt. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendant was duly served with the summons on 14.08.2013 through its authorized signatory. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

File be consigned to Record Room.

A cheque of Rs.10,925/, drawn on SBI bearing no. 616162 alongwith covering letter has been received from employer of JD.

Let the aforesaid cheque be handed over to counsel for DH/AR for DH after endorsement in name of DH against proper receipt and after due identification.

CS No. 471/12

RO&AC                                               (Shelly Arora)
                                                    JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) 
                                                    Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                                    30.01.2014

None has appeared on behalf of plaintiff past two dates of hearing today being the third consecutive date.

File be consigned to Record Room.

He has been apprised of the proceedings undertaken and the next date of hearing.

Dd None has appeared on behalf of plaintiff past two dates of hearing today being the third consecutive date.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 01.03.2014
Present:      None.

Ahlmad of the Court is directed to prepare a Miscellaneous File in this regard.

Put up for consideration on the same on 11.03.2014.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.03.2014 Present: None.

File taken up to explore possibility of settlement in view of scheduled Lok Adalat to be held on 12.04.2014.

DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 20.12.2013.

CS No. 438/12

01.05.2014 Present: Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff.

Copy of newspapers received with regard to publication. Publications were effected in newspapers Rashtriya Sahar and Statesman on 05.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 respectively.

Put up for appearance on behalf of defendant till 12.00 noon.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.05.2014 At 12.10 pm Present: Sh. Abhinay Gupta, counsel for plaintiff.

Put up for appearance on behalf of defendant till 2.00 pm. (Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.05.2014 At 2.12 pm Present: None.

No one appeared on behalf of defendant despite matter been called thrice. It appears that defendant is not interested in contesting present case on merits. Defendant is hereby proceeded exparte.

Be put up for exparte PE on 13.05.2014 (Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.05.2014 M/s Lord Fincap Ltd.

Vs. Sh. Saifuddin Malik & Ors.

CS No. 286/12

///// Present: Sh. Guru Prasad, counsel for plaintiff with AR for plaintiff.

Original Power of Attorney has been produced by the AR for plaintiff (original seen and matched with the photocopy of the same which is already placed on record and returned).

Present suit has been filed by plaintiff under Order 37 CPC. Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders today itself at 2.00 pm. At 2.00 pm. At 4.00 pm. Present: None.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 were served with the summons of the suit on 08.11.2013, 11.11.2013 and 31.10.2013 respectively in ordinary manner. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendants entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

None.

the RBI. Sh. Anil Kumar on behalf of plaintiff was authorised by it to institute and represent itself in the present case.

covered within the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC and is also filed within limitation.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Receiving of CPU of Court No. 2 System of Personal Assistant.

CS No. 37/14

04.06.2014 Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, AR for plaintiff.

Report of Asstt. Ahlmad perused. As per report of Asstt. Ahlmad, appearance has not been filed by defendants till date.

Arguments heard.

Be put up for Orders today itself at 2.00 pm. (Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 04.06.2014 at 2.00 pm. Present: None.

I have heard the AR of the plaintiff and perused the record. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Limited NBF Co. incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The suit is instituted through director Shri Shashi Bhagria on behalf of company, which is engaged in the business of hire purchase and finance. Defendant no. 1 took on Hire Purchase Finance, one Samsung Mobile Phone P 3100 and Defendant no. 2 stood guarantors in the transaction. It was agreed that the defendant no. 1 would pay the liability in 15 monthly installments of Rs.1650/ each, first hire payable on 20.01.2013. The parties executed Hire Purchase Agreement, Promissory Note and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal all dated 20.12.2012. Pursuant to the documents, defendant undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions but committed defaults in repayment schedule. The suit is based on a Hire Purchase Agreement, promissory note dated 20.12.2012 and introductorycumhire purchase agreement proposal, which are placed on record in original by plaintiff. Hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also filed within limitation. The plaintiff has also filed accounting details of defendant no. 1 which shows that a sum of Rs.18743/ is due and outstanding.

It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.

(3)The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in subrule(1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.

In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, defendants no. 1 and 2 have been served on 02.04.2014. Till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendants and accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by defendants, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.

Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Shelly Arora) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 04.06.2014 CS No. 120/14 23.09.2014 Present: Ms. Tamali Wad, counsel for plaintiff.

An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC accompanied with the main plaint is pending for consideration.

Ld. counsel for plaintiff has advanced her arguments on the said application. She has prayed for exparte ad interim injunction.

Arguments heard. Case record perused.

Vide my separate order pronounced in open court today, at this stage, the prayer for exparte ad interim injunction is hereby declined.

Summons of the suit as well as notice to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC be issued to defendant on filing of appropriate PF, RC and authorized courier for 07.10.2014.

One copy of this order be sent to DLSA (South) for information and record.

File be consigned to record room.

80(2)* Application under Section 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from service statutory notice under Section 80 upon defendant no. 1 alongwith affidavit placed on record.

Ld. counsel for the Decree Holder has relied upon notification no. 99/Rules/DHC dated 15.03.2010 and has prayed for issuance of warrants of possession along with request of police aid.

Issue warrants of possession in regard to premises bearing i.e. 13A, 2nd Floor, Village Hauz Khas, New Delhi, on filing of PF as per site plan and affidavit as regards no stay by the higher courts. The concerned SHO is directed to render requisite police aid, if required. Bailiff is also at liberty to remove any obstruction or hindrance by way of locks etc. in the eventuality of the same. The warrants of possession shall be returnable by 31.03.2015.

The Decree Holder shall appear before Ld. ACJ (South) for appointment of bailiff on 04.03.2015.

precious* Sh. Rajiv Bhardwaj, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 5.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Fresh* 30.03.2015 Fresh suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered as per rules.

Present:     Sh. , Ld. counsel for plaintiff. 
             Heard. Considered.

Application under Section 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from service statutory notice under Section 80 upon defendant no. 1 alongwith affidavit placed on record.

Heard. Allowed due to urgency of the matter.

(Surya Malik Grover) SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/30.03.2015 interim* Today summons have been duly served upon defendant no. 1 by way of affixation.

Defendant no. 2 could not served as office was found to be closed.

Let fresh summons be issued to defendant no. 2 with direction to file status report on the next date of hearing, on filing of PF for the next date of hearing.

Defendant no. 2 and concerned SHO are directed to ensure the compliance of interim order.

Defendants are directed to file their WS within stipulated time with advance copy to be supplied to the opposite side.

..2..

Put up for reply/arguments on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for 05.06.2015.

Copy of order be given dasti to the plaintiff for supply to the defendant no. 2/SDMC as well as concerned SHO.

CS No. 34/15

Matrix Cellular Vs. Amit J. Bhalla 29.05.2015 Present: Sh. Abhinay Gupta, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.

I am satisfied that defendant has been duly served by way of affixation on 22.04.2015.

Arguments heard.

Put up for judgment at 4.00 pm. (Surya Malik Grover) SCJcumRC (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/29.05.2015 At 4.00 pm Present: None.

Vide my separate judgment pronounced in open court today, suit of plaintiff stands allowed.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Put up before Daily Continuous Lok Adalat ....... and before this court on..............

CS No. 22222/17

03.05.2014 Statement of Sh.....................

RO&AC by virtue of this order, appeal against order dated 28.01.2015 of Ld. Civil Judge02 Sh. Vishap Pahuja, is being disposed.

In a nutshell, it has been argued that appellant/plaintiff that matter was at the stage on PE and the plaintiff/appellant had already filed her evidence by way of affidavit and copy had been supplied to the other party. Further, the matter was transferred from the court of Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, Ld. Civil Judge to Sh. Vishal Pahuja, Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 30.09.2014 who then issued a notice to the plaintiff for 05.11.2014. Further, notice had been duly served upon the plaintiff Impex 01.10.2015 Ashish Singh, Ld. proxy counsel for DH S. K. Pal, Ld. counsel for objector alternative Plaintiff is directed to file fresh address of defendant or in the alternative affidavit qua correctness of address on the next date of hearing. 520* An application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC for service upon defendant by way of substituted mode has been moved on behalf of plaintiff.

Heard. Considered.

From the submissions and documents on record, I am satisfied that the defendant cannot be served upon his last known address by ordinary mode. Hence, the present application is allowed.

Let defendant be served by way of publication in newspaper "The Statesman" on filing of PF and on deposit of publication expenses for

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Anil Kumar Sharma vs . Sakha Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 3 March, 2016