Delhi District Court
Sh. Ankit Goyal vs Sh. Deepak Shyam Lal Sundrani on 13 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA,
SCJ CUM RC (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of :
Sh. Ankit Goyal
Proprietor of M/s. Ankit Plastic Industries
Office at H1368, DSIDC,
Narela, Delhi110040
Through:
Special Power of Attorney Holder
Sh. Bharat Bhushan Dall
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Dall
aged about 63 years ........... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Deepak Shyam Lal Sundrani
Proprietor of Asara Footwear,
CS No. 1733, Shop No. 11,
Gajanan Market, Gandhi Nagar,
Kolhapur416119, Maharashtra
Also at:
+918552864184
+919021941976
+919075705959 .......... Defendant
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNT030012392020
Case No. 573/2020
Under Section Recovery of Rs. 1,57,348/
Date of Institution 29.08.2020
Date of Final Order 13.12.2021
Final Order Decree
BRIEF FACTS
The present suit is for recovery of Rs. 1,57,348/ alongwith CS No. 573/2020 Ankit Goyal Vs. Deepak Shyam Lal Sundrani 1/4 pendent lite and future interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
1. Succinctly stated facts as mentioned in the plaint are as under: Plaintiff is manufacturer and seller of footwear throughout India and defendant is in business of sale and purchase of footwear. For the business requirements, defendant approached the plaintiff to avail his services/footwear. Upon representations and assurances given by the defendant, plaintiff agreed to provide footwear as per demands of defendant. Defendant also assured the plaintiff that payment of footwear would be processed at a very fast pace and he was agreed with the terms of invoices. As per assurance of defendant, plaintiff made timely delivery of the products after issuance of invoices. In the ordinary course of business, plaintiff maintained a running account in the name of defendant's firm namely Asara Footwear. Since the inception of the business, defendant was erratic in making the payment and as per account, maintained by the plaintiff in the name of defendant's firm, on 11.02.2020 amount of Rs. 1,44,356/ was outstanding. Upon the repeated requests made by the plaintiff, defendant issued one cheque bearing No. 186037 in favour of plaintiff and when the said cheque was presented for encashment by the plaintiff, same got dishonoured vide returning memo dated 11.02.2020. Plaintiff made several requests to defendant to make the payment of outstanding amount but of no avail. Thereafter, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 01.07.2020 to defendant which was duly served and replied by the defendant but of no avail. Hence, the present suit.
2. The summons were issued to the defendant which were duly served on 26.11.2020, however, none had appeared on behalf of defendant and accordingly, defendant was proceeded exparte.
CS No. 573/2020 Ankit Goyal Vs. Deepak Shyam Lal Sundrani 2/4
3. In ex parte evidence, SPA of plaintiff examined himself as PW1 via affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He also proved Ex. PW 1/1 as Special Power of Attorney, Ex. PW1/2 as statement of account/ledger, Ex. PW1/3 as certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW1/4 as invoices (colly), Ex. PW1/5 as cheque bearing No. 186037, Ex. PW1/6 as legal notice, Ex. PW1/7 as courier receipt, Ex. PW1/8 as tracking report and Ex. PW1/9 as reply to legal notice.
4. He has not been crossexamined since the defendant remained exparte.
5. I have heard the final arguments and perused the judicial record.
6. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not repay the outstanding balance amount. The abovesaid fact has been duly proved by the plaintiff with statement of ledger account/ledger, invoices, cheque bearing No.186037 and legal notice, courier receipt, tracking report and reply to legal notice.
7. As defendant was already proceeded ex parte and the PW1 was not cross examined, hence, the averments of the plaint remained intact, unchallenged and uncontroverted.
8. The suit is within the period of limitation as well as within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
CS No. 573/2020 Ankit Goyal Vs. Deepak Shyam Lal Sundrani 3/4
9. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,57,348/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. Although, plaintiff has prayed for 24% per annum interest but that seems to be an exorbitant rate.The plaintiff is also awarded the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
Announced in the Open Court on 13.12.2021 RANA Date: 2021.12.13
14:44:32 +0530
(DHIRENDRA RANA)
SCJcumRC(North), Rohini,
Delhi/13.12.2021
CS No. 573/2020 Ankit Goyal Vs. Deepak Shyam Lal Sundrani 4/4