Delhi District Court
Matrix Cellular (International) ... vs Manjusha Shukla on 3 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI,
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI.
CS No. 104/2011
I.D No. 02406C0151722011
Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt Ltd.,
7, Khullar Farms, 140, New Manglapuri,
Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110 030.
Plaintiff
Versus
1. Manjusha Shukla,
D/o Shri Pawan Sut Shukla,
R/o R2/123, New Raj Nagar,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) 201 002.
2. Himanshu Choudhary
S/o Shri Shivram Choudhary,
B353, Green Field Colony,
Sec4142, Faridabad 121 003. (The suit withdrawn against
him on 03.09.2011)
Defendants
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.07.2011
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : Not reserved.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.09.2011.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF A SUM OF Rs. 9,313/ (RUPEES
NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTEEN ONLY)
UNDER ORDER XXXVII CPC.
CS No. 104/2011 Page No. 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed under order XXXVII of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") by plaintiff for recovery of liquidated sum of Rs. 9,313/ along with interest. After the summons of the suit were issued to defendants in the prescribed form as defined under Order 37 (2) (Sub Rule 2) CPC, defendants have not entered their appearances.
2. The defendant no. 1 Ms. Manjusha Shukla remained absent despite service of summons upon her at R2/123, New Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) 201 002.
3. In view of the statement made by counsel for plaintiff on 03.09.2011, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn against defendant no. 2 - Shri Himanshu Choudhary.
4. I have heard learned counsel for plaintiff at considerable length and have perused the record.
5. The suit is instituted through Shri Chandra Shekhar, Executive, legal on behalf of plaintiff company which is dealing in International Mobile Rental Services. It is stated that defendant had applied for International Mobile Connection in South CS No. 104/2011 Page No. 2 of 6 Delhi and procured the Standard Application Form containing the terms & conditions regarding the usage of connection and agreed to abide by the same. On the basis of the information/statement furnished by the defendant in the Application Form, the plaintiff gave her an International Mobile connection No. 7942845800 under the Agreement No. S0803517. As per the accounts maintained by plaintiff company, an outstanding amount of Rs.9,313/ is due and payable by the defendant towards the International Mobile Connection No. 7942845800 but despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant intentionally and deliberately failed to pay the same with ulterior motives. The suit is based on an agreement form dated 21.09.2008, which is placed on record in original by plaintiff hence the same is covered within the provisions of Order 37 CPC and is also tendered within limitation.
6. There is no relief claimed by plaintiff which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order, 37 CPC.
7. It is useful to refer the relevant provisions of law which are as under: CS No. 104/2011 Page No. 3 of 6 Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC.
(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such services, enter an appearance either in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in court an address for service of notice on him. Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC.
(3) The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub rule(1) unless he enters an appearance and in 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 the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the Hon'ble High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith.
8. In view of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is clear that if the defendants make default in entering their appearance within ten days from the date of service of summons upon them the allegations as levelled in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. As per record, the defendant no. 1 stood served by way of courier on 18.07.2011. Till date, no appearance has been entered into CS No. 104/2011 Page No. 4 of 6 by the defendant no. 1 and accordingly the allegations levelled in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by her, entitling the plaintiff to a decree straightway.
9. The plaintiff has placed on record the original agreement form, copy of account ledger of the defendant no.1 , the copy of legal notice dated 19.06.2010, copy of tariff plan, copy of lease deed, copy of visa card of defendant no. 2 and copy of passport of defendants given to plaintiff for reimbursement of the usage of the mobile number. The documents placed on record by the plaintiff shows that a written contract was executed between the parties. The defendants availed the services of the plaintiff and undertook to make payment of the same. The defendants failed to make payment despite using the services of the plaintiff. The account of ledger of defendant no. 1 shows that the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,313/ for using the services of the plaintiff.
10. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Plaintiff has produced nothing on record to show its entitlement for such exorbitant rate of interest i.e. 18% per annum. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for interest only at the prevailing bank rate. CS No. 104/2011 Page No. 5 of 6
11. Hence, in the given circumstances, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against defendant. Defendant no. 1 Ms. Manjusha Shukla is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,313/ to the plaintiff with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Decreesheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in open Court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI) on 03.09.2011) ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 104/2011 Page No. 6 of 6