Delhi District Court
Matrix Cellular (International) ... vs . Rajenedra Kumar Ratilal Shah on 18 February, 2014
Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajenedra Kumar Ratilal Shah
IN THE COURT OF MS SURYA MALIK GROVER
SCJ-CUM-RC (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 335/14
MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT. LTD.
07, Khullar Farms, 140, New Manglapuri,
Mandi Road, Mehrauli,
New Delhi - 110030. ........ PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJENEDRA KUMAR RATILAL SHAH
S/o Sh.Ratilal Bhikhabhai Shah,
R/o "Dwarika", Opp. Bharti Society,
New Market yard Road, Patan,
Gujarat-384265. ........ DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 14.11.2014
Date of reserving judgment : 18.02.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2015
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit file under Order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.5924/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from date of filing of suit till the date of actual realization.
2. The summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendant U/o 37 CPC in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC vide order dated Suit No. 335/14 Page 1 of 4 Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajenedra Kumar Ratilal Shah 14.11.2014. AD Card has been received duly signed and bearing stamp of 19.12.2014, defendant appears to be duly served on or about the said date. However, despite service, the defendant remained absent and did not put in his appearance within 10 days from the date of service.
3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record carefully.
4. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Co. registered under the Companies Act 1956. The suit has been filed by Sh. Binod Sinha, who is the duly constituted Attorney Holder of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company render international mobile phone services and the defendant had applied for international mobile connection. The defendant signed a statement and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement form dated 21.07.2011. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave international mobile connection to defendant bearing No. 7942852366 under agreement No. D0097362. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is outstanding amount of Rs.5,924/- due and payable by the defendant towards aforesaid mobile connection. The plaintiff company raised the invoices upon the defendant as per the ledger account and requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but the defendant failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 23.06.2014. Hence, the present suit.
Suit No. 335/14 Page 2 of 4Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajenedra Kumar Ratilal Shah
5. The suit is based on written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record copy of certificate of incorporation and copy of minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 03.04.2014, original agreement forms, copy of tariff plan, copy of account ledger of defendant, Certificate Section 65(B) (2) (B) of Indian Evidence Act alongwith copy of the itemized duplicate bills, copy of legal notice dated 23.06.2014, original speed post receipt, copy of passport, Visa & cash receipt. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation.
6. It is relevant here to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under:-
Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.
(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such services, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in court an address for service of notice on him.
Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.
(3)The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub- rule(1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time Suit No. 335/14 Page 3 of 4 Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajenedra Kumar Ratilal Shah to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.
7. In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendant makes default in entering his appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon him, the allegations as leveled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per AD Card, defendant stood served on or about 19.12.2014 since, then two months have elapsed and till date, no appearance has been entered into by the defendant. Accordingly the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.
8. In view of aforesaid discussions, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.5,924/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
9. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open (Surya Malik Grover) Court on 18.02.2015) SCJ-Cum-RC (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi Suit No. 335/14 Page 4 of 4