Delhi District Court
( vs Shamusuddeen Abdul Khader on 4 September, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR CCJ/ARC
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
SUIT No. 305/09
ICICI BANK LTD.
Through Mr. Anurodh Julius
Constituted Attorney
of the Bank having Registered Officer at :
"Landmark", Race Course Circle ,
Vadodra -390007.
Having its Branch Office at :
Plot No. 7, S.D.Tower, ,
Sector 08, Rohini, New Delhi -110085.
(PLAINTIFF)
Versus
Shamusuddeen Abdul Khader
S/o Abdul Khader
Katyals Manohar Kunj,
Gautam Nagar, Delhi 49
(DEFENDANT)
Date of filing of suit : 13.02.2009
Date of reserving for orders : 04.09.2010
Date of pronouncement of orders : 04.09.2010
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Order I shall announce Ex-parte final judgment .
305/09 1The facts of the case in brief is as under :-
The plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate and registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956. The defendant is a borrower and has approached the plaintiff for grant of loan of Rs. 3,40,000.00/- against this security of vehicle namely, 'WAGON/R LXI' under the loan cum hypothication scheme of the plaintiff. Defendant had entered into Credit Facility Application alongwith the terms and conditions for the said facility, deed of hypothication an irrevocable power of attorney with the plaintiff bank. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan in equated monthly installments with interest. Considering the requests of the defendant, the loan of Rs. 3,40,000.00/- was sanctioned . The defendant agreed to repay the said loan with interest in 59 equated installments of Rs. 7,245/- each. The vehicle in question purchased by the defendant was hypothicated in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant, however did not pay the installments in time. A legal notice was also given by the plaintiff , however no payment have been paid hence this suit.
2. The defendant was issued summons and was not served by way of normal process . He was therefore, directed to be served by way of publication as per the provision of order 5 Rule 20 CPC . The publication has been done in newspaper Veer Arjun dated 10.12.2009. Defendant was considered to be served as per law, however he did not appear despite service, therefore, as per the order he was proceeded Ex-parte.
3. Following issues have been framed for determination of ex-parte evidence .
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as prayed for, alongwith interest?
2. Any other relief?'
4. Plaintiff has examined only one witness in his ex-parte evidence i.e. Authorised Representative Mr. Ankur Khole. Mr. Ankur Khole, AR of the plaintiff 305/09 2 has stated that a loan of Rs. 3,40,000.00/- was sanctioned in the name of defendant for the security of the vehicle namely "WAGON R/LXI" . This loan was to be paid in 59 equated installments of Rs. 7,245/- each. Various documents were executed in between the parties. The original credit facility agreement is Ex. PW 1/1. Original deed of hypothication is Ex. PW 1/2. Irrevocable power of attorney is Ex. PW 1/3. Defendant has defaulted in repayment of 59 equated monthly installments , therefore, plaintiff bank has recalled the loan facility available to defendant. A demand notice dated 02.01.2009 was also given to the defendant . The certified statement of account has also been filed by the plaintiff which is Ex. PW 1/4. A true copy of the termination notice is Ex. PW 1/5. It is further stated by the AR of the plaintiff bank that no payment has been made which is outstanding due as per the statement of account.
5. Final arguments heard at length. Record perused thoroughly. From the perusal of the record it is already stated above that defendant is Ex-parte . The evidence led by the plaintiff is therefore, uncontroverted and duly corroborated. The suit is also shown by the plaintiff to be filed within the period of limitation. There is nothing on record from which contrary view can be taken against the plaintiff, therefore, the evidence led by the plaintiff is to be considered accordingly as per the law. The plaintiff, therefore, has been able to discharge the burden of proving the issue no. 1 in his favour. Issue no 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant. Thus, he is entitled for the decree . Therefore plaintiff is entitle for the recovery of Rs. 206599/- alongwith interest pendent lite & future @ 8% per annum till realisation alongwith cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Court (Prashant Kumar)
Dated 04.09.2010 CCJ-cum-ARC/North-West
Rohini Courts, Delhi
305/09 3
Suit No. 305/09
04.09.2010 Present : Sh. R.R.Srivastva, Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendant ex-parte.
Ex-parte final arguments heard.
Ex-parte final judgement is pronounced vide separate order sheet. Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Prashant Kumar) CCJ-cum-ARC/North-West Rohini Courts/Delhi 04.09.2010 305/09 4