Delhi District Court
Mr Amit Badola vs S/O Mr M Dorai Raj on 5 June, 2010
Suit No 89/10
Mr Amit Badola Vs S/o Mr M Dorai Raj
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) DELHI
(SUIT U/O XXXVII CPC )
Suit No 89/10
Mr Amit Badola
S/o Mr C L Badola
R/o House No.158,
Ground Floor, Pocket18,
Sector 24,
Rohini, Delhi . ............... Plaintiff
Vs
S/o Mr M Dorai Raj
Sh D K Kannan
R/o 33A
CGHS Complex, Opp Priya Cinema
Vasant Vihar ,
New Delhi 110057
IInd Address
D K Kannan
Assistant
Ministry of Coal & Mines ,
Government of India,
Khan Market, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi 110003
Identity Card No.B2112860 ........ Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 18.03.2010
Date of hearing final argument : 04.06.2010
Date of Judgement : 05.06.2010
1
Suit No 89/10
Mr Amit Badola Vs S/o Mr M Dorai Raj
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of present judgement, the court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the present suit under order XXXVII CPC filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of Rs.1.85,000/ alongwith interest pendentelite & future @ 18% per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of decreetal amount.
2. Briefly stating the plaintiff is stated to having friendly relation with the defendant and on 18.10.08 the defendant approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs.20,000/ plaintiff being a good natured and helping person extended the loan to defendant considering the defendant is a government servant and working as Assistant with Ministry of Coal and Mines, Khan Market, New Delhi. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant again approached him on various occasions and plaintiff considering genuine need of defendant extended friendly loan of Rs.20,000/ on 11.11.08, Rs.15,000/ on 27.11.08, Rs.15,000/ on 05.12.08, Rs.20,000/ on 24.01.09, Rs.20,000/ on 01.02.09, Rs.20,000/ 2 Suit No 89/10 Mr Amit Badola Vs S/o Mr M Dorai Raj on 21.02.09, Rs.20,000/ on 18.03.09, Rs.20,000/ on 16.04.09 and Rs.15,000/ on 02.05.2009 and thus the plaintiff extended total friendly loan of Rs.1,85,000/ to the defendant against which defendant issued a receipt of said payment received. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 18.01.2010 the plaintiff demanded back the loan amount from the defendant who in discharge of his liability issued as cheque in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,85,000/ bearing No.904276 dt 05.02.10 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Branch Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi and assured that the same shall be honoured on its presentation. It is further the case of the plaintiff that believing the promise of defendant plaintiff deposited the said cheque in his account No.30801891538 at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Delhi on 09.03.2010, but the plaintiff was shocked when the said cheque returned un paid due to 'insufficient funds' vide memo dated 10.03.2010. It is further averred by the plaintiff that after the cheque was returned alongwith memo plaintiff approached the defendant for payment but defendant denied making the payment in lieu of dishonoured cheque for which the defendant is legally bound to pay the same to the plaintiff but the defendant flatly refused to honour his commitments . The cause of action is stated to have arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the 3 Suit No 89/10 Mr Amit Badola Vs S/o Mr M Dorai Raj defendant on 18.10.08 when defendant approached for friendly loan and further arisen on various dates when further loan of Rs.20,000/, Rs.15,000/, Rs.15,000/, Rs.20,000/, Rs.20,000/, Rs.20,000/, Rs.20,000/, Rs.20,000/ and Rs.15,000/ was extended to the defendant and it again arose on 18.01.2010 when plaintiff demanded back the loan amount of Rs.1,85,000/ from the defendant, and on 18.01.10 when a defendant issued a cheque No.904276 drawn on Syndicate Bank in favour of the plaintiff and lastly arose on 10.03.10 when the aforesaid cheque got dishonoured. Plaintiff has claimed that the defendant as such is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,000/ alongwith future and pendentelite interest @ 18% per annum . Hence the present suit .
3. Since the suit is based on a cheque specifying liquidated sum the same is accordingly covered within the purview of order XXXVII rule 2 of code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Summons for appearance in form 4 appendix B, CPC was issued to the defendant by the court vide order dated 19.03.2010. Defendant was served with the summons for appearance on 21.04.2010. 4 Suit No 89/10
Mr Amit Badola Vs S/o Mr M Dorai Raj
5. Defendant has failed to enter his appearance within the stipulated statutory period of 10 days as required under the law. In terms of rule 2 sub rule 3 of order XXXVII of the CPC, in case of default in not making the appearance within the stipulated period, the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. Accordingly suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant and plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs.1,85,000/ against the defendant. Plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum as same is just and equitable in view of section 34 of CPC and Provision of Interest Act on such amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its decree. In the specific fact and circumstances of the case plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit. Suit of plaintiff is accordingly decreed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due completion .
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DATED 05.06.2010 SCJ/RC(NORTH)DELHI
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT .
5