Delhi District Court
Also At vs M/S Shirdi Infratech Pvt Ltd on 24 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-05: WEST:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CivDJ/53164/2013
AMAN GUPTA
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Gupta
Prop. of M/s Shiv Shakti Trader,
At 49/13, Timber Market, Sawaran Park,
Nangloi, Delhi-110040.
ALSO AT:-
RS Plaza, Rampur Jagir,
Beta-I, D-Block, Greater Noida, U.P. ...........Plaintiff
Versus
1.M/S SHIRDI INFRATECH PVT LTD.
B-12/7&8, Site-B, Surajpur Ind.Area,
U.P.S.I.D.C. Greater Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar,
U.P.
2.PRAMOD UPADHAYAY
S/o Sh. T. Upadhayay,
3.MRS. ANUPRIYA UPADHAYAY,
w/o Pramod Upadhayay
Both Director of defendant No.-1
Both R/o B-12/7, UP Side, UPSIDC,
Greater Noida UP. .........Defendants
Aman Gupta vs. M/s Shirdi Infratech Pvt Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 1/5
Date of institution of suit:-20.03.2013
Date of reserving for order:-07.02.2018
Date of pronouncement:- 24.02.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.3,64,032/- against the defendants on the ground that he had sold goods i.e. timber to defendants.
2. Defendants were served with the summons of the suit and written statement was filed on behalf of defendants. After completion of pleadings issues were framed on 19.07.2014. After framing of issues, plaintiff himself appeared in witness box as PW-1. However, defendants stopped appearing in the case and they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.08.2015. Final arguments were heard and vide order/judgment dated 23.11.2015, suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in his favour and against defendant no.-1 only. Decree for a sum of Rs. 3,64,032/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till its realization was passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.-1 only.
3. On 18.10.2016, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed on behalf of defendants for setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 23.11.2015. On deposit of Rs.3,64,000/- by defendant in court, the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed. Vide Aman Gupta vs. M/s Shirdi Infratech Pvt Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 2/5 order dated 28.07.2017 passed by my Ld. Predecessor, ex-parte judgment and decree were set aside. The suit was restored to its original position and matter was adjourned for P.E as issues were framed in the presence of Counsel for defendants.
4. PW-1 was again examined on 07.12.2017. On 07.12.2017, none had appeared for defendants till 2.30 PM. Even cost of Rs.2000/- imposed upon defendants vide order dated 07.11.2017 was not paid by defendants. Hence, right of defendants to cross examine PW-1 was closed. Plaintiff's evidence was also closed on 07.12.2017 itself and matter was adjourned for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 07.02.2018.
5. My issue wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.(1):-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,64,032/- with pendetelite and future interest @24 % p.a. from the defendants as prayed for?OPP Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
PW-1 i.e. plaintiff in his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW- 1/A reiterated the contents of plaint and relied upon documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/10.
Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/3 are the bills dated 19.08.2012 and 17.08.2012 respectively. The said bills were raised by plaintiff against the goods supplied to defendants. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/4 are Aman Gupta vs. M/s Shirdi Infratech Pvt Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 3/5 statement of account showing closing balance/outstanding sum of Rs.156584/- and Rs.48743/- respectively against the defendants. Ex.PW-
1/5 is the legal notice issued to the defendants to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.2,05,327/-.
6. From the evidence led by plaintiff in support of his case, it is evident that the defendant no.-1 received goods from plaintiff and inspite of receiving said goods defendant no.-1 failed to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.2,05,327/-. Testimony of PW-1/plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of PW-1.
7. In view of aforesaid facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, issue no.-1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.-1. As far as liability of defendant no.-2 and 3 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that plaintiff has himself claimed that defendant no.-2 & 3 are directors of defendant no.-1. Hence, defendant no.-2 & 3 are not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff in their capacity as directors as their liability is not joint and several. Only defendant no.-1 is liable to pay the same.
8. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. A decree of Rs.3,53,032/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.-1. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to contractual interest on the aforesaid amount @ 24% per annum from the date of institution Aman Gupta vs. M/s Shirdi Infratech Pvt Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 4/5 of suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (DEEPAK DABAS)
Dated :-24th February 2018 ADJ-05, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Aman Gupta vs. M/s Shirdi Infratech Pvt Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 5/5