IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2631 OF 1997 Pravin C. Vora & Ors ..Plaintiffs versus M/s. B. V. Datey & Associates & Anr. ..Defendants Mr. P. V. Bhagat i/b. M/s. Vasant & Co. for Plaintiffs. None for Defendants. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD , J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The suit has been instituted for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,28,800/- with interest on the principal sum of Rs.70,000/- from the date of the suit till payment. 2. The Defendants are Builders and Developers. The 2nd Defendant is the sole proprietor of the 1st Defendant. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs booked a plot of land at Tunnel Top Village Mini Hill Station, Beed-Khurd, Taluka Kolhapur, District Raigad at and for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Plaintiffs paid an initial amount of Rs.70,000/- as deposit for the purchase of the plot. The Defendants issued receipts. The Plaintiffs have however produced four original receipts of the total value of Rs.53,333.70 paise and it has been stated that the receipts for the balance sum of Rs.16,666.30 paise are misplaced. However, according to the Plaintiffs the Defendants had not disputed the receipt of Rs.70,000/- from the Plaintiffs, in the correspondence that ensued between the parties. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants agreed that if on inspection the Plaintiffs did not find the plot allotted to be suitable, they would exchange the plot allotted for an alternative plot or refund the deposit. The Plaintiffs upon inspection at site did not find the plot allotted to be suitable and therefore requested the Defendants by a letter dated 28th September 1994 to allot an alternative plot. A Reminder was sent on 25th January 1995. By the reply dated 31st January 1995 the Defendants stated that the alternative plot could not be allotted for the reasons stated therein. By a letter dated 23rd March 1995 followed by a reminder dated 13th April 1995, the Plaintiffs sought a refund of the amount of Rs.70,000/-. By their reply dated 20th April, 2009 the Defendants agreed to refund the amount paid by the Plaintiffs but stated that they would deduct an amount of 10% as service charges. By a letter dated 12th September, 1995, the Plaintiffs made a demand for Rs.70,000/- with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of demand till payment. This was also followed by Advocate’s notice dated 16th April, 2009. 3. The Defendants had been served with the writ of summons but have failed to enter appearance. In the circumstances, the averments contained in the plaint had not been controverted. The Plaintiffs have filed an Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief of the 1st Plaintiff in which all the material facts as noted herein above have been narrated. The Plaintiffs have also filed a compilation of original documents including therein four original receipts and the Defendants letter dated 20th April 1995 acknowledging liability. Though the Plaintiffs have filed receipts evidencing payment of Rs.53,333,70 paise, it is evident from the correspondence that the Plaintiffs had stated that they had in fact paid an amount of Rs.70,000/-. The statement contained in the letters addressed by the Plaintiffs have not been denied and on the contrary by a letter dated 20th April, 1995 the Defendants acknowledged their liability but claimed a deduction of 10% service charges. There is no agreement in regard to deduction of the service charges. 4. In the circumstances, the Plaintiffs have proved the claim in the suit on the basis of the evidence on record. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) with the modification that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to interest on the principal sum of Rs.70,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit until payment or realisation. (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)