Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

M/S Mtandt Rentals Limited vs Jai Pranav Construction Pvt. Ltd on 18 March, 2024

            IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE­01, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
                       KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Presided By : Aakash Mohan Singh, DJS

Civil Suit No: 73/2017

M/s. MT AND T Rentals Ltd.
Regd. Office at : 62/2B, New No.99,
Old No.144, Padur Village, Poonamalle Taluk,
Thiruvallur District, Chennai - 602105.
Regional Office at :­ A­34/1, Site­4,
industrial Area, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, UP­201010.                                                     ... Plaintiff
                                      Versus
Jaypranav Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors,
Regd. Office at : No.2/1A, Valliammal Nagar,
Kanniyamman Kovil Road,
Vanagaram, Chennai. Tamil Nadu ­ 600095.
Also at : No.11/219, Imayam Colony,
2nd St., Anna Nagar West Extn.,
Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu ­ 600101.
Also at : No.6/Na, Avadi Road,
1st Cross St., Karayansavadi,
Avadi Road, Poonamalle Taluk,
Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu ­ 600101.                                         ... Defendant

                   SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,66,622/­ ALONGWITH
                   PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 18%
                   PER ANNUM.

                                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.01.2017
                                                    DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 18.03.2024
                                                            DATE OF DECISION : 18.03.2024




Civil Suit No.73/2017
M/s. MT AND T Rentals Ltd. v Jaypranav Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.1 of 6
                                                     JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.1,66,622/­ (Rupees One Lac Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Two only) along with costs, pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum till its realization.

2. In order to justify the recovery of aforesaid money from the defendant, the plaintiff has inter­alia pleaded in the plaint of this suit that the plaintiff is a limited company and deals in renting of machinery/equipments; that as per the requirement of the defendant with regard to the work at height services for its project, the plaintiff had sent a quotation bearing reference no.SQ_14000167 dated 03.02.2015, SQ_14001749 dated 12.03.2015; that upon receipt of quotations, the defendant had issued corresponding work orders dated 002/JP/MTANDT, 003/JP/MTANDT, 004/JP/MTANDT and 008/JP/MTANDT, the said work orders were pertaining to description of equipment mentioned in the quotations; that in respect of the said orders, the plaintiff had raised various bills for a total sum of Rs.2,85,028/­; that an amount of Rs.1,19,328/­ was remained outstanding as per the invoices raised by the plaintiff; that during the use of said machinery by the defendant, owing to the damage, a damage invoice was also raised for a sum of Rs.47,294/­; that the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the total outstanding amount of Rs.1,66,622/­ and that the present suit is within the period of limitation and within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Perusal of order sheet shows that summons were ordered to be issued against the defendant on 02.02.2017; that the defendant was served on Civil Suit No.73/2017 M/s. MT AND T Rentals Ltd. v Jaypranav Construction Pvt. Ltd.

13.06.2022 and on 05.07.2022 respectively; that despite service, neither the defendant appeared nor filed any written statement on record; that thereafter, the right of the defendant to file its WS was closed vide order dated 14.03.2023 and that thereafter, the matter was adjourned for recording of plaintiff's evidence.

4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined one witness viz. PW1 Sh. Lokesh Kumar. PW1 Sh. Lokesh Kumar has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the documents viz. board resolution dated 12.10.2023 Ex.PW1/1, board resolution dated 18.06.2019 Ex.PW1/2, copy of lease deed dated 01.06.2012 Ex.PW1/3(OSR), photocopy of lease deed dated 18.11.2016 Mark PW1/4, copy of sub lease deed dated 18.11.2016 Ex.PW1/5(OSR), Copy of e­NCR/e­FIR dated 08.08.2023 Ex.PW1/6, printout/copy of Master Data Ex.PW1/7, copy of computer generated quotations Ex.PW1/8 (colly)(10 pages), photocopy of purchase orders Mark PW1/9(colly)(4 pages), photocopy of invoices Mark PW1/10 (colly)(21 pages), statement of account w.e.f. 01.04.2012 to 23.09.2016 Ex.PW1/11 and copies e­mail communications with the defendant Ex.PW1/12.

5. I had heard Sh. Samyak Raj, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff in the morning i.e. 18.03.2024. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimony of PW1 Sh. Lokesh Kumar and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for.

M/s. MT AND T Rentals Ltd. v Jaypranav Construction Pvt. Ltd.

6. After considering the submissions made by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the record of the Court file, I find that the present suit is within the pecuniary, territorial and subject matter jurisdiction of this Court and has been filed within the period of limitation as the plaintiff had allegedly lastly raised a bill on 26.09.2015 and the present suit has been instituted on 18.01.2017 which is within the period of three years of limitation. Further, I find that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit because the defendant had made a part payments within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and further that the jurisdiction of this Court was agreed to vide Ex.PW1/8.

7. Since the burden of proof in a civil litigation is preponderance of probabilities and the defendant has not come forward to put its version, the version of the plaintiff appears more probable especially in view of the fact that it has remained unrebutted and unimpeached. The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.PW1/11 i.e. the account statement in order to show the liability of the defendant to the tune of Rs.1,19,328/­. The said account statement also reveals part payments made by the defendant thereby acknowledging part liability. As far as the photocopy of purchase order and invoice Mark PW1/9 and Mark PW1/10 respectively are concerned, the plaintiff has lead Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 in order to show the shifting of the office of the plaintiff thereby pleading the loss of the originals of Mark PW1/9 and PW1/10. He has also relied upon the judgment of Pawan Kataria v Ardeep Kumar Batta, CM(M) No.789/2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide para no.9 & 10 wherein it has been held that where a factual foundation has been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is permissible for the Court to allow a party to adduce Civil Suit No.73/2017 M/s. MT AND T Rentals Ltd. v Jaypranav Construction Pvt. Ltd.

secondary evidence. Under the circumstances, the shifting of the office of the plaintiff evidenced by Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 along with the part payments made by the defendant vide Ex.PW1/11, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to lay a factual foundational matrix thereby showing the loss of the originals. Also, the defendant has been shown to be in active communication with the plaintiff vide e­mails Ex.PW1/12. Further, the plaintiff has also led the evidence of Sh. Lokesh Kumar as PW1 who has deposed in line with the plaint. Perusal of his testimony reveals the same to be credible and trustworthy and nothing contrary has come on record to impeach his veracity and therefore, the same can be relied upon. Accordingly, the evidence led vide Mark PW1/9 and Mark PW1/10 is hereby read as permissible secondary evidence as per Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Most importantly, since the defendant has failed to rebut the claim of the plaintiff despite his due service, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the claim is based upon copy of computer generated quotations Ex.PW1/8 (colly)(10 pages), photocopy of purchase orders Mark PW1/9(colly)(4 pages), photocopy of invoices Mark PW1/10 (colly)(21 pages), statement of account w.e.f. 01.04.2012 to 23.09.2016 Ex.PW1/11 and copies e­mail communications with the defendant Ex.PW1/12 by which the accrued liability of the defendant stands duly proved to the tune of Rs.1,19,328/­. However, vide the present suit, the plaintiff has sought a recovery of a sum of Rs.1,66,622/­ which includes Rs.47,294/­ as a damage invoice. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led qua the said damage invoice ad therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the said liability of the defendant of Rs.47,294/­ as claimed vide the present plaint.

M/s. MT AND T Rentals Ltd. v Jaypranav Construction Pvt. Ltd.

8. Therefore, the relief sought by the plaintiff, can be granted in view of the fact that the plaintiff has been able to prove its claim by leading cogent evidence in support of its claim.

9. With respect to quantum of interest, I find that in the prayer clause, the plaintiff have sought pendente­lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Since it is a pre­agreed rate of interest vide Mark PW1/10, pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum is hereby granted.

10. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, the present suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,19,328/­ (Rupees One Lac Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Eight only) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization. No order as to costs.

11. Upon preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.

                                                                AAKASH Digitally
                                                                       by AAKASH
                                                                                 signed

                                                                MOHAN MOHAN      SINGH
                                                                       Date: 2024.03.18
                                                                SINGH 15:49:15 +0530
Pronounced in open Court                                      (Aakash Mohan Singh)
today on 18.03.2024                                     Civil Judge­01/Shahdara District
                                                           Karkardooma Courts/Delhi

Note : This Judgment contains 06 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. AAKASH Digitally signed by AAKASH MOHAN SINGH MOHAN Date: 2024.03.18 SINGH 15:49:22 +0530 (Aakash Mohan Singh) Civil Judge­01/Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Civil Suit No.73/2017 M/s. MT AND T Rentals Ltd. v Jaypranav Construction Pvt. Ltd.