Delhi District Court
M/S Rama Enterprises vs Sh. Ram Gopal Yadav on 8 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF VASUNDHRA CHHAUNKAR,
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No:763/2022
M/s Rama Enterprises
Through its Partner:
Shri Raghunath Thakur
Office at: H-83, Raj Nagar-II,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110077 ........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Gopal Yadav
S/o Sh. Satyapal Singh
H. No.22 E, Kusum Pur Pahari,
New Delhi-110057.
M. No.8979157145, 7668694978.
(Defendant no.1 deleted vide order dated 08.06.2023)
2. Sh. Sukhbir
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
H. No.22 E, Kusum Pur Pahari,
New Delhi-110057.
M. No.9667875231 ........Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.06.2022
Date on which judgment was reserved: 08.06.2023
Date of pronouncing judgment : 08.06.2023
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.10,780/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTE-LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 2.5%
P.M.
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is for recovery of total sum of Rs.10,780/-
CS No.763/2022M/s Rama Enterprises Vs. Sukhbir & Anr. Page No. 1 of 5 alongwith interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 executed a loan agreement dated 11.01.2020 on the guarantee of the defendant no.2 with the plaintiff to get finance facility for Oppo Phone of Rs.12,500/-. The necessary documents including loan agreement and promissory note were executed and loan of Rs.12,500/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the defendant no.1. As per the said agreement, he agreed to pay total sum of Rs.14,010/- including interest at the agreed rate of interest towards the repayment of the said loan. The said amount was agreed to be repayable in 6 monthly equated installments of Rs.2,335/- each with effect from 11.01.2020. As per the said agreement, interest at the rate of 2.5% per month was agreed to be charged for delayed payment. As per the maintained books of accounts of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 had paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- till the date of institution of the present suit on 06.06.2022 and an amount of Rs.10,780/- (including outstanding balance of Rs.6,995/- and overdue interest till 15.02.2022 of Rs.3,785/-) was outstanding. Hence, the present suit for recovery of the said amount along with interest.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants and the same were duly served upon the defendant no.2. But despite service, defendant no.2 failed to appear. Hence, the defendant no.2 is hereby proceeded ex-parte. The defendant no.1 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 08.06.2023. The matter was proceeded ex-parte qua the defendant no.2 and the case was fixed for ex-parte plaintiff evidence.
CS No.763/2022M/s Rama Enterprises Vs. Sukhbir & Anr. Page No. 2 of 5
4. In ex-parte plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined its AR, Sh. Inderjeet Saroj. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath. Therefore, they are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. He has relied upon following documents:-
a) Copy of Partnership Deed is Ex.PW1/A (Colly) (OSR);
b) Registration Certificate of Firm is Ex.PW1/B (Colly) (OSR);
c) Authority Letter of AR is Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D;
d) Loan cum Hypothecation proposal form is Ex.PW1/E;
e) Hypothecation Loan Agreement is Ex.PW1/F;
f) Promissory Note is Ex.PW1/G;
g) Statement of account is Ex.PW1/H;
h) Copy of legal notice is Ex.PW1/I;
i) Postal receipt is Ex.PW1/J; and
j) Copy of Service ID Card of the defendant no.2 is Mark-
A. Thereafter, plaintiff's ex-parte PE is closed.
5. Final arguments are heard. Record perused.
6. The testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted. He has consistently, categorically and unequivocally testified that the defendant no.1 had availed aforesaid loan facility from the plaintiff. PW1 has proved Loan agreement Ex.PW-1/F and promissory note Ex.PW-1/G reflecting disbursal of aforesaid loan to the defendant no.1. He has also proved the statement of account of the said loan maintained with the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/H. In view of the aforesaid documents and testimonies of PW1, there exists no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, all the averments made in the plaint and documents placed on record are deemed to be admitted and CS No.763/2022 M/s Rama Enterprises Vs. Sukhbir & Anr. Page No. 3 of 5 hence, stand duly proved. By virtue of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 and the documents placed on record by him, I am satisfied that, on the date of institution of this suit, a total amount of Rs.10,780/- was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff towards the aforesaid loan.
7. The present suit is filed within the statutory limitation period. Further, the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as transaction between the parties took place within the jurisdiction New Delhi and the installment of HP amount were payable at Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Furthermore, since the value of the suit is less than Rs.3,00,000/-, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this case.
8. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 i.e. Sukhbir for the sum of Rs.10,780/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Only) alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10,780/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Only) from the date of filing of this suit till its realisation.
9. In respect of pendente lite and future interest, the plaintiff has claimed a interest @ 2.5 % per month. However, I am of the considered opinion that the said rate of interest is penal, exorbitant and unreasonable. The pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per annum would serve the ends of justice on the principle CS No.763/2022 M/s Rama Enterprises Vs. Sukhbir & Anr. Page No. 4 of 5 amount of Rs.10,780/-.
10. Cost of the suit is assessed as Rs.1199/- and it is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 i.e. Sukhbir.
Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court
on 08.06.2023 VASUNDHRA CHHAUNKAR
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CS No.763/2022
M/s Rama Enterprises Vs. Sukhbir & Anr. Page No. 5 of 5