Delhi District Court
Sh Praveen Kumar Rajput vs Umang Board Pvt. Ltd. Company on 21 December, 2022
In the Court of Shri Ajay Kumar Malik : Additional Senior Civil Judge of
South West District at Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
CS No.79/2021
CNR No. DLSW03 000229 2021
In the matter of:-
Sh Praveen Kumar Rajput
s/o Sh Daya Chand
r/o C-1/70A, UGF, Sunrise Apartment,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi- 110059.
Office at:-
Seat no. 6, Hall no. 3. 3rd floor,
Lawyers Chamber's Building,
Dwarka District Court Complex,
Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075.
Mobile : 9891273738
......Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Umang Board Pvt. Ltd. Company Umang House, 7-B, Bharat Mata Path, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
Through Director(s)
2. Sh. Anoop Dhanuka Director Umang Board Pvt. Ltd. Company Umang House, 7-B, Bharat Mata Path, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
Mobile no. : 9352916414.
......Defendants
Date of Institution : 19.01.2021
Reserved for Judgment : 29.10.2022
Date of Decision : 21.12.2022
CS No. 79/2021 Page no. 1 / 6
Suit for Recovery of Rs. 77,500/-
E X PAR T E J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 77,500/- alongwith pendentilite and future interests @ 24% per annum in favour of plaintiff alongwith court fees of Rs. 1,325/- to plaintiff for filing this recovery suit.
Plaintiff's case
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff is advocate by profession and is registered with Bar Council of Delhi vide Enrol. No. D/2375/2007 and having permanent office i.e. Seat no. 6, Hall no. 3, 3rd Floor, Lawyers Chamber's Building, Dwarka District Court Complex, Sec-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 and practicing at Dwarka District Court since 2009.
3. It is stated that defendant no. 1 is a private limited company and defendant no. 2 is one of the directors of the defendant no. 1 company. It is stated that the legal services of plaintiff were availed by the defendants through their AR Mr. Mahesh Sharma in the year 2018 in a civil recovery suit titled as 'Vikas Rustagi Vs Umang Board Pvt. Ltd. Company & Ors"
having CS No. 43/2013 disposed off vide judgment dated 08.08.2019. It is stated that before engaging the plaintiff as a main counsel by the defendants through AR Sh Mahesh Sharma in the said civil suit, the plaintiff and his associates/junior were already appearing as a proxy counsel for the erstwhile counsel Sh H.N. Pandey. It is stated at the time of engagement of plaintiff as main counsel in the said civil suit, plaintiff had orally entered CS No. 79/2021 Page no. 2 / 6 into the agreement of legal fees with defendants through AR Sh Mahesh Sharma. It is stated that it was agreed and accepted on behalf of defendants that defendants shall pay legal fees of Rs. 55,000/- for the civil suit and payment of all costs imposed by the court & all other expenditures in addition to agreed legal fees shall be borne by the defendants. It is stated that defendants had paid some amount towards legal fees of Rs. 55,000/- but the legal fees of Rs. 33,000/- were left to be paid by the defendants for which the AR of defendants had promised to pay at the end of said civil suit. It is stated that in the month of August 2019 after discharging all the additional professional services as per agreement plaintiff raised and demanded payment of Rs. 20,000/-. It is stated that defendants failed to make the payment of the said amount despite various requests/reminders/messages given by the plaintiff to defendants.
4. It is stated that that plaintiff requested the defendant several times to make the payment of Rs. 20,000/- but defendant through their AR Mahesh Sharma and employee Sh Gopal expressed their inability for releasing the payment by giving numerous excuses hence, plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 03.10.2019 to defendants demanding the payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 20,000/- for availing additional professional services and cost of Rs. 1,500/- incurred for the legal notice. It is stated that despite receipt of legal notice defendants paid nothing. Hence, the present suit.
5. It is stated that the balance payment of legal fees of Rs. 33,000/- was never in dispute for which two bills both dated 01.10.2019, one is Rs.
CS No. 79/2021 Page no. 3 / 623,000/- and another is of Rs. 10,000/- were raised on the requests and demands of the defendants by showing the same as travelling expenditures and the same were served upon AR of defendants against acknowledgement dated 30.10.2019 which were agreed to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff before the end of the financial year i.e. 2019-20.
6. It is stated defendants are lawfully liable to pay Rs. 77,500/- to plaintiff [Rs. 20,000/- for payment of fees/expenditures for additional professional services etc. + Rs. 2,500/- (cost of legal notice dated 03.10.2019) + Rs. 33,000/- (balance legal fees of suit for which two bills both dated 01.10.2019 were raised as travelling expenses) + Rs. 11,000/- (cost of suit/litigation till one year) and Rs. 11,000/- (costs of pain and sufferings etc.) Defendant's case
7. The defendants were served on 08.10.2021 but defendants did not enter appearance and despite various opportunities failed to file WS, hence defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 21.05.2022.
Plaintiff's evidence
8. Sh Praveen Kumar Rajput was examined as PW1, who in his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PW1/1 reiterated on oath the contents of the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:
a. Ex. PW-1/A(OSR) is photocopy of Aadhar Card (de-exhibited as the same is not placed on record in the judicial file).CS No. 79/2021 Page no. 4 / 6
b. Mark A i.e. photocopy of BCD Card of the plaintiff (wrongly exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B in the affidavit of evidence and marked as the original of the same is not available) c. Ex. PW-1/C(Colly) are certified copies of the said written arguments and final order/judgment.
d. Ex. PW-1/D(colly) are printouts of screen shots of whatsapp/text messages alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. e. Ex. PW-1/E(colly) is office copy of legal notice dated 03.10.2019 and the concerned original speed post receipt dated 03.10.2019 with the printout of tracking report downloaded from Govt. website with certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
f. Mark B (colly) are copies of two bills totaling Rs. 33,000/-. g. Ex. PW-1/G (colly) is one CD containing two call recordings and their transcripts and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Thereafter, ex parte plaintiff evidence was closed on 12.07.2022. Final arguments were addressed by plaintiff.
9. I have gone through the judicial record. Now I shall give my findings.
10. Findings:
In order to prove the case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 who proved Ex PW-1/C (colly) which are certified copies of the written arguments and final order/judgment. Ex. PW-1/C shows that plaintiff has appeared as counsel on behalf of defendants and pursued their case till its CS No. 79/2021 Page no. 5 / 6 end. Ex. PW-1/D (colly) are the print outs of screen shots of whatsapp/text messages alongwith certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act which are text messages sent by plaintiff to defendant demanding payment of his legal fees from defendants. Ex. PW-1/E (colly) are the legal notice dated 03.10.2019 and the original speed post receipt dated 03.10.2019 which shows that plaintiff had sent legal notice to defendant for payment of his legal dues/fees. The factum of non payment of fees by defendant has also been proved vide Ex.PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E. Thus, plaintiff has successfully proved the averments. The defendant not appeared despite service to controvert or to rebut the testimony of PW1. So the testimony of PW1 remained untainted, uncontroverted and unrebutted. There are no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. Plaintiff has successfully proved its case.
Relief
11. In view of my above findings, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.77,500/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) from the date of filing of suit. Plaintiff is also entitled for interest @ 10 % p.a. Cost of suit is awarded in favour of plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
AJAY Digitally signed
by AJAY KUMAR
KUMAR MALIKDate: 2022.12.21
Announced in the Open Court MALIK 17:17:49 +0530
on 21.12.2022 (Ajay Kumar Malik)
ASCJ cum JSCC cum Guardian Judge
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
21.12.2022
CS No. 79/2021 Page no. 6 / 6