Delhi District Court
Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. Lekh Raj Coli on 14 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS NITI PHUTELA: SCJ-RC JUDGE,
SAKET COURTS (SOUTH)
CS No.: 715/20
Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
252 A 1st Floor, Vijay Tower,
Shahpur Zat, New Delhi ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Lekh Raj Coli
S/o Sh. Khajan Singh
R/o 703, Gali no.3,
Dabua Colony, Faridabad
Haryana-121001 .... Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 06.11.2020
Date on which order was reserved : 14.09.2021(Pre-Lunch)
Date of decision : 14.09.2021(Post-Lunch)
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 27,000/- ALONG WITH
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.As per the plaint, plaintiff is a private limited company registered with Registrar of Companies under the Indian Company Act, 1956. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of contract business for the supply and installation of electrical equipments etc., and further carry out the work of electrical filtrations works. Sh K.K Sharma is duly CS no. 715//20 Page no.1 of 5 SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD. Vs. LEKH RAJ COLI authorized to represent the plaintiff in the present case.
2. As per plaintiff, defendant approached the plaintiff to work as a Sub contractor and defendant was appointed/posted to one of the sites of the plaintiff i.e. Amrita Hospital, Sec88, Faridabad, Haryana. MOU dtd 26.12.2019 was also executed between the parties.
3. Defendant agreed to carry out the works of subcontractor on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant was solely responsible for completion of work/project with the help of the resources. Plaintiff made available all kind of resources as and when required by the defendant. Total consideration of the aforementioned work was Rs.18,77,521/.
4. As per plaintiff, defendant have taken total quantity of wire measuring 7,400 meters from plaintiff for installation at aforesaid site. Defendant had installed wire measuring 5,311 meters. Balance quantity of 2,089 meters was short which is worth Rs. 27,000/.
5. Plaintiff enquired about the same and defendant told that he would reconcile the deficiency. Plaintiff had approached defendant several times but in vain. Plaintiff also requested to reconcile the quantity of wires vide email dtd 22.08.2020 but defendant did not do so.
6. Thus, legal notice dtd 04.09.2020 was issued by plaintiff. No reply to the same was filed by defendant despite receiving the same. Hence, the present suit has been filed by plaintiff praying for passing of decree for the amount of Rs. 27,000/ in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant along with interest @ 18 % PA from the date CS no. 715//20 Page no.2 of 5 SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD. Vs. LEKH RAJ COLI of filing of the suit till its realization
7. Summons of the suit were sent to defendant. However, he failed to appear. Hence, defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dtd 13.04.2021. Matter was listed for Exparte-PE.
8. However, Ld Counsel for plaintiff relied on judgment in case tiled Parsvnath Developers Limited vs Mr. Vikram Khosla, CS (COMM) 618/2019 & CM no. 8431/2020 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in which is was held as under:
"The question which arises is whether the plaintiff should be directed to lead ex-parte evidence. The Plaint having been verified and is also supported with affidavit / Statement of Truth on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant having been proceeded ex-parte no purpose would be served if the plaintiff was directed to lead ex- parte evidence. A Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. v. Satya Infra and Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del), has held as under:
"4. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination- in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction." "
Hence, going by the above said judgment, the present court dispensed with the requirement of recording of exparte evidence and CS no. 715//20 Page no.3 of 5 SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD. Vs. LEKH RAJ COLI proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments addressed by Ld Counsel for plaintiff. Heard. Record perused.
FINDINGS
10.In order to support his case, plaintiff relied upon copy of certificate of incorporation, copy of board resolution dtd 03.10.2020, copy of MOU dtd 26.12.2019, copy of e-mail dtd 22.08.2020, copy of summary accounts and copy of legal notice dtd 04.09.2020.
11.The registration form of sub-contractor and MOU dtd 26.12.2019 reflect that defendant applied for working as Sub-contractor under the plaintiff. The MOU bears signatures of both the parties. No payment was allegedly made, despite receiving the e-mail and legal notice.
12.The defendant has not appeared even once, in order to rebut the averments of the plaintiff in the plaint which are supported with affidavit. Under these circumstances, there is no reason not to rely upon the unrebutted and uncontroverted oral and documentary averments of plaintiff alleged in the plaint and supporting documents.
13.Hence, plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 27,000/- which is claimed by it.
14.Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% p.a from the date of filing the CS no. 715//20 Page no.4 of 5 SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD. Vs. LEKH RAJ COLI suit till realization. In the opinion of this court the interest claimed is excessive. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum.
15.Hence, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for sum of Rs. 27,000/- along with pendente-lite interest and future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till realization, payable by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Costs of the suit are granted in favour of plaintiff.
16.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally
signed by
17.File be consigned to record room after due compliance. NITI
NITI PHUTELA
PHUTELA Date:
2021.09.15
16:17:50
+0530
Announced through VC ( NITI PHUTELA)
on this 14.09.2021 SCJ/RC Judge (South)
Saket Courts, Delhi.
CS no. 715//20 Page no.5 of 5
SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD. Vs. LEKH RAJ COLI