Srinagar: A trial Court at Srinagar on Monday directed one Mohammad Shafi Bhat to pay 80 lacs to Bilal Ahmad Bhat as a recovery amount under the provisions of order 37 of Civil Procedure Code(CPC).
The order 37 CPC governs the suits where there is a need to recover debts and liquidated demands.
Additional District Judge, Anjum Ara while giving reference to the case in hand recorded that the defendant, Mohammad Shafi Bhat despite Court giving him opportunities to defend the suit has failed miserably.
The court in an order dated 5 October, 2021 had directed the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee of 50% of the claim of the amount within five days.
However, the defendant challenged the trial court order before High Court of J&K and Ladakh where the petition was disposed off with a direction to the defendant to furnish the bank guarantee within two weeks.
The defendant aggrieved of the orders filed a fresh plea before Supreme Court of India.
The Apex Court while disposing the plea held “We do not find any point of law involved in this case warranting interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
“There is no jurisdictional error on the part of the Trial Court or the High Court,” court had said.
Hence, we dispose of this petition without interfering with the order but we extend the time to furnish the bank guarantee by a further period of two months from today”.
Justice Ara said that the Supreme Court has upheld the order of this court as well as order of High Court without any interference and only extend the time to furnish the bank guarantee by a further period of two months’ from the date of order i.e. 22 January,2024.
However Court said more than ten months have elapsed but the defendant has failed to comply the directions of this Court, High Court and Apex Court of the country and has chosen to remain absent from the proceedings of the case.
“The leave to defend was allowed by High Court affirmed by Supreme Court subject to furnishing of Bank guarantee by the defendant however he failed to deposit the same, therefore there is no defence on record, and the claim of plaintiff remained unrebutted at trial,” Court recorded.
Justice Ara said instead of depositing the amount, the defendant chooses not to appear in the court and left the proceedings in midway as such this court is left with no other option but to decide the case as provided under Order 37 CPC.
Justice Ara said in the backdrop of observations made above and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case and the position of law applicable to the instant suit, the plaintiff is found entitled for the decree as prayed for.
“Therefore, the suit is allowed. Accordingly, a decree for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- is accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the decree till its actual realization,” Court said and directed.
“Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.The suit is disposed of accordingly and the file after its due compilation be consigned to records.”
Earlier, Bilal Ahmad Bhat had given an amount of 60 lac rupees to Mohammad Shafi Bhat for a certain period of time.
However, Mohammad Shafi failed to repay the amount and finally a settled agreement was made with witnesses on board that if Shafi didn’t pay the said amount within a prescribed period of time, he will pay a penalty of 20 lacs along with original amount.
