Delhi District Court
Smt. Ritu Gupta (Deceased) vs M/S. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd on 8 December, 2016
In the Court of Virender Kumar Goyal
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Suit No.758/16
In the matter of :
Smt. Ritu Gupta (deceased)
through LR's
(i) Sh. Ankur Gupta (Husband)
(ii) Master Shubh Gupta
Through its natural guardian/father
R/o 165B, AGI, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi110018 .............Plaintiffs
Versus
1. M/s. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd.
At : A8, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg,
Delhi110092
Also at :
Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd.
102, F/F, Plot No.2,
Vardhman Master Plaza
Gazipur, Delhi110096
Also at :
Site Office: Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd.
Raj Nagar Extension, NH58,
Ghaziabad, U.P201017
2. Rajeev Gupta
Authorized Signatory
M/s. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd.
At : A8, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg,
Delhi110092
Also at :
Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd.
102, F/F, Plot No.2,
Vardhman Master Plaza
Gazipur, Delhi110096 ........Defendants
Date of institution : 30.09.2014
Reserved for order on : 08.12.2016
Date of judgment : 08.12.2016
Suit No.758/16 Page No.1 of 5
JUDGMENT
Suit for recovery of Rs.4,05,735/ U/o XXXVII CPC
1. Brief facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the present suit are that the plaintiff has filed the suit u/o 37 of CPC, on the averments that defendant No.1 through its representatives issued an advertisement for booking of plots and after long discussions with the representatives of defendant No.1, on 08.05.2006 plaintiff got booked a plot of 150 sq. yards under the proposed township of defendant No.1 and had paid Rs.2.97 lacs on the same day to the authorized representative of defendant No.1 vide receipt No.132 and application No.432. Rs.2 lacs were paid by cheque drawn on ICICI Bank, whereas, Rs.95875/ were paid on 02.11.2006 vide receipt No.111. After booking, defendant No.2 assured and shown the document dated 20.07.2007 to the plaintiff. The representative of defendant No.1 said to the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is a registered private development under B category in the GDA for the purposes of land assembly and construction work with respect to housing schemes in Ghaziabad Planning Area and assured the plaintiff to provide the booked plot within one year. Before completion of one year and after passing of one year, plaintiff so many times approached the defendants No.1&2 for getting the plot, but, they lingering on the matter on one or other pretext and finally failed to provide the said plot, consequently, defendants No.1&2 cancelled the said plot after completing all necessary formalities by the plaintiff and they assured to return the booking amount of Rs.2.97 lacs with interest to the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 himself and on behalf of Suit No.758/16 Page No.2 of 5 defendant No.1 in discharge of liability with respect to payment of Rs.2.97 lacs and interest, issued cheque No.010721 dated 30.09.2011 of Rs.297875/ and another cheque No.010722 dated 30.09.2011 of Rs.107860/, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, in favour of the plaintiff, duly signed by defendant No.2, being authorized signatory of defendant No.1, assuring the plaintiff that same will be encashed, but, on presentation 34 times, said cheques got dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" vide returning memos dated 03.10.2011 (two memos), 08.10.2011 (one memo) and 07.01.2012 (one memo). Immediately, plaintiff contacted the defendants and apprised about the same and also demanded cheques amount in cash, but, all the times, defendant No.2 made false excuses and also failed to make the payment. On 25.09.2014 plaintiff approached defendant No.1 at Swasthya Vihar, Delhi and met with defendant No.2 and again requested to make the payment of Rs.405735/, but, defendant No.2 failed to give any satisfactory answer and also failed to make the payment. Hence, this suit.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the above mentioned act and conduct of the defendants, plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.405735/ against the defendant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 30.09.2014 and costs of suit.
3. The plaintiff has placed reliance upon the documents i.e. original cheque No.010721 of Rs.297875/ and another cheque No.010722 of Rs.107860/ both dated 30.09.2011, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Vivek Vihar, Delhi, issued in favour of the plaintiff Ritu Gupta, two receipts bearing No.432 dated Suit No.758/16 Page No.3 of 5 08.05.2006 of Rs.2 lacs and another receipt No.111 dated 02.11.2006 of Rs.97875/, issued by the defendant No.1 under the signature of defendant No.2, with respect to registration of plot of 150 sq. yards, in the name of the plaintiff Ritu Gupta, original cheque returning memos dated 07.01.2012, 08.12.2011, 09.10.2011, 03.10.2011, 07.01.2012, 09.12.2011 with respect to dishonour of cheque No.10721 of Rs.297875/ and cheque No.10722 of Rs.107860/, original letter dated 30.08.2008 issued by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff Ms. Ritu Gupta with respect to convert the plot into flat on further payment of Rs.5 lacs, photocopy of affidavit dated 11.03.2011 executed by plaintiff Ritu Gupta with respect to refund of Rs.297875/ with interest, as allotment of plot was cancelled. This affidavit is duly stamped with the stamp of defendant No.1 on 26.03.2011. Photocopy of letter dated 26.03.2011 written by the plaintiff Ritu Gupta to the defendant No.1 with respect to cancellation of registration of plot of 150 sq. yards and for returning of Rs.297875/ with interest. This letter is duly stamped with the stamp of defendant No.1 on dated 26.03.2011. Photocopy of letter written by plaintiff Ritu Gupta to her Banker with respect to attestation of her signature, under the stamp of defendant No.1. Photocopies of PAN card and driving license of the plaintiff Ritu Gupta.
4. Summons of appearance U/o 37 of CPC were issued to defendants. Only defendant was No.1 served with the summons through its AR Sh. Jitender Saim on 16.09.2016, before the court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, ACMM, KKD Courts, Delhi, as ordered vide order dated 08.09.2016, but despite service of summons of Suit No.758/16 Page No.4 of 5 appearance, neither defendants appeared before the court nor any appearance has been filed in the court within ten days from the date of service, as prescribed under the CPC.
5. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
6. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that in view of service upon AR of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 Rajeev Gupta is no more required to be served, being AR of defendant No.1.
7. Since, it is a summary suit and defendant No.1 has failed to file its appearance in the court within 10 days from the date of service, as a necessary sequel, so, the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment and decree forthwith in accordance with order 37 rule 2(a) of CPC.
8. In view of the facts, as mentioned above in the plaint, the documents placed on record and mandatory provisions of law, as mentioned above, a decree for recovery of Rs.4,05,735/, is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree with costs of the suit.
9. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. It is clarified that the decree shall be executable only on filing of the deficit court fee, if any. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on 08.12.2016 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional District Judge01 (East)/KKD Court/Delhi.
Suit No.758/16 Page No.5 of 5