Bangalore District Court
Smt. Meghana Chugh vs Smt. Sulochana Balakrishna on 12 April, 2018
C.R.P.67] Government of Karnataka
Form No.9
(Civil) Title Sheet for
Judgement in
Suits
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-16)
AT BENGALURU
Present: Sri Subramanya N., B.A.L, LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
Bengaluru.
Dated on this the 12th April 2018
S.C. No.744/2017
Plaintiff Smt. Meghana Chugh,
Aged 36 years,
W/o Bharat Satram,
No.12, 1st cross,
Behind Janardhan Hotel,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Represented by
Sri Satram Amarchand,
S/o Late Amarchand,
Aged 63 years,
(By Sri Vijayakumar M. Advocate)
Vs.
Defendant Smt. Sulochana Balakrishna,
Major, W/o T. Balakrishna,
Venkat International Public School,
66th cross, 5th block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore- 560 010.
R/at No.987, 11th main road, 3rd block,
3rd stage, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore - 560 079.
(Sri Praveen Kumar Muguli, Advocate)
Date of Institution of : 26-04-2017
suit:
2 (SCCH-16) S.C. 744/2017
Nature of the suit: : Recovery of money
Date of commencement :
of recording of the 27-11-2017
evidence
The date of pronounce- : 12-04-2018
ment of Judgment
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 11 16
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed to recover money from the defendant together with interest.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the defendant and her husband are running schools called "Venkat International Public School" and "Vishwabharathi Vidya Mandir". For her personal and domestic necessities, the defendant approached the plaintiff known to her and borrowed a sum of Rs.59,200/- on 03-05-2014. To repay this amount, the defendant issued two post dated cheques dated 22-05-2014 and 26-05-2014 for Rs.30,000/- and Rs.29,200/-, respectively, in favour of the plaintiff drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank. After issuance of the cheques, the defendant requested the plaintiff not to present them for encashment as there was shortage of funds in her account. So the plaintiff did not present the cheques accordingly. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant went on postponing the payment of cheque amount 3 (SCCH-16) S.C. 744/2017 on one or the other pretext. When such being the state of affairs, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 06-08-2016, calling upon the defendant to pay the loan amount with interest. Despite service of the notice, the defendant did not come forward to comply with the demand made therein. From the date of cheques till 22-04-2017, the defendant was liable to pay Rs.20,650/- towards interest. But, this amount and the notice charges are relinquished by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.15,200/- with interest. Hence this suit is filed.
3. Pursuant to the summons, the defendant appeared before the court through her advocate and filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. She has denied the entire averments of the plaint. Her defence is that she has not borrowed any sum from the plaintiff for any purpose and at no point of time she has issued the alleged cheques. Further she has contended that the suit is barred by limitation. For these reasons she has prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff has examined its power of attorney holder as PW1 and got marked 11 documents. The defendant has not adduced rebuttal evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to address arguments.
4 (SCCH-16) S.C. 744/2017
6. On hearing the arguments and on going through the materials on record, the following points arise for the determination of the court.
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant borrowed hand loan of Rs.59,200/- and for the repayment of this amount she issued two cheques for Rs.30,000/- and Rs. 29,200/- respectively?
2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim with interest as prayed for?
4) What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.3 : In the affirmative Point No.4 : As per final order REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: The GPA holder of plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. His evidence is nothing but replica of the plaint averments. In support of his evidence, documents which have been marked as exhibits are relied upon. It is evident from Ex.P-1 that on 24-04-2017, the plaintiff executed power of attorney authorizing her father-in- law/PW1 to prosecute the suit and give evidence. Ex.P2 and 5 (SCCH-16) S.C. 744/2017 Ex.P3 are the cheques dated 22-05-2014 and 26-05-2014. The contents of these documents indicate that they have been issued in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.29,200/- respectively. The defendant has not disputed the signature found thereon. Hence, as per Sec.118 of NI Act it has to be presumed that these cheques have been issued for consideration.
9. The plaintiff has issued legal notice (Ex.P4) calling upon the defendant to pay Rs.59,200/- with interest at 12% per annum. The postal acknowledgment Ex.P6 confirms the service of the notice to the defendant. The oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, would prove that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.59,200/- and to repay this amount she issued the cheques. But the defendant has not challenged and disputed the case put forth by the plaintiff by cross-examining PW1. Moreover, she has not chosen to lead rebuttal evidence to disprove plaintiff's case. Therefore, I have no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. Consequently, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
10. POINT NO.2: This suit is filed based on the cheques to recover certain sum due by the defendant. The date of cheques is 25-06-2014 and 22-05-2014, respectively. As per article 35 the limitation to recover the money due under the cheque is 3 years from the date of cheque. This suit has been filed on 26-04-2017. Therefore I am of the considered opinion 6 (SCCH-16) S.C. 744/2017 that this suit is within time. As such Point No.2 is answered in the negative.
11. POINT NO.3: The plaintiff has been successful in establishing her case. Therefore, she is absolutely entitled to recover a sum of Rs.59,200/-. In this case the current and future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is claimed. Of course there is no contract in respect of payment of the interest. However as per Sec.80 of NI Act, interest at 18% per annum may be awarded. Therefore, I answer Point No.3 in the Affirmative.
12. POINT No.4: As the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
It is ordered and decreed that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.59,200/- with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of April 2018) (Subramanya N.), X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
7 (SCCH-16) S.C. 744/2017 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
PW1 Sri Satram Amarchand List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Special Power of Attorney
Ex.P2 Cheque
Ex.P2(a) The signature of the defendant
Ex.P3 Cheque
Ex.P3(a) The signature of the defendant
Ex.P4 Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P5 2 postal receipts
Ex.P6 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P7 Postal envelope
Ex.P7(a) Notice inside Ex.P7
Ex.P8 Final reminder
Ex.P9 2 postal receipts
Ex.P10 Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P11 Postal Acknowledgment
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
None List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (Subramanya N.), X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.