Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ramayan Mishra vs Ms. Mangal Mehta on 4 January, 2019

          IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA MALHOTRA: CIVIL JUDGE
                 NORTH WEST: ROHINI COURTS : DELHI


Ramayan Mishra
S/o Sh. Ram Dhar Mishra
R/o 487, L Block, J J Colony
Shakurpur, Saraswati Vihar
Delhi­110034                                                    .......Plaintiff
                                          versus
Ms. Mangal Mehta
R/o D­71, Ground Floor
Mayfield Garden, "Palladians"
Sector­50, South City II, Gurgaon
Haryana                                                       ......Defendant




                   SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 81,000/­


                Date of institution           : 22.02.2017
                Date of decision              : 04.01.2019
                Final Order                   : DECREED


                                   JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTS

1. Suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff for a cumulative sum of Rs 81,000/­ which was advanced to the defendant on 12.12.2014.

2. It is the plaintiff's case that he is working as a Contractor and CS No. 197/17 Page 1 of 4 Supplying manpower to various schools and colleges including KIIT College, Bhondsi, Gurgaon. During the course of his employment, he came in contact with the defendant, a lecturer at the aforesaid college, and developed friendly relations with her. In the first week of December, 2014 defendant sought financial assistance to the tune of Rs 1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff by pleading her financial hardships. On 12.12.2014, the plaintiff advanced Rs 65,000/­ in cash to the defendant in the presence of his friend Mr. Maniraj Patel s/o Sh. Kamla Prasad Patel, in lieu of which defendant executed an acknowledgment receipt in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant also handed over the copy of her adhar card and PAN card to show her bonafide. It is further stated that the said amount was agreed to be returned on the expiry of three months. On the expiry of three months, the defendant requested for some more time to repay the loan. Thereon, it was also agreed that the defendant will pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the aforesaid amount since the date of its advancement. Despite repeated demands and requests, defendant failed to return the money. A legal notice dated 20.12.2016 was also issued to this effect but which failed to produce the desired effect. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs 81,000/­ (inclusive of 12% p.a. interest w.e.f. 12.12.2014 to 15.01.2017) has been filed.

3. Defendant could not be served by ordinary means necessitating service by publication in the newspaper 'Punjab Kesari, Gurgaon' dated 20.07.2018. Despite service of summons, the defendant did not appear and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.09.2018. She remained exparte thereafter.

TRIAL

4. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW1 and CS No. 197/17 Page 2 of 4 Sh. Maniraj Patel s/o Sh. Kamla Prasad Patel as PW2.

PW1 re­iterated the facts mentioned in the plaint and tendered original copy of the receipt acknowledged by the defendant which is Ex. PW1/3. The photocopy of adhar card and PAN card of the defendant, duly signed by the defendant was also tendered and was exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2. It is stated by PW1 that a legal notice of demand was issued asking the defendant to repay the loan on 20.12.2016, the signed copy of which is Ex. PW1/4. The postal receipts in original are exhibited as Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/8.

5. PW2 Maniraj Patel supported the case of the plaintiff and deposed that the loan transaction took place in his presence and that he was one of the attesting witnesses to the receipt Ex. PW1/3. He also identified the signatures of the defendant on the said receipt as well as on the copy of her adhar card and PAN card.

The witnesses were not cross examined as the defendant remained exparte during trial. No other PW was examined and the PE was closed on 24.11.2018.

Heard. Perused.

FINDINGS

6. PW1/plaintiff duly proved the contents of the plaint as well as the documents relied upon by him. His testimony to the effect that loan of Rs 65,000/­ was advanced to the defendant on 12.12.2014 @ 12% p.a. interest has gone unrebutted and uncontested in the absence of any cross examination by the defendant. His testimony is duly corroborated by the acknowledgment receipt signed by the defendant which is Ex. PW1/3 in the presence of PW2. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. The suit is otherwise well within limitation.

The unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff stands proved and therefore, he is entitled to recovery of suit amount.

RELIEF

7. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the plaintiff has successfully proved his case.

A decree of recovery of Rs. 81,000/­ alongwith pendent­elite and future interest @ 12 % p.a. is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court today.

(Divya Malhotra) Civil Judge, N/W Rohini Courts 04.01.2019 CS No. 197/17 Page 4 of 4