Delhi District Court
( vs Anita Paul (Borrower) on 5 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR CCJ/ARC
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
SUIT No. 324/09
ICICI BANK LTD.
Having its Registered office at :
"Landmark", Race Course Circle ,
Vadodra 390007.
Having its Branch Office at :
Plot No. 7, S.D.Tower, ,
Sector 08, Rohini, New Delhi 110085.
Through its Authorised Representative ,
Mr. Ankur Khole
(PLAINTIFF)
Versus
Anita Paul (Borrower)
R/o WZ241 F/2, Second Floor, Inder Puri,
Delhi 110012
Raj Kumar Paul (CoBorrower)
R/o WZ241 F/2, Second Floor, Inder Puri,
Delhi 110012
(DEFENDANT)
Date of filing of suit : 19.02.2009
324/09 1
Date of reserving for orders : 05.11.2011
Date of pronouncement of orders : 05.11.2011
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Order I shall announce Exparte final judgment.
The facts of the case in brief is as under : The plaintiff is a bank and is a body incorporate under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The defendant approached and requested the plaintiff for grant of loan of Rs. 324,000.00/ for the purchase of a vehicle namely, 'INDICA' 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. 324,000.00/ was sanctioned . The defendant agreed to repay the said loan with interest in 58 equated installments of Rs. 7,515/ 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.
324/09 2
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 01.04.2011. Defendant was considered to be served as per law, however he did not appear despite service, therefore, as per the order dated 16.05.2011 he was proceeded Exparte.
3. Following issues have been framed for determination of exparte evidence .
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as prayed for, alongwith interest?
4. Plaintiff has examined only one witness in his ex parte evidence i.e. Authorised Representative Mr. Ashish Kaushal . Mr. Ashish Kaushal, AR of the plaintiff has stated that a loan of Rs. 324,000.00/ was sanctioned in the name of defendant for the security of the vehicle namely "INDICA" . This loan was to be paid in 58 equated installments of Rs. 7,515/ each. Various documents were executed in between the parties. The original credit facility agreement, is Ex. PW 1/2. Original deed of hypothication is Ex. PW 1/3. Irrevocable power of attorney is Ex. PW 1/4. Defendant has defaulted in repayment of 58 equated monthly installments , therefore, plaintiff bank has recalled the loan facility 324/09 3 available to defendant. A demand notice was also given to the defendant . The copy of the notice is Ex. PW 1/5. The certified statement of account has also been filed by the plaintiff which is Ex. PW 1/7. 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 Exparte . 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. 243,184.24/ 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 05.11.2011 CCJcumARC/NorthWest
Rohini Courts, Delhi
324/09 4
Suit No. 324/09
05.11.2011 Present : Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendant exparte.
Exparte final arguments heard.
Exparte 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) CCJcumARC/NorthWest Rohini Courts/Delhi 05.11.2011 324/09 5