Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Wadhera vs Sh. Pankaj Sarawat on 30 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 858/18
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Wadhera
S/o Late Sh. Kuldip Raj Wadhera
R/o 14/52, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi 110 027 ........... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Pankaj Sarawat
C/o Future Sign Career Solution Institute
E-66, 3rd floor,Gurunanak Pura,
Jail Road, Near Fateh Nagar Gurudwara
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110 018 ........ Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 28.07.2018
Date on which order was reserved : 29.07.2020
Date of decision : 30.07.2020
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF AMOUNT OF RS. 5,90,250/-
(RUPEES FIVE LACS NINETY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
AND FIFTY ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDETE-LITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST @ 24% PER ANNUM
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1 The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present
suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff are that Sh. Yogesh Wadhera,
the son of the plaintiff was studying in class 12 th at St. Marks
School, Delhi. It has been further stated that for the purposes of
coaching of his son, the plaintiff came in contact with the
defendant, who was running Future Sign Career Solution Institute.
It has been further stated that the plaintiff sent his son for coaching
Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 1/8
to the defendant and the defendant could develop good relations
with the son of the plaintiff and with the plaintiff as well.
1.1 It has been further stated that the defendant advised the plaintiff that after 12th class, Sh. Yogesh Wadhera should pursue his LLB, five years course from NLU Delhi. It has been further stated that the defendant informed the plaintiff that after doing LLB from National Law University, Delhi, Sh. Yogesh Wadhera will get a job of Rs. 1 lac per month. It has been further stated that the defendant also told the plaintiff that he was aware about the whole procedure for admission and he also assured that he would complete all the formalities for the same.
1.2 It has been further stated that the defendant informed the plaintiff in the month of January 2017 that the fees of NLU was Rs. 4.50 lacs and he asked Sh. Yogesh Wadhera to apply for the admission with NLU and even with I.P. University. It has been further stated that the defendant also told the plaintiff that the fees of I.P. University was Rs. 2.5 lacs.
1.3 It has been further stated that in the month of January 2017, the defendant demanded the amount of Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to inform the name of the concerned person, in whose favour, the Demand draft was to be prepared. It has been further stated that thereafter, the defendant told the plaintiff to give him a cheque and he also stated that he would get prepared the demand draft himself. It has been further stated that the plaintiff paid two cheques, one for the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs and the other for Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant. It has been further Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 2/8 stated that the defendant presented both the abovesaid cheques and the same were encashed on 31.01.2017.
1.4 It has been further stated that in the month of March 2017, the defendant again approached the plaintiff and demanded Rs. 2.5 lacs more. It has been further stated that accordingly the plaintiff gave the defendant two cheques for the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs and the same were also encashed.
1.5 It has been further stated that in the month of April 2017, the defendant took Rs. 40,000/- in cash from the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the defendant handed over the provisional admission letter of NLU dated 25.06.2017 to the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the defendant also took Rs. 18,250/- in cash from the plaintiff for depositing the said amount in the university.
1.6 It has been further stated that in the month of July 2017, the defendant demanded the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs from the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the plaintiff gave a draft no. 295709 for the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs to the defendant. It has been further stated that the defendant also took Rs. 32,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 18.07.2017 for depositing the same in university. It has been further stated that on 24.07.2017, the defendant took Sh. Yogesh Wadhera along with him for interview but Sh. Yogesh Wadhera did not get any seat in both the abovesaid universities. 1.7 The plaintiff has alleged that thereafter he came to know that the defendant had played fraud upon him and that the provisional admission letter dated 25.06.2017 was also fake and fabricated. It has been further stated that the plaintiff told the defendant that he Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 3/8 would report the matter to the police in case, the amount of the plaintiff was not returned back to the defendant. 1.8 It has been further stated that the defendant handed over a demand draft for the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs, which was prepared in the name of NLU. It has been further stated that on 25.08.2017, the plaintiff got the draft encashed. It has been further stated that the plaintiff demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 5,90,250/- from the defendant. It has been further stated that the defendant gave a cheque bearing no. 003860 dated 12.09.2017 for a sum of Rs. 4.50 lacs drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi to the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the defendant also assured that he would pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,40,250/- to the plaintiff in the month of October 2017. It has been further stated that the abovesaid cheque dated 12.09.2017 for the amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs was dishonoured on presentation with the returning memo dated 14.09.2017. 1.9 It has been further stated that the plaintiff filed a complaint U/s 138 of N.I.Act against the defendant before the court and the same is pending disposal before the court of Ld.MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It has been further stated that the defendant is under obligation to pay the amount of the plaintiff and hence, the present suit.
2. On the basis of the above said allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for an amount of Rs. 5,90,250/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the filing of the present suit till the date Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 4/8 of its realization. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the suit.
3. Perusal of the order sheet dated 02.07.2019 reveals that the defendant failed to appear before the court despite service and as such, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte on that date.
4. For proving its case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. PW1 in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A on record has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. He has filed on record the certified copies of returning memo and cheque as Ex.PW1/1(colly), the certified copy of legal notice dated 03.10.2017 along with its postal receipt as Ex.PW1/2(colly), certified copy of courier receipt dated 07.10.2017 as Ex.PW1/3, the certified copy of tracking report as mark A, the certified copy of demand draft as mark B and the certified copy of bank pass book as mark C.
5. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
6. PW1 has placed on record the certified copies of the returning memo and the cheque for the amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs in the form of Ex.PW1/1 to show that the abovesaid cheque for the amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff and the same was returned unpaid by the bankers of the defendant.
7. Now, in the present suit, the plaintiff has not only claimed the amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs but the plaintiff has claimed the amount of Rs. 5,90,250/-. The plaintiff has alleged that besides the Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 5/8 abovesaid cheque for the amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs, the defendant had undertaken to pay Rs. 1,40,250/- to the plaintiff.
8. Now, in order to show the payment by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff has placed on record the certified copies of his bank pass book in the form of mark C. Perusal of mark C reveals that on 07.01.2017, there is an entry against the name of the defendant for the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs and again, there is an entry for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- against the name of the defendant on 10.01.2017. There are two more entries one for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the other for the amount of Rs. 2,000/- against the name of the defendant.
9. The plaintiff has not summoned and examined anyone from the concerned bank to prove his statement of account as is reflected from the certified copy of his passbook.
10. The testimony of PW1 remains uncontroverted and unchallenged because despite the service, the defendant failed to appear and failed to contest the present suit. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted testimony of PW1. As such, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he is entitled for the amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs which is the amount of the cheque Ex.PW1/1 but at the same time, to my mind, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs. 1,40,250/- from the defendant.
11. So far as the interest is concerned, the interest @ 9% per annum is awarded to the plaintiff on the amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs from the date of the filing of the present suit till the date of its realization.
Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 6/812. As such, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed ex parte partly and an ex parte decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs together with the interest @ 9% per annum only from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of the realization of the decreetal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2020.07.31
02:32:57 +0530
Announced on the CISCO (RAJ KUMAR)
Webex on this 30th day ADJ (WEST)
of July 2020 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 7/8
Suit No. 858/18
30.07.2020
Present : Sh. Manoj Khatri, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is
present on Cisco Webex.
Vide my separate ex parte judgment of even date, announced on the CISCO Webex, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed ex-parte partly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs together with the interest @ 9% per annum only from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of the realization of the decreetal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Raj Kumar) ADJ (West), THC Delhi/30.07.2020 Suit No. 858/18 Page No. 8/8