: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.10 OF 2003 Ashok Jain ....Plaintiff V/s. Saurang V. Doshi ....Defendant Ms.Kavita Shah i/b Mr.A.G. Shah for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C. : 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.85,076/- together with interest at 18% p.a. on the sum of Rs.68,362/- from the date of the suit till payment and/or realization. 2. The Plaintiff’s case is that he lent and advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque dated 2.9.1997 to the Defendant. The Defendant admitted the receipt of the said amount and issued a post dated cheque dated 10.6.1998 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Plaintiff did not present it on its due date as per the request of the Defendant. The cheque was replaced by a fresh cheque dated 18.1.1999 for the said sum forwarded under cover of a letter dated 18.1.1999. The Defendant agreed to pay interest at : 2 : 18% p.a. . The cheque dated 18.1.1999 was dishonoured with a remark "insufficient funds" as per the bank memo dated 14/15.7.1999. The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant. Thereafter the Defendant addressed a letter dated 25.11.1999 pleading financial difficulty. The Defendant issued a fresh cheque in lieu of the earlier cheque on 30.4.2001 for the said sum. Thereupon the Plaintiff withdrew that complaint. The said cheque was honoured. The Defendant had agreed to pay the arrears of interest of Rs.20,712/- after 27.10.1998 and further interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.1,00,000/- from 28.10.1998 to 20.6.2001 which comes to Rs.47,650/-. It is these amounts that the Plaintiff seeks to recover under the above suit. 3. The Defendant obtained unconditional leave by an order in the Summons for Judgment taken out by the Plaintiff. 4. The Defendant in his written statement has pleaded that the Plaintiff is a money lender and that the claim in suit is barred by the provisions of the Bombay Money Lender’s Act. The Defendant has also : 3 : claimed that the Plaintiff dictated the letter dated 28.10.1998 although he has received the payment of interest in cash. The Defendant further denies that it was agreed that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be credited towards the interest first. 5. The following issues were framed by an order dated 7.1.2008. I S S U E S 1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant agreed to pay arrears of interest of Rs.20,712/- and further pay simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.1,00,000/- upto the date of repayment of loan as alleged in paragraph 7 of the plaint? 2) Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to credit the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the Defendant towards interest first as stated in paragraph 7 of the plaint ? 3) Whether the Defendant proves that the Plaintiff is a moneylender as alleged in paragraph 1 of the written statement ? : 4 : 4) Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is barred under the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act as alleged in paragraphs 1, 3, 5 of the written statement ? 5) Whether the Defendant proves that the letters dated 14.1.1998, 28.10.1998 and 25.11.1999 are given by the Defendant as per the dictation of the Plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 3 of the written statement ? 6) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed ? 7) What orders ? 6. The Plaintiff has examined himself. He has filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief dated 18.1.2008. The Plaintiff has confirmed the suit and contends what is stated in the said affidavit. The Plaintiff has also produced a compilation of documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit "A" collectively. 7. The Defendant was absent. Hence there was no : 5 : cross-examination of the Plaintiff. There is nothing on record which militates against the Plaintiff’s claim or in any manner establishes the allegations and the contentions raised by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has correctly given the credit of the amounts received which was opened to the Plaintiff to discharge the manner of appropriation of the amounts received. There is no evidence to indicate that the Plaintiff is a money lender. The Defendant has not led any evidence. 8. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim in suit is established. The suit is decreed as prayed. Refund as per rules.