Delhi District Court
Kiran Engineering Works vs Contass Instruments on 2 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MEENU KAUSHIK
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-RENT CONTROLLER,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
New Suit No. 142/20
CNR No: DLNW030003192020
Kiran Engineering Works
Through its Prop.
Sh. Vicky Kumar,
504, Pratap Vihar,
Part-2, Kirari Suleman Nagar,
Delhi-110086
....Plaintiff
Vs
Contass Instruments
Through its Proprietor
Smt. Sanyogita Hasija
2172/5, Shadi Khampur,
Main Road, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
...Defendant
Date of institution : 28.01.2020
Date of judgment : 02.03.2022
Decision : Ex-Parte Decreed.
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.Present suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs.36,080/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
2. Case of plaintiff is that plaintiff firm is involved in the business of trading different type of soil testing instruments and Kiran Engineering Works vs. Contass Instruments Suit No.142/20 Page no. 1/4 having business terms with the defendant. The plaintiff supplied the soil testing instruments to the defendant amount to Rs.66,080/- against which defendant issued one cheque bearing No. 000019 dated 07.08.2019 for a sum of Rs.66,080/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. Plaintiff presented the said cheque but the same returned unpaid with remarks 'insufficient funds'. The plaintiff informed the defendant about the cheque on which defendant made part payment of Rs.30,000/- and assured to make the remaining balance payment within short period, however, defendant failed to make payment of remaining balance amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 23.11.2019 which was duly served upon the defendant, however, despite service of the same, defendant neither replied it nor return any money to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
3. During pendency of the case, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff made statement for treating the present suit as ordinary recovery suit. Accordingly, vide order dated 04.02.2021, present suit has been treated as ordinary suit for recovery.
4. Summons in the present suit were sent to the defendant, however, despite service defendant failed to appear in the Court and accordingly, vide order dated 30.10.2021, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case has examined Sh. Vicky Kiran Engineering Works vs. Contass Instruments Suit No.142/20 Page no. 2/4 Kumar as PW-1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and has relied upon the documents i.e. certified copy of original cheque bearing no.000019 dated 07.08.2019 Ex. PW1/A, certified copy of original cheque return memo Ex. PW1/B, true copy of legal notice Ex. PW1/C, certified copy of original postal receipt Ex. PW1/D and copy of his ID proof Mark A. Thereafter the ex parte plaintiff evidence closed.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the complete record file.
7. PW-1/Vicky Kumar has categorically deposed in his evidence that plaintiff is having business dealing with the defendant and delivered the goods for total amount of Rs.66,080/- as per the order placed by the defendant and the defendant made part payment of Rs.30,000/- after the cheque issued by defendant for Rs.66,080/- got dishonoured. It is further deposed that thereafter defendant failed to make payment of balance amount of Rs.36,080/- despite service of legal notice.
8. Since the defendant has already been proceeded ex-parte in this matter, ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff remains uncontroverted and unchallenged, hence, the court finds no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff witness. Oral and documentary ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff deserves to be accepted on its face value. In view of the un-rebutted and Kiran Engineering Works vs. Contass Instruments Suit No.142/20 Page no. 3/4 unchallenged oral and documentary ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove the case as set up in the plaint and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree.
9. The suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.36,080/- is decreed. Plaintiff is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 28.01.2020 till realization.
10. If any payment is ever made by defendant to the plaintiff with respect to the transaction in question then the same shall be deducted from the decreetal amount.
11. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK
KAUSHIK Date:
Announced in open court 2022.03.02
16:50:39 +0530
on 02.03.2022
(MEENU KAUSHIK)
SCJ CUM RC, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURT/DELHI
Kiran Engineering Works vs. Contass Instruments Suit No.142/20
Page no. 4/4