Delhi District Court
Smt. Saroj Bala Jain vs Shri Rajiv Ranjan on 3 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GAGANDEEP SINGH: ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : JSCC : GUARDIAN JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS (EAST)
Suit No. 89/12
New Suit No. 8121/16
Shri Vinod Jain
(now deceased through legal heirs):
1. Smt. Saroj Bala Jain
w/o Late Shri Vinod Jain
2. Shri Nishant Jain
s/o Late Shri Vinod Jain
3. Shri Shashank Jain
s/o Late Shri Vinod Jain
All r/o 9/105, Gali Bagichi,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
4. Smt. Yojna Jain
w/o Shri Lokesh Jain
d/o Late Shri Vinod Jain
r/o 9/105, Gali Bagichi,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
5. Smt. Tapashiya Jain
w/o Shri Hans Kumar
r/o 45, Bank Enclave, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi.
............. Plaintiffs.
Versus
1. Shri Rajiv Ranjan
Director / Proprietor of
M/s R.D.M. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
T4 & 5, Anupam Plaja
56/1, Kalu Sarai, Aurobindo Marg,
Hauz Khas, Delhi.
Suit No. 8121/16 (old no. 89/12) Page No. 1/6
2. Shri Rajiv Ranjan
Director / Proprietor of
M/s Welcome World Electricals (P) Ltd.
T4 & 5, Anupam Plaja
56/1, Kalu Sarai, Aurobindo Marg,
Hauz Khas, Delhi.
3. M/s R.D.M. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
T4 & 5, Anupam Plaja
56/1, Kalu Sarai, Aurobindo Marg,
Hauz Khas, Delhi.
4. M/s Welcome World Electricals (P) Ltd.
T4 & 5, Anupam Plaja
56/1, Kalu Sarai, Aurobindo Marg,
Hauz Khas, Delhi.
..............Defendants.
Date of institution of Suit : 21.03.2012
Date on which order was reserved : 28.11.2016
Date of decision : 03.01.2017
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,80,596/ .
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant judgment, I propose to dispose off a suit for recovery of Rs.2,80,596/.
2. The plaintiff has claimed that he is running proprietorship concern namely M/s Vinod Metal and carrying out the business of manufacturing different types of wires. On 20.05.2010, defendants purchased copper strips vide invoice no. 590 for a sum of Rs.2,09,596/. The goods were duly received by the defendants. The defendants in order to discharge their liability, issued cheque no. 16125 dated 20.05.2010 drawn on Suit No. 8121/16 (old no. 89/12) Page No. 2/6 Allahabad Bank, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The said cheque was presented for encashment but got dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter defendant issued another cheque from the another company namely M/s Welcome World Electricals (P) Ltd. bearing no. 012085 dated 15.06.2010. The said cheque was again presented but got dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The legal notice was issued but defendant has failed to make the payment. Hence plaintiff has preferred the present suit for recovery of Rs.2,80,596/ which includes the interest as well as notice charges.
3. The summons of settlement were issued to the defendants and defendant no.2 filed written statement claiming that no material has been supplied to his firm. In the reply on merit he admitted about the supply of material but claimed it to be defective and not as per dimension and specification.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by plaintiff reiterating and reaffirming the contents of plaint and denying the averments of written statement.
5. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 08.01.2015.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,80,596/ as prayed for ? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest above the aforesaid sum, if so, for what period or at what rate ? OPP Suit No. 8121/16 (old no. 89/12) Page No. 3/6 (3) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPD (4) Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder of defendant ? OPD (5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued and adequate court fees thereon has not been paid ? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the present suit ? OPD (7) Relief, if any.
6. The issues no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were disposed off as not pressed vide order dated 23.09.2015. Thereafter evidence was led on behalf of plaintiff who examined PW1 Shri Nishant Jain. He has reiterated the facts of plaint in his affidavit Ex. P1. He relied upon the documents i.e. purchase order mark PW1/1, copies of statement of account are Mark PW1/2 (colly), copies of invoices / challans are Mark PW1/3 (colly), copy of cheque no.016125 dated 20.05.2010 and return memo, copy of cheque no. 012085 and return memo Mark PW1/4 (colly), copy of police complaint Ex. PW1/5, copy of notice alongwith postal receipts Mark PW1/6 (colly), the return memo of cheque no. 012085 and the said cheque in original Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8 respectively.
7. As the defendants failed to appear in the court, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 18.04.2016.
8. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record of the case carefully.
Suit No. 8121/16 (old no. 89/12) Page No. 4/6Issue no.1 and 2.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,80,596/ as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest above the aforesaid sum, if so, for what period or at what rate ? OPP
10. The basis of the case of the plaintiff is relationship which accrued between the parties due to supply of material by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has placed on record the purchase order Mark Ex. PW1/3 showing the supply of goods to the defendant company on 20.05.2010. They also received the goods thus showing the liability of defendants. The plaintiff also placed on record cheques Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/8 which have been issued in favour of plaintiff firm and same got dishonoured due to funds insufficient. Thus issuance of said cheques shows the liability on the part of defendants in not having paid the amount for the goods received by them.
11. The defence which has been taken by the defendants in the written statement is that goods supplied were not as per dimension and specification. The onus was upon the defendants to prove that said defence but they failed to do so. They have prefered not to contest the case of plaintiff. There is no reason to disbelieve the documents produced by the plaintiff which shows the liability of defendants to pay the amount as reflected in the invoice Mark Ex. PW1/3. It also shows the agreement between the parties for payment of interest if the payment is not made within seven days. Thus interest party claimed by the plaintiff is also liable to be awarded in his favour.
Suit No. 8121/16 (old no. 89/12) Page No. 5/612. In view of abovesaid reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants for a sum of Rs.2,80,596/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till the date of realization of amount. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Gagandeep Singh) on this 03th day of January 2017. ASCJ/JSCC/G. Judge (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Suit No. 8121/16 (old no. 89/12) Page No. 6/6