Delhi District Court
Vijender Kumar vs Deepak on 10 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Jitender, DJS
Civil Suit No: 387/2018
Sh. Vijender Kumar
Owner of VK Mahan Hosiery,
At : X/3640, Gali No.4,
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Deepak
S/o Sh. Nand Lal,
R/o H.No.271, Gali No.1,
Shiv Colony, Faridabad, Haryana. ... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.24,440/-.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.04.2018
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 07.05.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 10.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.24,440/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only) alongwith costs, pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
2. The case of the plaintiff as discernible from the plaint and documents is that the plaintiff deals in the export surplus fabrics on wholesale basis; that the defendant had approached the plaintiff and purchased the hosiery items of Rs.24,440/-; that at the time of purchase of goods, the Civil Suit No.387/2018 Sh. Vijender Kumar v Sh. Deepak Page No.1 of 6 defendant had issued a cheque viz. cheque bearing no.000249 dated 05.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.24,440/- drawn upon ICICI Bank, Branch Sector-35, Faridabad, Haryana in the name of the firm of the plaintiff; that the defendant had assured the plaintiff that upon presentation, the said cheque would be encashed; that upon assurance of the defendant, the plaintiff had presented the said cheque to his banker; that the said cheque had been dishonoured vide returning memo dated 08.06.2017 with the remarks 'Stop Payment'; that the plaintiff had informed the defendant qua such dishonour of the cheque; that the defendant had asked the plaintiff to present the said cheque again and again assured that this time the said cheque would be encashed; that the plaintiff again presented the said cheque to his banker; that the said cheque had been dishonoured again vide returning memo dated 07.09.2017 with the remarks 'Stop Payment'; that thereafter, the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 02.11.2017 upon the defendant calling upon the defendant to repay the amount of Rs.24,440/- and that despite service of the legal notice, the defendant did not pay the same to the plaintiff and that this Court has the pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
3. Perusal of order sheet shows that summons were ordered to be issued against the defendant by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2018; that the defendatn was served on 23.03.2019; that thereafter, vide Order dated 21.05.2019, at joint request, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center; that therefter vide Order dated 12.07.2019, upon non-appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, the present case was dismissed; that thereafter, vide MISC No.159/2019, Ld. Predecessor of this Court had allowed the said application and the present suit was resotred; that the defendants have not filed their WS in the present case; that vide Order dated 01.06.2022, the right of the Civil Suit No.387/2018 Sh. Vijender Kumar v Sh. Deepak Page No.2 of 6 defendant to file WS was closed and the defendant was proceeded ex-parte; that thereafter, the ex-parte evidence of plaintiff was recorded 19.04.2023; that vide Order dated 09.08.2023, it was right observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court that neither the notice qua restoration of the present suit nor the MISC No.159/2018 was served upon the defendant; that therefore, vide Order dated 09.08.2023, summons were ordered to be issued against the defendant; that despite various attempts, the summons were not served upon the defendant; that the plaintiff had filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC; that the defendant was served by way of publication in the newspaper 'Virat Vaibhav' on 25.03.2025; that despite sufficient waiting, no representation has been made on behalf of the defendant and that the present matter was fixed for hearing of final arguments.
4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined only one witness viz. PW1 Sh. Vijender Kumar. PW1 Sh. Vijender Kumar has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the documents viz. tax invoice dated 01.06.2017 Ex.PW1/1, cheque bearing No.000249 dated 05.06.2017 Ex.PW1/2, photocopy of cheque returning memo dated 08.06.2017 Mark.PW1/3, cheque returning memo dated 23.08.2017 Ex.PW1/4, photocopy of cheque returning memo dated 07.09.2017 Mark.PW1/5, photocopy of legal notice dated 02.11.2017 Ex.PW1/6 and postal receipt Ex.PW1/7.
5. I had heard Sh. Lakshay Raheja, Ld. LAC for the plaintiff on 07.05.2025. 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 Civil Suit No.387/2018 Sh. Vijender Kumar v Sh. Deepak Page No.3 of 6 unchallenged testimony of PW1 Sh. Vijender Kumar and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for.
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 defendant had issued a cheque bearing no.000249 on 05.06.2017 and the present suit has been instituted on 24.04.2018 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 impugned goods were dispatched from the office of the plaintiff which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
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. Furthermore, the entire claim and the proper delivery of the plaintiff is shown vide Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 by which the accrued liability of the defendant stands duly proved.
8. Also, as per the judgment of Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.02.2013, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was specifically held that "I am of the opinion that no purpose would 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 in variably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as Civil Suit No.387/2018 Sh. Vijender Kumar v Sh. Deepak Page No.4 of 6 per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I failed 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 of or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record."
9. Therefore, keeping in view the mandate of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the relief sought by the plaintiff, can be granted especially in view of the fact that the plaintiff has lead additional cogent evidence in support of his claim.
10. With respect to quantum of interest, I find that in the prayer clause, the plaintiff has sought interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As per the directive of Section 34 of the CPC, reasonable rate of interest can be ascertained by the Court as deemed fit by it. Under the circumstances of the present case, the claim of the plaintiff qua the pendente-lite and future interest is excessive and the ends of justice would be served, if the plaintiff is granted pendente-lite interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Bank of India v Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095, the grant of pendente-lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Keeping in view the current rate of interest being granted by banks on fixed deposits, the plaintiff has been granted interest.
11. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.24,440/-
Civil Suit No.387/2018Sh. Vijender Kumar v Sh. Deepak Page No.5 of 6 (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only) along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization. No order as to costs.
12. Upon preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by JITENDER JITENDER Date:
2025.06.10 15:47:11 Announced in open Court (Jitender) +0530 today on 10.06.2025 Civil Judge-01/Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Note : This Order contains 06 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signed by JITENDER JITENDER Date:
2025.06.10 15:47:16 (Jitender) +0530 Civil Judge-01/Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Civil Suit No.387/2018 Sh. Vijender Kumar v Sh. Deepak Page No.6 of 6