Territorial jurisdiction and proof in undefended money suits support a decree, with interest moderated under Section 34 CPC.

The Calcutta HC noted that the suit was maintainable because part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, including order placement and part-payments routed through the plaintiff's banker, and leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent had been granted. In an undefended money suit, the plaintiff proved supply of goods and the defendant's liability through purchase orders, inspection documents, invoices, challans, demand letters and unchallenged oral evidence; service of demand notices was presumed from proper postal dispatch. The Court accepted the outstanding principal due, but since no agreement or proof supported 18% interest, it exercised discretion under Section 34 CPC and awarded interest at 9% per annum. The suit succeeded with a money decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was maintainable and within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court; (ii) whether the plaintiff proved supply of goods and the defendant's liability to pay the outstanding price in an undefended suit; (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed rate of interest.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was maintainable and within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: The plaint showed that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court, including placement of orders at the plaintiff's office and routing of part-payments through the plaintiff's banker. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent had already been granted. The claim was also not barred by limitation on the pleadings.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and the Court had jurisdiction to try it.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved supply of goods and the defendant's liability to pay the outstanding price in an undefended suit.

Analysis: The plaintiff produced the purchase orders, inspection call letters, inspection certificates, invoices, challans, and demand letters. The oral testimony remained unchallenged because the defendant did not contest the suit. The Court relied on the documentary chain showing order placement, inspection, dispatch, receipt of goods, part-payment, and outstanding dues. On the basis of the postal materials and the proviso to Order V Rule 9(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, service of the demand letters was presumed. The evidence established the principal outstanding amount due for the goods sold and delivered.

Conclusion: The plaintiff proved the outstanding principal sum and the defendant was liable to pay it.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed rate of interest.

Analysis: Although the plaint claimed interest at 18% per annum, no agreement or proof supported that rate. In exercise of discretion under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court granted interest at a lower rate on the admitted dues from the date stated in the plaint.

Conclusion: Interest was awarded at 9% per annum instead of the claimed 18% per annum.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded, the plaintiff obtained a money decree for the principal dues with judicially moderated interest, and execution was directed upon failure to pay within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money suit supported by unchallenged documentary and oral evidence, the Court may presume service of demand notices from properly addressed registered postal dispatches and may, in the absence of proof for a contractual rate, award reasonable interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---