Delhi District Court
Muhammad Nafees Bukhari vs Anil Kr. Mehta on 6 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE
CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS No. 639/2024
MUHAMMAD NAFEES BUKHARI
S/o M. Shafeeq Bukhari
2110-11, FF, Faseel Road,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002
Mobile no. 9910179111
Email ID: [email protected] ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR MEHTA
S/o Dwarka Nath Mehta,
R/o 27, Raj Nagar, Pitampura,
North West, Delhi-110034.
Also at: 525, Upper Ground Floor,
Sri Nagar Colony, North West Delhi-110034.
Office Address; 512, 5th Floor, D Mall
NSC, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
Email: [email protected]
Mobile/WhatsApp no. 9811208206 ...DEFENDANT
ORDER
1. The present suit has been filed under the provisions Order XXXVII CPC against the defendant seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs.
2. The suit has been maintained by the plaintiff and as per the suit, the defendant approached the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 7 Lacs for his business on 15.12.2022 and Cs no. 639/2024 Muhammad Nafees vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 1/5 with regard to the aforesaid loaned amount as a friendly loan, had executed a promissory note dated 15.12.2022 promised to pay the loaned amount of Rs. 7 Lacs on 15.03.2023 and had issued a cheque bearing no. 000075 dated 15.03.2023, the certified copy of which has also been placed on record. Upon depositing the said cheque by the plaintiff with his banker on 02.06.2023, the same was returned dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient vide return memo dated 06.06.2023. The plaintiff thereafter issued legal notice dated 27.06.2023. The aforesaid legal notice was issued at the following address i.e. 27, Raj Nagar, Pitampura, North West, Delhi-34. The aforesaid legal notice was also sent at the office address of the defendant i.e. 512, 5th floor, D Mall, NSP, Pitampura, Delhi-34 which has been returned back with the remarks doors closed. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of Rs. 7 Lacs i.e. the amount of the cheque.
3. The plaintiff in the plaint has given following three address of the defendant i.e. 27, Raj Nagar, Pitampura, North West, Delhi-110034, 525, Upper Ground Floor, Shrinagar Colony, North West Delhi-110034 and 512, 5th Floor, D Mall, NSC, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
4. Summons of the suit were issued upon all the three addresses of the defendant as furnished in the memo of parties by the plaintiff. The summons in the prescribed format could not be served upon the defendant on the ground that the defendant is no more staying at the addresses given in the memo of parties.
5. Vide order dated 30.09.2024, liberty was granted to the plaintiff to effect dasti service upon the defendant in the court of Sh. Rupender Singh Dhiman, Ld. JMIC, NI Act-06, Central, THC in complaint case pending against the defendant in the said Court.
6. Consequent upon service of summons by way of dasti service on 13.11.2024 before the court of Ms. Deshna Golichha, JMFC, NI Act-07, Central, THC, the defendant entered appearance in the present suit and furnished the following address Cs no. 639/2024 Muhammad Nafees vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 2/5 for service of summons for judgment : Anil Kumar Mehta, Son of Late Sh. Dwarka Nath Mehta, R/o House no. 525, Shri Nagar Colony, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034.
7. The aforesaid application under Order 37 Rule 3(1) CPC as filed by the defendant was duly accompanied with the affidavit of the defendant stating the said very address.
8. An application was filed by the plaintiff on 11.12.2024 seeking the issuance of summons for judgment upon the defendant at the furnished address by the defendant at the time entering appearance in the present matter.
9. The summons for judgments too as per the service report of the bailiff dated 26.12.2024 and RC report also dated 26.12.2024 could not be served upon the defendant on the ground that the defendant has left the aforesaid premises and has shifted to some other place long time ago.
10. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant has intentionally given the wrong address and the defendant in case of shifting from the address furnished at the time of entering appearance was duty bound to intimate the court about the new address at which the defendant had shifted and a delaying tactic is being adopted by the defendant to evade the lawful liability of the defendant.
11. Considering the fact that the defendant at the time of entering apperance in the present matter has furnished the address at which the summons for judgment were sought to be served and since deliberately a wrong address had been furnished by the defendant from which address the defendant had shifted long time ago as per the service report, the same is at the peril of the defendant. Perusal of the record shows that the original summons issued under Order 37 CPC could not be served upon the said very address on the ground that the defendant is not found at the said address.
12. It is pertinent to mention that the purpose of filing address at the stage of entering appearance is to ensure that the summons for judgment are served upon the defendant at the latest address as provided by the defendant so as to avoid passing of the decree in his absence. If the defendant intentionally furnishes such address on which he Cs no. 639/2024 Muhammad Nafees vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 3/5 cannot be served, he does so at his peril. Furnishing of address assumes additional importance if the summons of the suit are served by way of subsituted service.
13. Despite having entered appearance on 13.11.2024 on which date, the defendant gained knowledge about the factum of the present case, the defendant has not bothered to appear before the court till date.
"Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC provides that unless otherwise ordered, all summons, notices and other judicial processes, required to be served upon the defendant, shall be deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at the address given by him for such service.
Sub-rule(3) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC provides that on the day of entering appearance, notice of such appearance shall be given by the defendant to the plaintiff's pleader or, if the plaintiff sues in person, to the plaintiff himself, either by notice delivered at or sent by a prepaid letter directed to the address of the plaintiff's pleader or of the plaintiff, as the case may be. It is only after entering into such appearance that the plaintiff is required to serve on the defendant summons for judgment in form no. 4-A in appendix-B returnable not less than 10 days from the date of service supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating that none is proved as there is no defense to suit.
The past conduct of the defendant who was served by way of substitued service shows that he is evading service. This is fortified by the report of service for the summons for judgment.
Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC provides that the defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclose such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to be just. Sub Rule (6) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC provides that at the hearing of such summons for judgment, if the defendant has not applied for leave to defend, or if such application has been made and is refused, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith."
14. In the present suit, the defendant, despite having entered appearance has deliberately furnished wrong address knowing full well that he is not residing at the given address. The plaintiff by effecting service at the given address as furnished by the defendant is deemed to have served the defendant in accordance with the Cs no. 639/2024 Muhammad Nafees vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 4/5 judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Kishan Bharwany vs. V.P Aggarwal; (2002) 97 DLT 723 and also in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3(2) CPC which prescribes that unless otherwise ordered, all summons notices and other judicial processes, required to be served on the defendant shall be deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at their address given by him for such service. In the present suit, the conduct of the defendant is writ at large who has left no stone unturned to evade the service of the summons and has given an incorrect address at the time of entering appearance at which address also the defendant is not found on the ground of his having been shifted long time ago. Accordingly, in view of the plaintiff having taken steps to serve the defendant of the summons for judgment, who could not be found at the furnished address is accordingly deemed to have served the defendant in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3(2) CPC. The defendant till date despite having entered appearance on 13.11.2024 has failed to appear before the court nor has filed any leave to defend application within the prescribed period of 10 days in terms of Sub Rule 5 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum with cost till the date of realization.
15. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
17. File be consigned to record room after necessary due compliance.
Digitally signed by SACHINSACHIN SOOD SOOD Date:
2025.03.06 16:38:02 +0530 Announced in the Open Court Sachin Sood 06th March, 2025 DJ-01, Central, THC Delhi Cs no. 639/2024 Muhammad Nafees vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 5/5