VAYUDOOT LIMITED Vs. SHIVLIK TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Summons in the suit were eventually served upon the defendants through publication in the Tribune dated 23.9.1997. It is also carried out by affixation as recorded in the order of the Joint Registrar (O) dated 8.1.1998. Appearance was not entered on behalf of defendants as envisaged in Order XXXVII, Rule2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a consequence, in accordance with these provisions, the allegations in the plaint would he deemed to have been admitted and the plaintiff would thereupon be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the Court. The suit should have been decreed at that very stage,

(2.) It appears that this position was not brought to the notice of the Court and therefore on 9,2.1998 instead of decreeing the suit under Order XXXVII, Rule2 (3) ex parte orders were passed against the defendants. The plaintiff had been directed to file affidavits alongwith documents within four weeks, which orders have been complied with,

(3.) The suit is based on the dishonoured cheque dated 1.8.1991 for a sum of Rs. 11,63,672.00 drawn on Vijaya Dank, Sector 17D, Chandigarh, original of which is Exhibit P-3. At the time of arguments learned Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to show the justification for the claim of interest at the rate of 24% per annum and fairly conceded that the Court may award interest at its discretion, He, however, submitted that this was a commercial transaction and that even if Interest is not awarded at the rate of 24% per annum, it should be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum. This submission is accepted by me,