ORDER
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This is a summary suit under Order xxxvII CPC on behalf of the plain- tiff praying for recovery of Rs. 5,27,320/- alongwith interest pendentelite & future interest.
2. The plaintiffs case is that one Maruti Esteem VX car, (Engine No. 562183, Chassis No. 198591 & Registration No. DL-8C-B-6452) was given to the defendant on hire-purchase basis in terms of Hire Purchase Agreement No. JLL/996/034 dated 18th September, 1996 between the plaintiff & the defendant. It is further the plaintiff’s case that after paying 11.6 instalments to the plaintiff, the defendant stopped paying further instal- ments.
3. In her application (IA. 11803/98) for leave to defend the suit, the applicant/defendant admits the purchase of Maruti Esteem Car from the plaintiff in terms of Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties. It is also admitted by the applicant/defendant that she has paid 12 instalments. The applicant/defendant has also admitted that in all 48 monthly instalments of Rs. 15,659-00 were payable.
4. It is also further stated that a balance sum of Rs. 3,01,433.00 was payable in October, 1997.
5. The relevant Paragraph No. (i) of the affidavit (duly signed & swooned by the defendant) annexed with application for leave to defend reads as follows: “That with a view to close my case, and to get the vehicle trans- ferred in my name, I approached the plaintiff on 3-12-1997 and discussed the matter with Shri Rajiv, In charge-Cash Collection, of the plaintiff and informed him that I wanted to make the entire balance payment in one lump sum and, accordingly, after obtaining his approval and after settling the account, I paid the balance amount of Rs. 3,01,433.00 on 3-12-1997 to the plaintiff so that my case should be closed and R.C. of the vehicle trans- ferred in my name and delivered to me. I paid the said amount in cash against receipt issued by Shri Rajiv, a representative of the plaintiff, with an assurance that the regular receipt would be furnished at that time of finalization of the case after getting the R.C. of the vehicle transferred in my name. I have constantly been reminding the plaintiff to issue regular receipt, but every time, the plaintiff has been putting me off on one pretext or the other.”
6. No receipt, stated to have been issued by Shri Rajiv, a representative of the plaintiff has been filed by the defendant alongwith the application for leave to defend.
7. The defendant is not appearing in this matter pending before this Court for the last four dates, i.e., 11.2.1999, 25.5.1999, 9.8.1999 & 23.8.99 though the defendant was duly served with summons for judgment through her counsel, Mr. S.K. Duggal, on 9.12.98. Even today there is no appearance on behalf of the defendant.
8. On 25.5.1999, the defendant’s application for leave to defend (IA. 11803/98) the suit along with application for condensation of delay (IA 11825/98) in filing the application for leave to defend/contest the suit were dismissed in default of the appearance of the defendant.
9. In view of the above, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.
10. Accordingly, the suit is decreed. A decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff & against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 5,27,320/- alongwith interest from 25.8.1998 till the date of the decree at 24% per annum and from the date of the decree till realization at 8% per annum.
11. The suit is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.