Delhi District Court
Sh. Uttam Meena vs M/S Sai Bhaskar Irons Pvt. Ltd on 7 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 183/13
Unique Identification No. 02402C0307472013
Sh. Uttam Meena
Prop. of M/s Steel Solutions,
Regd. Office at 1/4904,
Street No.8, Balbir Nagar, Extn.,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ......Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Sai Bhaskar Irons Pvt. Ltd.
At D. No. 3-1-10, 3rd Lane,
Rajendra Nagar,
Guntur -522006 (A.P.)
Through its Managing Director ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 21.09.2013
Date of Arguments : 07.05.2015
Date of Order : 07.05.2015
Suit for recovery of Rs.10,14,481/- (Rs. Ten Lac Fourteen
Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One only) under Order
XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure
JUDGMENT
The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,14,481/- (Rs. Ten Lac Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One only) against the defendant on the ground that defendant purchased spare parts of rolling mills machine from the plaintiff. The goods/machinery parts were supplied as per the order to the defendant which have been duly acknowledged and received by the defendant and his C.S. No.183/13 Uttam Meena vs. M/s Sai Bhaskar Irons Pvt. Ltd. 07.05.2015 page 1 of 4 authorised persons against bills. To discharge his part liability the defendant issued cheque bearing no.000378 dated 15.5.2013 for a sum of Rs.10,14,481/- drawn on Lakshmipuram, District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in favour of the plaintiff with an assurance that the said cheque will be encashed on its presentation. The plaintiff deposited the above said cheque with his banker Vijaya Bank, Loni Road, Timber Market, Shahdara, Delhi for encashment which was returned back with the report of "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque return memo dated 28.06.2013. The plaintiff contacted the defendant and informed him about dishonour of the cheque. Thereafter defendant assured him that cheque will be encashed if it would be presented in the first week of July, 2013. The plaintiff again presented the cheque for encashment but the same again returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque returning memo dated 09.07.2013. Again the plaintiff contacted him and he assured that the cheque would be encashed if presented in the second week of August, 2013. Plaintiff again deposited the cheque which was returned back with the remarks "Instrument Post dated/outdated/undated/ without proper date" vide cheque returning memo dated 17.8.2013. The plaintiff tried to contact the defendant but in vain. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice dated 19.8.2013 to the defendant through his counsel by registered AD as well as through speed post. However, both the envelopes received back with the remarks "intimation on 23.08.2013". Plaintiff submitted that defendant did not pay the amount despite C.S. No.183/13 Uttam Meena vs. M/s Sai Bhaskar Irons Pvt. Ltd. 07.05.2015 page 2 of 4 knowledge. The plaintiff prayed for passing of a decree of Rs. 10,14,481/- (Rs. Ten Lac Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One only) in his favour with interest @ 24% per annum till realisation of the amount and litigation charges.
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, herein after referred to as 'the Code' for appearance on the prescribed format. As per track record filed by the plaintiff regarding delivery of RC sent to the defendant by registered cover, the same was delivered to him on 11.03.2015. The defendant neither appeared not filed any appearance within the prescribed period.
4. Under Order XXXVII Rule 3 sub-rule (1) of the Code, the defendant may, at any time within ten days of service of summons for appearance, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in Court an address for service of notices on him. Under Order XXXVII Rule 2 sub-rule (3) of the Code, if the defendant makes default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of decree and for costs. The summons of the suit for appearance have been served upon the defendant on the prescribed Form no.4 in Appendix B as required under Order XXXVII Rule 2 CPC of the Code but he has failed to put in his C.S. No.183/13 Uttam Meena vs. M/s Sai Bhaskar Irons Pvt. Ltd. 07.05.2015 page 3 of 4 appearance within ten days from the date of service of such summons and therefore, the defendant is deemed to have admitted the contents of the plaint. As such, plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.10,14,481/- (Rs. Ten Lac Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One only) against the defendant with cost of the suit and simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till date of decree.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on this 7th Day of May, 2015 (Dr. T. R. Naval)
District & Sessions Judge,
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi.
C.S. No.183/13 Uttam Meena vs. M/s Sai Bhaskar Irons Pvt. Ltd. 07.05.2015 page 4 of 4