Delhi District Court
Mr Umesh Kumar Arora vs Sh D K Kannan on 26 April, 2010
Suit No 334/09
Mr Umesh Kumar Arora Vs Sh D K Kannan
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) DELHI
(SUIT U/O XXXVII CPC )
Suit No 334/09
Mr Umesh Kumar Arora
S/o Mr Subhash Chand
R/o 96, Manav Vihar,
Sector 15,
Rohini, Delhi . ............... Plaintiff
Vs
Sh D K Kannan
S/o Mr M Dorai Raj
R/o 34D
CGHS Complex, Vasant Vihar ,
New Delhi 110057
IInd Address
D K Kannan
Assistant
Ministry of Coal & Mines ,
Government of India,
Khan Market, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi 110003
Identity Card No.B2051884 ........ Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 26.11.2009
Date of hearing final argument : 26.04.2010
Date of Judgement : 26.04.2010
1
Suit No 334/09
Mr Umesh Kumar Arora Vs Sh D K Kannan
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of present judgement, the court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the present suit under order XXXVII CPC filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of Rs.65,000/ alongwith interest pendentelite & future @ 18% per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation of decreetal amount.
2. Briefly stating the plaintiff is stated to having friendly relation with the defendant and on 03.01.08 the defendant approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs.20,000/ plaintiff being a good natured and helping person extended the loan to defendant considering the defendant is a government servant and working as Assistant with Ministry of Coal and Mines, Khan Market, New Delhi. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant again approached him on various occasions and plaintiff considering genuine need of defendant extended friendly loan of Rs.10,000/ on 07.11.08, Rs.15,000/ on 09.05.09 and Rs.20,000/ on 2 Suit No 334/09 Mr Umesh Kumar Arora Vs Sh D K Kannan 05.09.09 in cash and thus the plaintiff extended total friendly loan of Rs.65,000/ to the defendant. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 08.09.09 the plaintiff demanded back the loan amount from the defendant who in discharge of his liability issued as cheque in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.65,000/ bearing No.872531 dt 10.09.09 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Branch Khan Market, New Delhi and assured that the same shall be honoured on its presentation . It is further the case of the plaintiff that believing the promise of defendant plaintiff deposited the said cheque in his account No.30861079148 at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Delhi on 10.09.09 , but the plaintiff was shocked when the said cheque returned un paid due to 'insufficient funds' vide memo dated 12.09.09. It is further averred by the plaintiff that after the cheque was returned alongwith memo plaintiff approached the defendant for payment but defendant denied making the payment in lieu of dishonoured cheque for which the defendant is legally bound to pay the same to the plaintiff. The cause of action is stated to have arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on 03.01.08 when defendant approached for friendly loan and further arisen on 07.11.08, 09.05.09 and 05.09.09 when further loan was extended to the defendant and on 10.09.09 when a defendant issued a 3 Suit No 334/09 Mr Umesh Kumar Arora Vs Sh D K Kannan cheque No.872531 drawn on Syndicate Bank in favour of the plaintiff and lastly arose on 12.09.09 when the aforesaid cheque got dishonoured . Plaintiff has claimed that the defendant as such is liable to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/ alongwith future and pendentelite interest @ 18% per annum . Hence the present suit .
3. Since the suit is based on a cheque specifying liquidated sum and on a promissory note the same is accordingly covered within the purview of order XXXVII rule 2 of code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Summons for appearance in form 4 appendix B, CPC was issued to the defendant by the court vide order dated 08.03.2010. Defendant was served with the summons for appearance on 14.12.09.
5. Defendant has failed to enter his appearance within the stipulated period of 10 days as required under the law. In terms of rule 2 sub rule 3 of order XXXVII of the CPC, in case of default in not making the appearance within the stipulated period, the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. 4 Suit No 334/09
Mr Umesh Kumar Arora Vs Sh D K Kannan Accordingly suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendants and plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs.65,000/ against the defendant. Plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 18% per annum being commercial interest as same is just and equitable in view of section 34 of CPC and Provision of Interest Act on such amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its decree. In the specific fact and circumstances of the case plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit. Suit of plaintiff is accordingly decreed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due completion .
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DATED 26.04.2010 SCJ/RC(NORTH)DELHI
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT .
5