IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT
VADODARA.

SMST-S No. 223 OF 2022.

PLAINTIF F : –

Vasudev Trading Company
Proprietor Khodabhai Nathubhai Patel,
Resi at:- A/201, Krishna Empire,
Chhani Main Road, Vadodara

Versus

DEFENDANT S : –

1. Elepex Engineering Pvt. Ltd.-
Partnership Firm
2. Partners of Elepex Engineering
Pvt. Ltd.
1. Kept Bhati
2. Sunil Bhati
3. Harindar Bhati
All resi at:- 242/8, G.I.D.C.
Estate, Wadhodia, Vadodara

APPEARANCE OF ADVOCATES :

Mr. Z.J. Vohra, Ld. Advocate for Plaintiff.
Ex-parte for the defendants

Suit for recovery of Rs. 97,551.51/-
-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.
97,551.51/- from the defendants, along with interest @18%
p.a., till realization of entire suit amount.

(2) It is most respectfully submitted that, the plaintiff is
involved into business of trading of hardware and fasterns
at the above mentioned address in the plaint. The defendant
no. 1 is firm namely “Elepex Engineering Pvt. Ltd.” and
defendant no. 2 are partners of the said firm. The
defendants used to purchase the goods from the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the defendants purchased goods (DC Wheel, High
Tensil Hex Bolt, HSS Papset etc.) from 01.04.201 to
01.07.2022. As per the statement of ledger account
maintained by the plaintiff company, the defendants firm
purchased the goods of Rs.3,61,920/- on credit and paid Rs.
2,78,910/- only and Rs. 83,009.76/- is still due.
Moreover, the plaintiff sent various reminders to the
defendants to clear the outstanding dues and hence to clear
such legal outstanding dues, defendants failed and
neglected to make the payment of the outstanding amount
Rs. 83,009.76/- including interest @18% p.a. (which is
mentioned in tax invoice that, interest @18% p.a. will be
Court of Addl. Judge,
Small Causes Court, Vadodara.3 of 9 SMST-S 223/2022
JUDGMENT
charged if the payment is not made within the stipulated
time.) i.e. 14,941.75/- therefore, which comes totalling
amount of Rs. 97,551.51/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, the
plaintiff has filed the present suit to recover Rs.
97,551.51/- along with interest @18% p.a. till the
realization of decretal amount.

(3) The Court issued summons for appearance on the defendants
and read the report submitted by the Bailiff under Order-5
Rule 9/ under Order-5 Rule 17/ list of documents of RPAD
status report under Order-21A/ list of documents of public
summons under Order 20(1)A, vide Exh. 7, 8, & 9. It is seen
from the summons/documents that the suit summons is duly
served on the defendants but neither the defendants nor
their advocate have remained present before the court, when
called out. Hence, the suit is proceeded exparte as against
the defendants, under Rule-1 of Order-8 of C.P.C., 1908.

(4) From the above said pleadings, following issues have been
framed are as under:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.
97,551.51/- from the defendants ?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest?
If yes, at what rate?

3. What is due of the of the plaintiff?
Court of Addl. Judge,
Small Causes Court, Vadodara.
4 of 9 SMST-S 223/2022
JUDGMENT

4. What order and decree?

(4)1 After considering the evidence on record, my findings
on the above issues are as follows.
1. In negative.
2. In partly affirmative @ 6%.
3. In affirmative
4. As per final order.

(5)In this background, the plaintiff has produced following
oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its
case.

(5)1 Plaintiff Side Examination in chief:-
Oral Evidence:-

Documentary Evidence:-

(5)2 It is pertinent to note that, in response to the summons,
the defendants neither appeared before this Court nor took

any defense or resistance to the suit of the plaintiff.
After completion of the oral as well as documentary
evidence produced from the plaintiff side. I have heard Ld.
Advocate of the plaintiff, at length.

:: Reasons ::

ssue Nos.1 to 3:-

(6) As all these issues are interrelated and interconnected
with each other, therefore the discussion thereof, is made
together, for sake of convenience.

(7) The burden is casted on the plaintiff to prove the facts
in the plaint and in order to prove all the contentions,
Khodabhai Nathubhai Patel has submitted his Examination-inchief
in the form of affidavit under Order-18 Rule-4 of
Code of Civil Procedure, vide Exh. 15, in which, he has
reiterated all the facts narrated in the plaint Exh.1,
hence, the same are not repeated herein for the sake of
convenience and brevity. Further, in support of its
submission, the plaintiff has produced the documentary
evidence vide exh. 19 to 22 to prove his case.

(8) On perusal of the aforementioned oral as well as
documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it clearly
reveals that the the defendants purchased goods (DC Wheel,
High Tensil Hex Bolt, HSS Papset etc.) from 01.04.201 to
Court of Addl. Judge,
Small Causes Court, Vadodara.
6 of 9 SMST-S 223/2022
JUDGMENT
01.07.2022. As per the statement of ledger account
maintained by the plaintiff company, the defendants firm
purchased the goods of Rs.3,61,920/- on credit and paid Rs.
2,78,910/- only and Rs. 83,009.76/- is still due.
Moreover, the plaintiff sent various reminders to the
defendants to clear the outstanding dues and hence to clear
such legal outstanding dues, defendants failed and
neglected to make the payment of the outstanding amount
Rs. 83,009.76/- including interest @18% p.a. i.e.
14,941.75/- therefore, which comes totalling amount of Rs.
97,551.51/- along with interest @18% p.a. till the
realization of decretal amount.

(9) In this back-ground it is worthy to mention that, the
defendants have already been served with the summons of the
present suit. Original public summons were produced on
record at Exh. 7, 8 & 9. Since the defendants had not been
remaining present in the court even after service of
summons. Neither the defendants controvert the claim of the
plaintiff by filing a written statement nor the defendants
cross-examine the plaintiff and hence, the suit was
proceeded ex parte till last. Resultantly, the evidence/s
adduced by the PW-1 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
In the present case, the defendants also did not come in
the witness box to dislodge the version of the plaintiff.
Court of Addl. Judge,
Small Causes Court, Vadodara.
7 of 9 SMST-S 223/2022
JUDGMENT
Therefore plaintiff succeeds to prove that , the defendant
purchase the goods from the plaintiff and they failed to
pay the said outstanding amount. Moreover, Plaintiff has
filed present suit to recover of Rs. 97,551.51/- including
18% interest. At this stage it seems necessary to consider
Sec-34 of C.P.C. It provides that the court can grant
interest on the principal sum adjudged at its discretion.
However, an upper limit on such interest rate has been cast
by the Section which is six percent per annum. Proviso to
this subsection provides that in case of commercial
transactions the further interest can exceed the rate of
six percent per annum and the upper limit in such cases
will be the contractual rate of interest. The plaintiff
claimed interest at the rate of 18% based on invoice which
are produced vide Exh-19. But an invoice on its own is not
a contract in a legal sense because it does not prove an
agreement between two parties. Instead, an invoice is
created by a business and sent to a client to request
payment for its services and is therefore a one sided
document. Thus 18% interest can not be grated. But as per
provision of section 34 of the C.P.Code, it would be just
and proper to hold that, the plaintiff is entitled to get
principle amount of suit Rs.83,009.76/- along with the
simple interest at the rate of 6%.
Court of Addl. Judge,
Small Causes Court, Vadodara.
8 of 9 SMST-S 223/2022
JUDGMENT

(10) Considering all the documents produced on record by the
plaintiff from Exh. 19 to 22 and combined reading of which
and the deposition of witness Exh.15 makes it crystal clear
that, the defendants have been responsible to pay the
amount of Rs. 83,009.76/-With interest. In short, this
Court has reasons to believe from the evidence produced on
record that the amount of Rs. 83,009.76/- of the plaintiff
is due, therefore, I have reasons to hold that the
plaintiff has succeeded in proving the suit claim.

(11) Therefore, in the view of above discussion findings to
Issue No.1 is negative and issue no.2 is partly affirmative
and issue no.3 is affirmative and hence, I pass the
following final order towards issue no. 4 in the interest
of justice.

:: ORDE R : :

1. The plaintiff’s suit bearing SMST-S No. 223/2022 stands
partly decreed.

2. The defendants shall pay a sum of Rs. 83,009.76/- (Rupees
Eighty Three Thousand Nine and Seventy Six Paise Only) to
the plaintiff, along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of filing the suit till realization of entire
decretal amount.
Court of Addl. Judge,
Small Causes Court, Vadodara.
9 of 9 SMST-S 223/2022
JUDGMENT

3. The defendants bear their own cost and shall pay the cost
of this litigation.

4. Decree to be drawn up accordingly.

Signed and pronounced in the open Court today
on the 13th day of October, 2023.

Date:13.10.2023

Place: Vadodara

Ms.Smitabahen Prakashchandra Patel

Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court,
Vadodara.
(Code No. GJ0 1123)