Delhi High Court
Cirrus Graphics Pvt.Ltd vs Reliant Media Pvt. Ltd on 7 February, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
25
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)No.1764/2007
Date of Decision : 7th February, 2011
%
CIRRUS GRAPHICS PVT.LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : Ms. Anjali Chopra, Adv.
versus
RELIANT MEDIA PVT. LTD ..... Defendant
Through : None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Not Necessary.
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
J.R. MIDHA, J. (Oral)
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of `27,40,813/-
under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
plaintiff's suit is based on 112 invoices issued by the plaintiff to
the defendant during the period 13th August, 2004 to 4th March,
2006 in respect of the printing work done by the plaintiff for the
defendant.
2. The plaintiff was maintaining a running account of the
defendant. As per the statement of account placed on record,
the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of `20,45,383/-. The statement
of account indicates the details of the bills raised and the
payments made by the defendant from time to time.
3. On 17th April, 2006, the defendant issued cheque
No.885257 for `3,00,000/- in part payment of its dues.
However, the said cheque was dishonored due to the
insufficiency of funds on 4th July, 2006 whereupon the plaintiff
issued a notice of dishonor dated 18th July, 2006 and thereafter
instituted a complaint under Sections 138 and 141/142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act which is pending before the
Metropolitan Magistrate. Vide reply dated 27th December,
2006, the defendant admitted the printing of the magazines by
the plaintiff on the defendant's order but raised various pleas
including sub-standard printing. The plaintiff issued a legal
notice dated 19th January, 2007 to the defendant and,
therefore, instituted this suit for recovery. The plaintiff has filed
the original 112 invoices. Most of the invoices contain the
acknowledgement and stamp of the defendant.
4. The summons of the summary suit under Order XXXVII
Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure were issued to the
defendant on 26th September, 2007. However, the said
summons were returned with the remarks that the defendant
has shifted from the given address. The summons were also
issued to the residence of the Managing Director of the
defendant which also returned unserved with the report that
the Managing Director has sold the property in question. Vide
order dated 24th September, 2009, the plaintiff was permitted
to serve the defendant by publication in 'Statesman' as well as
by affixation at the last known address and by display of the
Court notice on the board. The publication in terms thereof was
effected in the 'Statesman' on 28th October, 2009. However,
there was no appearance on behalf of the defendant despite
publication within 10 days of the service and, therefore, this
suit is liable to be decreed under Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
plaintiff has also submitted the evidence by way of affidavit of
PW-1 who has proved the case and has also exhibited the
documents. However, since this suit is under Order XXXVII of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the allegations in the plaint are
deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to the
decree for the suit amount due to the default of the
appearance of the defendant. In that view of the matter, the
plaintiff is entitled to decree under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. In that facts and circumstances of this case, the suit is
decreed under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil
Procedure for a sum of `20,45,383/- along with interest @ 9%
per annum from 4th March, 2006 up to the date of realization.
The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of this litigation.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2011/mk
