Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar, Proprietor Of Suman ... vs Nageshwar Pandey on 27 May, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
17
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 310/2014 & I.A. No. 7002/2015(by the plaintiff u/S 151
CPC) & IA No.17101/2014(by the defendant u/O XXXVII R 3(5)
CPC)
LALIT KUMAR, PROPRIETOR OF SUMAN JEWELLERY..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Manish Sharma,
Mr.Pranay Raj Singh & Ms.Chandni Mehra,
Advocates
versus
NAGESHWAR PANDEY ..... Defendant
Through Defendant in person with
Mr.A.K.Sinha, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 27.05.2015
1. The present order is in continuation of a detailed order passed
on 19.5.2015.
2. The plaintiff has instituted the accompanying suit against the
defendant under Order XXXVII CPC praying inter alia for recovery of a
sum of `2,52,73,387/-, along with interest @ 18% p.a.on the principal
amount.
3. On 23.12.2014, when the leave to defend application(IA
No.17101/2014) filed by the defendant was listed for arguments
before the predecessor Bench, the defendant had appeared in person
along with his counsel and had stated that he was willing to pay the
principal amount in five installments, commencing on 1.2.2015 and
ending on 1.6.2015.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the plaintiff had
fairly stated that if the defendant adheres to the schedule that was
suggested by him, then the plaintiff would not press for the interest
and cost of the suit. It was recorded in the order dated 23.12.2014
that the defendant had agreed that in case the aforesaid amount is not
paid to the plaintiff as per the schedule, then the leave to defend
application filed by him will be dismissed and the suit will be decreed
with costs. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 27.7.2015, to await
compliance by the defendant.
5. In the meantime, the plaintiff had filed the present
application(IA No.7002/2015) stating inter alia that the defendant had
failed to pay a penny to him despite the assurance given on
23.12.2014. Notice was issued on the application on 8.4.2015,
returnable on 8.5.2015. As the lawyers were abstaining from
appearing in court on 8.5.2015, the case was adjourned to 19.5.2015.
On the said date, it was directed that the defendant would remain
present on the next date of hearing.
6. A reply to I.A. No.7002/2015 was filed by the defendant on
06.5.2015, wherein he has reiterated his earlier undertaking to pay
the entire principal amount to the plaintiff, on or before 1.6.2015.
7. On 19.5.2015, the defendant had presented himself on the first
call and had admitted his default in adhering to the schedule proposed
by him and recorded in the order dated 23.12.2014. However, he had
reiterated his readiness and willingness to pay the entire agreed
amount at one go, on or before 1.6.2015. As the court was not
inclined to entertain the said request until the defendant was in a
position to demonstrate his bonafides by paying at least the first
installment of `50 lacs to the plaintiff, as detailed in the order dated
23.12.2014, the case was passed over. On the second call, the
defendant had absented himself. Instead, his counsel had appeared
and stated that the defendant was held up before a Division Bench.
While refraining from passing any adverse orders against the
defendant on the said date, the case was adjourned for today and last
and final opportunity of one week was granted to him to bring to court
a draft of the agreed amount in favour of the plaintiff. It was also
clarified that in case of failure on the part of the defendant to make
compliance, the order dated 23.12.2014 would be given effect to,
without granting any further indulgence to him.
8. Today, the defendant appears along with his counsel and admits
that he has neither brought the draft of `2,52,73,387/-, nor the first
instalment of Rs.50 lacs that he had agreed to pay to the plaintiff four
months ago on 01.2.2015.
9. In these circumstances, this court has no option but to give
effect to the order dated 23.12.2014. As a result, IA No.17101/2014
filed by the defendant for grant of leave to defend the summary suit,
is dismissed. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff who is
entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,52,73,387/- from the defendant with
interest @ 12% p.a. from 7.2.2011, the date by which two cheques for
a sum of `1,00,00,000/- and `1,50,000/- were issued by the
defendant in favour of the plaintiff and were dishonoured due to
insufficient funds. The plaintiff is also held entitled to costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
10. The suit is disposed of, along with pending application.
The date already fixed, i.e., 27.7.2015 stands cancelled.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MAY 27, 2015
mk/ap
