Judgment:
Although after the institution of the suit the Writ of Summons was duly served upon the defendants, only the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants had entered appearance but did not file any written statement thereafter to contest the suit.
The certificates to this effect obtained by the plaintiff from the department dated 8 July 2010 and 9 July 2010 are kept on record duly countersigned. The 1st defendant, however, did not even enter appearance to contest the suit at any point of time.
The certificate dated 2 September 2010 obtained by the plaintiff from the concerned department is also kept on record duly countersigned.
The plaintiff instituted the suit after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure primarily for a decree for Rs. 5,40,192/- against the defendants jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the above amount.
The plaintiff has also sought for a decree for damages of Rs. 10 lakh and alternatively an enquiry to such damages suffered by the plaintiff. The cause of action of the plaintiff is really based on an agreement dated 22 March 2006 by and between the plaintiff and the defendants. I have considered the statements made in the plaint and the claims made by the plaintiff therein.
Although, in my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under the provisions of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure as an uncontested suit, the plaintiffs witness, however, has given evidence in Court today and proved the documents on which the case of the plaintiff is based.
For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the documents proved in evidence by the plaintiffs witness and marked as exhibits are mentioned below:
1. Agreement dated 22.3.2006 between the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. Receipt dated 22.3.2006.
3. Letter dated 22.3.2006 from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. 4. Letter sent under registered post with AD dated 31.7.2006 from Mr. Pushan Kar, Advocate to the defendants 1 to 4.
5. Certified copy of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff in the Court of the learned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court, Calcutta against the 1st defendant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. Copy of cheque issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff being No. 1688 dated 3.8.2006 drawn on UTI Bank Limited, Dum Dum Branch, Kolkata for Rs. 5 lakh.
After considering the evidence of the plaintiffs witness and the case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint, I have no manner of doubt that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case for the purpose of obtaining relief as claimed in the suit. Thus there will be a decree as claimed in claim (a) of the plaint.
There will also be a decree for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above decrial amount of Rs. 5,40,192/- from the date of institution of the suit till the date of the decree.
The plaintiff will also be entitled to a decree for interest at the rate of 10% from 10 September 2010 till the above decree for Rs. 5,40,192/- is satisfied.
Having regard to the evidence on the damages suffered by the plaintiff because of the breach or breaches on the part of the defendants of the agreement in question, a lump sum amount of Rs. 2 laths is decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
There will also be a decree for costs assessed at Rs. 40,000/- and the plaintiff will be entitled to such costs over and above the court fees that the plaintiff had to pay at the time of institution of the suit.
Let the decree be drawn up expeditiously.
Urgent Xeroxed certified copy of this order, if applied, for shall be made available to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.