Delhi District Court
Abhishek Sharma vs Navaratan Madanlal on 24 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH.PRASHANT KUMAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CENTRAL-01
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO. 615490/2016
Abhishek Sharma
S/o Rakesh Sharma
R/o 58L, Sect-4,
Diz area, Raza Bazar,
New Delhi-110001. ...............Plaintiff
Versus
Navaratan Madanlal
S/o Madan Lal
R/o 1/7, T. H. Road,
M.r. Nagar, Kodungaiyur,
Chennai-600118
Tamil Nadu ............Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 13.08.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 24.09.2019
Date of decision : 24.09.2019
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,54,000/-
EX - PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The facts in brief are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.3,54,000/- against the defendant alleging that plaintiff is running an export company of soil testing equipments namely Pooja Interprises and in March 2014 he closed the same. In 2013, defendant met plaintiff in Delhi and requested to help CS No. 615490/2016 1/6 him to import LED sets from Bangkok to Chennai (India). On several occasions, defendant called plaintiff to his house and both of them became the part of the occasions. After some time, defendant asked for financial assistance/help of Rs 4 Lakhs urgently for his sister's son marriage and promised the plaintiff to repay it within 45 days. On good faith, plaintiff took bank loan of Rs 2 Lakhs after mortgaging his sisters gold ornaments, on which bank approved only Rs 1,85,000/- which was transferred on 13.03.2014 in the bank account of the defendant i.e. Account no 914020005302118, Axis Bank, Branch Vepery, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. After 45 days, defendant made part payment of Rs 46,000/- in two installments and thereafter, started avoiding the phone calls of the plaintiff. Subsequently, plaintiff was compelled to serve legal notice on 25.04.2013 upon the defendant to which defendant paid no heed and no payment was made. Hence, the present suit.
2. Vide order dated 18.08.2017, the present suit was dismissed in default for non prosecution.
3. Thereafter, Ld counsel for plaintiff has filed an application under order IX Rule 4 r/w Section 151 CPC. Defendant was served through E-mail & Whatsapp and on 12.11.2018 Ld counsel for plaintiff has filed an affidavit for service upon the defendant by wasy of E-mail and Whatsapp. However, despite deemed service, defendant did not enter appearance to contest the present suit. Vide order dated 21.01.2019, Ld Predecessor of this court has CS No. 615490/2016 2/6 restored the present suit and the defendant was proceeded Ex Parte.
4. In order to prove its case, plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1, who tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW1/A, reiterating the contents of the plaint, the same is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. In his testimony the following documents were exhibited :-
S No Nature of documents Exhibited as
1 Statement of account of the plaintiff Mark A
2 Legal notice alongwith envelop Ex.PW1/2
3 Original cheque bearing no 18577 Ex. PW 1/3
alongwith return memo dated 03.11.2014
4 Original cheque bearing no 18576 Ex. PW 1/4
alongwith return memo dated 17.11.2014
5 Police complaint dated 06.08.2014. Ex. PW 1/5
5. Thereafter, ex-parte PE was closed vide order dated 04.07.2019 consequent upon the statement of the plaintiff.
6. Final arguments were duly adduced by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. I have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the evidence on record carefully. My findings are as under:
7. At the outset, it is noteworthy to mention that despite service neither did the defendant enter appearance nor filed any written CS No. 615490/2016 3/6 statement on his behalf to defend the present suit. Also, no evidence has been adduced by the defendant to subvert the averments made by the plaintiff in the present case. Thus, the onus was upon the plaintiff to prove its case as it is a settled proposition of law that the case of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs irrespective of the defence of the defendant.
8. In order to prove its case, plaintiff has placed on record various documents. In order to show his bonafide plaintiff has placed on record the two original cheques bearing no 18577 dated 03.11.2014 and 18576 dated 17.11.2014 duly exhibited as EXPW1/3 and EX PW1/4. In order to prove that the financial assistance/help was availed by the defendant from the plaintiff vide document EX PW 1/1 i.e. Statement of account of the plaintiff.
9. It is further alleged that the defendant defaulted in repayment of that financial assistance/help availed from the plaintiff, thus, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 25.04.2013, demanding the due amount from the defendant. The same is duly exhibited as ExPW1/2 which was duly served upon the defendant. It is a settled proposition of law that, if a party despite service of legal notice chooses not to reply to the same, the averments of the notice stands admitted.
10. Plaintiff in order to substantiate its case has further placed on CS No. 615490/2016 4/6 record the statement of account maintained by him which is duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. Thus, by placing the said document on record, plaintiff has duly proved the burned placed upon him beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Thus, on the basis of the conjoint and cumulative appraisal of evidence made as above, it can be stated that, the testimony of PW-1 has remained unrebutted, unblemished and uncontroverted as the defendant did not appear to contest the present suit. Moreover, the testimony of PW-1 is on oath and the same has gone unchallenged and unblemished by the defendant. Therefore, the possibility of doubting the testimony of PW-1 stands negated. Also, by placing on record various documents, the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. It is also noteworthy to mention that the suit filed by the plaintiff is very much within the period of limitation as the financial assistance/help is dated 13.03.2014 and the present suit has been filed on 13.08.2014.
12. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that on the basis of oral version of PW-1 supported by requisite documents, the plaintiff has been able to discharge the burden of proving its case against the defendant. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed for a sum of Rs.3,54,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand only) alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization alongwith costs of the CS No. 615490/2016 5/6 suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities.
Announced in the open court (PRASHANT KUMAR) on 24th September, 2019. ADJ-01/ Central District Tis Hazari Court/Delhi CS No. 615490/2016 6/6