Delhi District Court
Gaurav Gaur vs Netrapal Singh Meena on 7 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-RENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
JUDGMENT
CS SCJ No. 414/2023
Sh. Gaurav Gaur, Proprietor of M/s Gaurav Batteries, Office at:- 283, Nawada, Opp. Manindru Hospital, Metro Pillar No. 711, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
Email ID- [email protected] M-9810149225 ....................Plaintiff Versus Sh. Netrapal Singh Meena, Proprietor/owner of M/s Big Solution India, C-17, Vishwakarama Colony, MB Road, Near SBI ATM, New Delhi-110044.
M-9868081716, 9650769656.
....................Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY UNDER ORDER
XXXVII CPC
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.04.2023
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 04.12.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.12.2023
1. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Gaurav Batteries, and is engaged in the business Gaurav Gaur Vs. Netrapal Singh Meena CS No.414/2023 Page No.1 of 5 of sale and distribution of electronic appliances and batteries. That defendant (proprietor of M/s Big Solution India) had approached the plaintiff for purchase of certain goods. That the said goods were duly supplied to defendant by the plaintiff and bills / invoices qua the same were also raised by plaintiff. That plaintiff received part payment from the defendant against the said goods. That as per statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.65,050/- to the plaintiff. That defendant issued one cheque bearing no. 543715 dated 22.09.2022 for payment of the said amount. That the said cheque was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds upon presentation on 26.10.2022. That despite repeated requests, defendant did not pay the said amount. Hence, the present suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of CPC, along with pendente lite and future interest.
2. Summons of the present suit in the prescribed format were issued to the defendant, which summons were received back duly served upon the defendant. Defendant entered an appearance and thereafter, summons for issuance of judgment were issued, which summons were also received were duly served by way of affixation. However, despite service, no application for leave to defend was filed by the defendant. Statutory period of 10 days has already expired. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (6) of CPC.
3. It has been argued by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff that suit should be decreed in favour of plaintiff.
Gaurav Gaur Vs. Netrapal Singh Meena CS No.414/2023 Page No.2 of 5
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. It is the case of plaintiff that he had sold certain goods to the defendant and that defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 65,050/- to the plaintiff towards unpaid outstanding amount. Plaintiff has filed original cheque bearing no. 543715 issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff for payment of the said amount. The said cheque is stated to have been signed by defendant. Further, the said cheque was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Plaintiff has also filed cheque return memo dated 26.10.2022 in this regard.
6. As far as maintainability of the present suit under Order XXXVII CPC is concerned, present suit is for recovery of specific amount of Rs.65,050/- and is based upon cheque bearing no. 543715. As per Section 6 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on specified banker and payable on demand. Issuance of the said cheque is enough to raise presumption against the defendant under Section 139 of NI Act. I also rely upon the case of Pradeep Sadashiv Pavgi & Ors. vs. R.S. Luth Education Trust & Ors. [2008 (1) BomCR 677] in this regard, wherein it was held that a summary suit instituted on the basis of a dishonored cheque will stand on a higher footing than a summary suit instituted on the basis of other documents. Hence, there is no doubt that present suit is maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC.
7. I shall also examine the aspect of limitation. Cheque in Gaurav Gaur Vs. Netrapal Singh Meena CS No.414/2023 Page No.3 of 5 question is dated 22.09.2022 and the same was dishonored on 26.10.2022. It is a matter of record that present suit was filed by plaintiff on 01.04.2023, i.e. within the period of limitation from the date of dishonor of the said cheque. Hence, it is clear that present suit has been filed within limitation.
8. Coming to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, it has been stated in para 13 of the plaint that goods were supplied to the defendant from office of plaintiff, which office is situated within the jurisdiction of this court. The said averment is supported by invoices filed by plaintiff along with the present suit. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
9. Plaintiff has also sought pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. Invoices filed by the plaintiff mention the said rate of interest, in case of default / delay in payment. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum from date of dishonor of cheque (i.e. 26.10.2022) till date of this judgment.
10. In view of the above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff and decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.65,050/- is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Defendant shall also pay interest @ 18% per annum from date of dishonor of cheque (i.e. 26.10.2022) till date of this judgment.
11. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
Gaurav Gaur Vs. Netrapal Singh Meena CS No.414/2023 Page No.4 of 5 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in open Court RAJAT Digitally signed by RAJAT GOYAL on 7th December, 2023. GOYAL Date: 2023.12.07 14:59:52 +0530 (RAJAT GOYAL) SCJ-cum-RC/South-West, Dwarka, New Delhi 07.12.2023 Gaurav Gaur Vs. Netrapal Singh Meena CS No.414/2023 Page No.5 of 5