Full Judgment
01. 04.2013 H.D.F.C. ...Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay Saroya, with Ms. Nisha Mohandas and Mr. B.L Yadav, Advocates Versus ....Defendant Sunil Kumar Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.
(Oral) 1. This suit for recovery was initially filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC, but was treated as an ordinary suit vide order dated 07 December 2012. The defendant having failed to make appearance, was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff led ex parte evidence. The brief factual background of the case is as follows.
2. The defendant had approached the plaintiffs Company for financial assistance (housing loan) to the tune of Rs. 34, 00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs only), for the purchase of a Dwelling Unit. After receipt of the loan application form in the second week of February, 2011; the plaintiff processed and sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs only) at 10% (Ten Percent) at VARIABLE/ADJUSTABLE 10 rate of interest for a period of 20 years vide Loan Account No./File No. 601405596.
3. The plaintiff contends that on March 15, 2011, the defendant executed a promissory note, loan agreement and other documents with the plaintiff. In furtherance of a written request by the defendant for the disbursement of a part-payment, the plaintiff disbursed an amount of Rs. 32, 00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs) by a Cheque bearing No. 071353, dated March 10, 2011. However, the defendants loan account became irregular and sticky from July, 2011. The plaintiff conducted an enquiry from which it transpired that the defendant had tendered false and fabricated documents to procure the loan. Subsequently, the plaintiff made attempts to get in touch with the defendant, but the latter avoided meeting the plaintiffs officials and representatives and also did not respond to the Mobile calls. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated September 20, 2011 calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 32,26,816/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixteen Only), as on August 31, 2011. The said notice was sent at all the known addresses of the defendant by speed-post. The postal receipts are produced as Ex. PW1/8. Moreover, the defendant not only did not comply with the Legal Notice, but also did not respond to it. From the Statement of Accounts of the plaintiff (Ex. PW1/11 collectively) it is reflected that the defendant has made payment of some of the EMIs to the plaintiff and that a sum of Rs. 33,07,609/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Nine) was outstanding as on October 31, 2011. This Statement of Account is maintained by the plaintiff in its ordinary course of business, and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity.
4. From the unassailed documents produced by the plaintiff, it stands established that the defendant had outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 33,07,609/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Nine only), as on October 31, 2011. In the light of above, the defendant is held to be liable to pay the amount of Rs. 33,07,609/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Nine only). I hereby pass a money decree for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 33, 07,609/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Nine), against the defendant, with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 09.12.2011 till the date of realisation. Decree be drawn accordingly.
5. Suit stands disposed of. M.L. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 01 2013 kk/rmm