Delhi District Court
State Bank Of Hyderabad vs Mr. Satyanarayan on 5 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI. NAVEEN GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUMJUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURTCUMGUARDIAN JUDGE, NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 387/10.
State Bank of Hyderabad
having its head office at Hyderabad
and its branch office at
Complex AL Market,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi110088.
....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Satyanarayan
S/o Mr. Guru Dayal
R/o 174/5, Ambedkar Nagar,
Haiderpur, Delhi.
2. Mr. Ramesh Singh
S/o Mr. Mahadev Singh
R/o 95, Haiderpur Village,
Delhi.
.... Defendants
Date of Institution: 16.09.2010
Date on which judgment was reserved: Not reserved
Date of pronouncing judgment: 05.02.2014
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.31,552/
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2. It is pleaded in the plaint that the defendant no.1 had requested the Suit No. 387/10 State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayan & ors. page 1 of 5 plaintiff bank to grant cash credit facility. Loan documents were executed by the defendant no.1 and his guarantor. The plaintiff bank granted the cash credit facility of Rs.25,000/ on 06.11.2004 and the repayment record of the aforesaid loan of Rs.25,000/ of the defendant no.1 remained good. The defendant no.1, on 08.07.2007, had again requested the plaintiff bank to grant additional cash credit facility. The defendant no.2 agreed to stand guarantor for repayment of loan. Loan documents were executed by the defendants. The plaintiff bank granted the cash credit facility of Rs.50,000/ on 17.10.2007. The defendant no.1 defaulted in repayment of the loan in terms of the loan agreement. On the strength of the statement of account, the plaintiff has, by the present suit, claimed recovery of a sum of Rs.31,552/ with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum and costs.
3. After institution of the suit, summons were issued for service upon the defendants. As per report of the process server, the defendants were served with summons of the suit by way of publication in the newspaper on 05.09.2011. Yet, the defendants chose not to appear before the court. The defendants were proceeded exparte by order dated 08.11.2011.
4. The plaintiff adduced evidence in support of its case. The plaintiff examined Mr. T. Varalakshmi as PW1. PW1 tendered her affidavit in evidence on 22.03.2012. She reiterated the averments made in the plaint. She also tendered the following documents:
a. Notification as Ex. PW1/1;
b. Plaint as Ex.PW1/2;
c. Application dated 30.11.2004 as Ex.PW1/3;
Suit No. 387/10 State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayan & ors. page 2 of 5
d. Arrangement letter dated 06.11.2004 as Ex.PW1/4;
e. Agreement of hypothecation and guarantee dated 06.11.2004
as Ex.PW1/5;
f. Demand promissory note for Rs.25,000/ dated 06.11.2004 as
Ex.PW1/6;
g. D. P. Note Delivery Letter dated 06.11.2004 as Ex.PW1/7;
h. Letter of waiver dated 06.11.2004 as Ex.PW1/8;
i. Certificate of execution of documents as Ex.PW1/9;
j. Arrangement letter dated 17.10.2007 as Ex.PW1/10;
k. Agreement of hypothecation and guarantee dated 17.10.2007
as Ex.PW1/11;
l. Demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/ dated 17.10.2007 as
Ex.PW1/12;
m. Statement of account as Ex PW1/13.
5. The witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the defendants.
Plaintiff's evidence was closed.
6. I have heard submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and have perused the record.
7. The abovesaid documents show that the defendant no.1 had been granted loan subject to certain terms of repayment contained therein and that the defendant no.2 had guaranteed repayment. Statement of account as Ex PW1/13 indicates that the defendant no.1 failed to make payment of the outstanding sum despite grant of opportunity. The claim of the plaintiff is strengthened by the duly certified statement of account Ex. PW1/13.
8. The statement of account shows the payments made by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff and accrual of interest. The defendants failed to appear before the court and were proceeded exparte. They have not even filed their written statement. The version of the plaintiff is deemed to be admitted by the defendants. There is Suit No. 387/10 State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayan & ors. page 3 of 5 no evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff or to dispute the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The solitary witness of the plaintiff has also not been crossexamined on behalf of defendants. The testimony of PW1 has therefore remained uncontroverted.
9. On the basis of the statement of account Ex.PW1/13, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff bank is entitled to the sum claimed by it i.e. Rs.31,552/ which includes interest at the agreed rate. The suit has been instituted within the period of limitation. This court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said sum as per the loan agreement and deed of guarantee. The liability of defendant no.2 is coextensive with that of defendant no.1.
10. The plaintiff has also prayed for interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum. However, having regard to the prevailing bank rates, it is deemed fit to grant pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1 and 2 in the sum of Rs.31,552/ along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum adjudged from the date of decree till the date of realization. Defendants no. 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid sum to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of costs of the suit from defendants no.1 and 2. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
Suit No. 387/10 State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayan & ors. page 4 of 5 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Naveen Gupta)
on 05 day of February, 2014.
th
Additional Senior Civil Judge cum
Judge, Small Causes Court cum
Guardian Judge, NorthWest District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Suit No. 387/10 State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayan & ors. page 5 of 5