COMPANY Versus ZIAUDDIN FAROOQUI

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.1,51,483. The plaintiff and the defendant had business dealings and an agreement dated 7‑5‑1986 was executed. The .plaintiff agreed to supply a quantity of Safety Matches on credit upto the value of Rs.1,00,000 and the defendant in consideration thereof executed promissory note dated 7‑5‑1986. The original promissory note has been fled today copy of which had been filed with the plaint. The defendant also promised to make monthly instalments of Rs.20,000 commencing from 1‑6‑1986. During the period 12‑5‑1986 to 31‑7‑1986 the plaintiff supplied to the defendant various quantity of Safety Matches namely "Shama" (Wood) an d R umba" brand according to the bills which are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the total value of which comes to Rs.2,92,110.60. This amount was due till 31‑7‑1986. The defendant paid a sum of Rs.74,015,50 leaving a balance of Rs.2,18,205.80. A copy of the statement has been filed by the plaintiff. On 4‑8‑1986 the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.16,42, but it was returned dishonoured. On being informed of this dishonour he paid Rs.16,500 on 7‑8‑1986. Another cheque dated 15‑8‑1986 for Rs.33,240 was issued by the defendant, but it was also dishonoured. On 28‑8‑1986 in a meeting between the parties the defendant admitted his liability in the sum of Rs.2,01,007. This statement has been filed as Annexure P/24. The defendant undertook to pay total amount within three; months. He also kept with the plaintiff his car No.038‑366 as a security. The defendant agreed that he will take back the car on payment of Rs.33,000. However, neither he paid any amount, nor he took delivery of the car. The car, was therefore, sold by the plaintiff for gs.36,000 and the sale proceed was adjusted towards the outstanding liability. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.1,100 which was debited in the defendants' account having been spent by the plaintiff on account of the maintenance of the car and to bring it to a saleable condition. After adjusting Rs.36,000 the balance comes to Rs.1,51,483 which the defendant was called upon to pay, but he has failed to pay. The plaintiff therefore, claims this amount from the defendant. 'the defendant in spite of service is absent. He was adjudged ex parte. The plaint has been verified on oath. The original documents have been filed today. The plaintiff is claiming Rs.1,51,483 inclusive of Rs.1,100 which are alleged to have been spent by the plaintiff towards the repair of the car. No proof, receipt of vouchers of such expenses have been produced by the plaintiff. I am, therefore, not inclined to award Rs.1,100 to the plaintiff.

2. The suit is decreed for Rs.1,50,383. In the promissory note, or the he plaintiff no interest has been claimed. The suit is, therefore, notice issued by t decreed for Rs.1,50,383 with cost.

3. M.Y.H./B‑66/K Suit decreed.