Delhi District Court
Racpc At vs Sh. Naveen Chauhan on 19 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL: CIVIL JUDGE09
CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CS no. 3133/18
State Bank of India,
Head Office at:
State Bank Bhawan,
Madam Kama Road, Mumbai440024,
Local Head Office At:
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001.
Branch Office At:
Nirankari Colony,
New Delhi.
RACPC at:
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001
through its Chief Manager
Sh. Vijay Kumar .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Naveen Chauhan,
S/o Sh. Ranjeet Chauhan,
2. Mr. Ranjeet Singh
S/o Mr. Kumar Pal,
Both R/o H.NO. 16, Gali no. 5,
BBlock, Himgiri Enclave,
Near Transport, Auth.
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi110084. .....Defendants
SUMMARY SUIT UNDER ORDER 37 OF CPC FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,81,611/
(RUPEES TWO LAKH EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED ELEVEN ONLY)
AS ON DATED 17.09.2018 ALONG WITH COSTS, EXPENSES, PENDENTE LITE,
FUTURE INTEREST @ 12.45%
CS No. 3133/18 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. NAVEEN CHAUHAN & ors Page no. 1 of 4
Date of institution : 29.10.2018
Date of decision : 19.11.2019
Final Order : Ex Parte Decreed
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff bank filed the present suit against the defendants through its AR, Sh. Vijay Kumar u/o 37 CPC. The present suit is converted into an ordinary suit vide order dated 24.05.2019. That defendants approached the plaintiff bank for grant of educational loan and after due appraisal and consideration of application, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,85,000/ and disbursed the same on 11.08.2014 vide loan account no. 34033872799. That the defendant no. 2 stood the guarantor of defendant no. 1 pertaining to the said educational loan. That the said amount repayable after completion of two years course period plus one year Moratorium or six months after getting job. That the defendants failed, neglected and avoided to adhere to the financial discipline of the bank resulting in his account becoming irregular and was thus declared as nonperforming Assets with effect from 31.12.2017. That the plaintiff bank served a legal notice dated 28.08.2018 on the defendants but the notice also failed to produce any desirable result. Thus, defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,81,611/ as on 17.09.2018 along with pendentlite and future interest and cost of litigation @ 12.45% per annum at monthly rests on the decreetal amount from 29.10.2018 till the actual and final realization of the amount.
2. Summons of the suit for the settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. Despite service of summons, defendant neither turned up in the court nor filed any written statement and accordingly, defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 03.09.2019.
3. In its exparte evidence, the plaintiff examined Sh. Rajiv Jain, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, RACPC Branch as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon following documents CS No. 3133/18 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. NAVEEN CHAUHAN & ors Page no. 2 of 4
1. Copy of Gazattee Notification which is Ex. PW1/A.
2. Original of loan application & Proposal Forms etc Form is Ex PW1/B (colly).
3. Copies of documents qua intended Education Loan is Ex PW1/C (colly).
4. Original Appraisal cum sanction letter is Ex PW1/D (colly).
5. Original Agreement of term is ex PW1/E.
6. Original Annexure1 is Ex PW1/F.
7. Original Operation letter is Ex PW1/G.
8. Undertaking by defendant is Ex PW1/H.
9. Copy of other related documents are EX PW1/I (colly).
10. Legal notice and its postal receipts are Ex PW1/J (colly).
11. Copy of Loan statement is Ex PW1/K (colly).
12. Certificates under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Certificate under section 2A of Banker's Book of Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/L (colly).
13. Certificate of accrued Interest is Ex PW1/M. Thereafter plaintiff evidence is closed by the separate statement of AR of plaintiff.
4. I have heard the final exparte arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and carefully perused the record.
5. The defendant was proceeded exparte in this case. The evidence of PW1 stands unrebutted/unchallenged as PW1 was not cross examined by the defendant. In view of unchallenged testimony of PW1 and on the basis of material on record, it may be said that the plaintiff bank has been able to prove its case against the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 12.45% per annum which is exorbitant. In the given facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 4% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of filing of suit till its CS No. 3133/18 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. NAVEEN CHAUHAN & ors Page no. 3 of 4 realisation.
Relief:
6. In view of the discussion above, the present suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendant. The plaintiff bank is entitled for the decreetal amount of Rs. 2,81,611/ alongwith pendent lite interest and future interest @ 4% per annum on the same from the date of filing of present suit i.e. 29.10.2018 till its realisation.
7. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff bank.
8. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MAYANK GOELMAYANK Date:
GOEL 2019.11.19
10:53:05
+0530
Announced in the open Court. (Mayank Goel)
Civil Judge09, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
19.11.2019
CS No. 3133/18 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. NAVEEN CHAUHAN & ors Page no. 4 of 4