Delhi District Court
Sh. Aman Devi vs Sh. Daneeram @ Dhani Ram on 13 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (NE)-01,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No.228/2019
CNR No.DLNE01-003062-2019
Sh. Aman Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Dheer Singh
R/o H. No. 304,Gali No. 2,
Village Karawal Nagar,
Delhi. ............Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Sh. Daneeram @ Dhani Ram S/o Sh. Jhabbar (Not summoned by the order of Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.09.2019)
2. Sh. Ranbeer S/o Sh. Daneeram @ Dhani Ram Both R/o Village, Yushufpur, Pipalhera, Pargana/Tehsnil Khatuali, District Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. ............Defendant Date of institution of the Suit : 01.08.2019 Date of final arguments : 17.08.2022 Date of Judgment : 13.09.2022 Final Decision : Suit Decreed Appearances:
For plaintiff : Sh. Vijay Goswami, Adv.
Defendant proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.2021.
SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF Rs.3,83,000/- (Rs. FIVE LACS FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) ALONG WITH INTEREST.
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the plaint are that there was a deal for purchase of property situated at Muzzaffarpur, UP, between plaintiff and defendant for total consideration of Rs. 9 lacs. On 12.02.2019, defendant no.1 paid Rs.5,69,000/- in cash to plaintiff at his house and balance amount of Rs.3,31,000/- by way of cheque bearing no.002225 dated 01.05.2019 drawn at Central Bank of India, Branch Yushifpur, Pipalheda, Jansath, Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
2. It is further stated that plaintiff presented the above-said cheque with her banker but the same was not accepted due to over- writing. Plaintiff contacted defendant thereupon plaintiff was asked to present the cheque again with the assurance that the same would be encashed. On dated 11.06.2019, plaintiff again presented the aforesaid cheque and the same was dishonored with the remark "effect not cleared, present again".
3. It is further stated that on 12.02.2019, defendant requested plaintiff to lend Rs.52,000/- for purchase of revenue stamp for the above- said property and plaintiff lent Rs.52,000/- in cash to defendant for the said purpose. Defendant issued a fresh cheque bearing no.002226 dated 01.03.2019 drawn at Central Bank of India, Branch Yusufpur, Pipalheda, Jansath Muzaffarnagar, U.P. of Rs.52,000/- Plaintiff deposited the same cheque but it was returned back unpaid with the endorsement "cheque outdated / stale" on 14.05.2019. Again, plaintiff contacted defendant of no avail. Finding no other option, plaintiff served a legal notice upon defendant but defendant neither replied back nor complied with the same. Hence, the present suit.
4. Plaintiff prayed to pass the following relief in her favour and against defendant:
(i) A decree of recovery of Rs. 3,83,000/-
(ii) Award of pandente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
(iii) Cost of the suit.
(iv) Any other or further relief / order(s) which is deemed fit and
proper, in the interest of justice.
5. Despite service of summons, defendant did not join the proceedings. Vide order dated 10.12.2021, defendant was proceeded ex- parte.
6. Subsequent thereto, the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. In order to prove her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and relied upon the following documents in her ex-parte evidence:
(i) Ex.PW-1/A : Original cheque bearing no.002225.
(ii) Ex.PW-1/B: Original cheque bearing no.002226.
(iii) Ex.PW-1/C : Returning memo in respect of cheque no.002226.
(iv) Ex.PW-1/D : Returning memo in respect of cheque no.002225.
(v) Ex. PW-1/E : Original Postal receipt.
(vi) Ex. PW-1/F : Office Copy of legal notice dated 07.06.2019.
(vii) Ex. PW-1/G : Office Copy of legal notice dated 21.06.2019.
(viii) Ex. PW-1/H : Office Copy of legal notice dated 13.05.2019.
(ix) Ex.PW-1/I : Copy of Aadhar Card (OSR). (x) Mark A : Photocopy of sale deed dated 13.02.2019. (xi) Mark B : Photocopy of mutual agreement dated 13.02.2019. (xii) Mark C : Photocopy of sale deed dated 23.08.2018. 7. Plaintiff closed ex-parte evidence vide her separate statement on 04.04.2022.
8. Subsequent thereto, the matter was fixed for ex-parte final arguments which were heard conclusively on 17.08.2022.
9. In order to prove the case, PW-1/plaintiff deposed in consonance with the contents of the plaint and brought on record documents as exhibited in her testimony. Defendant did not contest the present suit by joining the proceedings despite having notice of the contents of the plaint, therefore, the version of plaintiff stands proved being unrebutted and unchallenged. The exhibited documents on record and also the oral deposition of plaintiff is as such believable. The suit of plaintiff is found filed within limitation period. This court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Hence, it is held that plaintiff successfully discharged the onus to prove her case and thus, is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.3,83,000/- in her favour and against defendant.
RELIEF:
10. In view of the above, the suit of plaintiff is decreed against defendant for recovery of Rs.3,83,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs & Eighty-
Three Thousand Only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. Award of pendente-lite and future interest @24% per annum is exorbitant and there was no agreement for pre-suit interest. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court MONA TARDI KERKETTA on this 13st Day of September, 2022 Addl. District Judge(NE)-01 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi