Delhi High Court
Paridhi Textiles vs Petal International & Ors. on 5 December, 2011
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 05.12.2011
+ CS (OS) No.1426/2010
PARIDHI TEXTILES ..... Plaintiff
Through Ms. Purbali Bora, Adv.
versus
PETAL INTERNATIONAL & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The plaintiff has filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of a
sum of Rs.22,32,249/- under Order XXXVII CPC along with pendentelite
and future interest @ 18% per annum, as well as the cost of the suit.
2. The defendants were duly served. They appeared and applied for
leave to defend. The said application was decided vide order dated
03.08.2011. The defendants were allowed conditional leave to defend.
They were directed to deposit the suit amount before this Court within six
weeks from the date of passing of the said order. It was also specifically
mentioned in that order that in case the amount is not deposited, the suit
would be liable to be decreed. In view of that order, the defendants were
given time to file their written statement within 30 days and the matter was
directed to be placed before the Joint Registrar on 20.10.2011 and before
the Court for framing of issues on 05.12.2011.
3. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar but due to non-
availability of the file, the same was adjourned to 12.01.2012. However,
when the matter is listed today before the Court for framing of issues, it has
been indicated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff
that the order dated 03.08.2011 has not been complied with by the
defendants. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has
admitted that the suit amount as directed by the Court has not been
deposited by the defendants. It is also stated that since the amount is not
deposited, the defendants have also not filed the written statement. There is
no valid explanation given by the learned counsel for the defendants for not
depositing the said amount with the Court, nor any application for
extension of time was made.
4. In the order dated 03.08.2011, it was clearly indicated that in case the
amount is not deposited, the suit would be liable to be decreed. Hence, in
the absence of non-compliance with the said order or any valid reason, the
application filed by the defendants for leave to defend is dismissed.
Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the sum of
Rs.22,32,249/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
5. As far as the prayer with regard to the award of pendentlite and
future interest @ 18% per annum is concerned, I am of the view that the
claim made by the plaintiff is slightly excessive. Considering the overall
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the plaintiff
would be entitled for the interest, pendentelite and future, @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing the present suit till the actual realization of
the amount in question. Ordered accordingly. A decree be drawn
accordingly.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 05, 2011/ka
