M RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. CORONET CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/applicant in Application No.4469 of 2014 in C.S.No.902 of 2002 is the appellant. The respondent/defendant filed the above said application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order VI Rule 11 read with Order IX Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to set aside the ex -parte order dated 7.3.2013, made in C.S.No.902 of 2002. The said application, after contest, came to be allowed on 31.10.2014, by directing the defendant/respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ - to the High Court Legal Services Committee and aggrieved by the said fair and decretal orders, the plaintiff/appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal, have been narrated in detail in the impugned order, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, and therefore, it is unnecessary to restate the facts once again except to state the relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.

(3.) THE appellant/plaintiff has filed C.S.No.902 of 2002 praying for a judgment and decree for recovery of Rs.1,32,26,808/ - with interest at the rate of 3% per month being the contractual rate on the principal amount of Rs.39,28,600/ - and also for costs. A perusal of the averments made in the plaint, would disclose that the respondent/defendant had borrowed loans from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes in favour of the third parties. The cause of action alleged in the plaint, would read that the above said amounts were borrowed from the respective parties through the plaintiff and suit pronotes were also executed by the respondent/defendant in their favour and the parties made over the pronotes executed in favour of the plaintiff, for the purpose of collection and due to limitation purpose, the suit demand notice could not be issued to the respondent/defendant.