Delhi District Court
Suresh Kumar vs Satish Kumar on 23 September, 2023
In the Court of Ms. Paridhi Sharma, Judge Small Causes Court
cum Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Guardian Judge, South
East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CNR No. : DLSE03-001278-2023
Suresh Kumar versus Satish Kumar
a) Civil Suit No. : 655/23
b) Name & address of plaintiff : Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Veer Singh.
R/o 39-B, Nangli Razapur,
Nizamuddin, New Delhi-
110013.
c) Name & address of defendant: Satish Kumar
S/o Mr. Jaipal
R/o 46, Nangli Razapur,
Near Sarai Kale Khan,
Nizamuddin East, New
Delhi-110013.
Date of Institution : 03.06.2023
Judgment pronounced on : 23.09.2023
Civil suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along-with
pendent-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of the CS SCJ 655/23 Suresh Kumar v. Satish Kumar Page No. 1 of 4 borrowed amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18 % per annum.
2. Succinctly, the case of the plaintiff is that on 29.07.2016, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant borrowed a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 10.03.2017 from the plaintiff on account of personal requirement. It is averred that the defendant assured the plaintiff that he shall repay the borrowed amount however, the defendant failed to keep his promise. It is further stated that upon the insistence of the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque bearing no. 806692 dated 27.03.2023 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the said cheque got dishonored upon presentation with the remarks 'funds insufficient' and was returned unpaid to the plaintiff vide return memo dated 27.03.2023. Aggrieved by the failure of the defendant to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff allegedly sent a legal demand notice to the defendant on 25.04.2023. However, the defendant neither replied to the said notice nor paid the loan amount to the plaintiff, compelling the latter to approach this court with the instant suit.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant vide order dated 05.08.2023. Summons sent to the defendant were received back with the report that the wife of the defendant refused to accept the same. Accordingly, the defendant was deemed to have been served with the summons vide order of even date. It was observed vide the said order that the service to defendant was duly completed. As per the record, no appearance under Order XXXVII CPC has been filed by the defendant. The statutory period for filing the appearance under Order XXXVII CPC has already expired. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has CS SCJ 655/23 Suresh Kumar v. Satish Kumar Page No. 2 of 4 thus, prayed that the suit be decreed in terms of Order XXXVII CPC on account of non-appearance of the defendant.
4. Heard. Perused. Considered.
5. The plaintiff, in order to corroborate the claims, has placed reliance upon the original cheque bearing no. 806692 dated 27.03.2023 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- which has been issued by the defendant, return memo dated 27.03.2023, legal notice dated 25.04.2023. Proof of delivery of legal notice has also been filed.
6. It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.R.P. No.42/2019 titled as 'M/s S.S. Steel Industry Vs M/s Shri Guru Hargobind Steels decided on 05.09.2019' that once the summons for appearance have been duly served upon the defendant under Order XXXVII CPC, the only concomitant result would be for the averments in the plaint to be deemed as admitted and for the suit to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, when the defendant fails to enter appearance as per procedure.
7. Despite service, the defendant has failed to put up an appearance within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the facts, as averred in the plaint in view of Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC, are deemed to have been admitted by the defendant and the plaintiff is held entitled to a decree in terms of the said provision.
8. The suit is accordingly, decreed under Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along-with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
CS SCJ 655/23 Suresh Kumar v. Satish Kumar Page No. 3 of 4 The court does not deem it fit to grant interest at the rate of 18 % per annum as the same is excessive.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Paridhi Sharma JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:23.09.2023 CS SCJ 655/23 Suresh Kumar v. Satish Kumar Page No. 4 of 4