Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,75,459. 60 togetherwith the interest and costs. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a limitedcompany duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1212, Chiranjiv Tower, 43 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019. Mr. K. B. Rathi who has signed and verified the plaint is the General Manager (Commercial) of the plaintiff-company and is duly authorised to institute andverified the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff company vide resolution dated 29/06/1989. The extracts of the aforesaid letter is Ex. Public Witness 1/1. ( 3 ) IT has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-company is inthe business of inter alia acquiring mines to quary. deal in all grades, typesand qualities of various metals including magnesite bricks, minerals etc. Thedefendant company is also a limited company having its registered office atold Motor Stand, Itwari, Nagpur-400 008 and having a steel plant. It hasfurther been stated in the plaint that during the period 1986 to 1988 thedefendant company used to place orders with the plaintiff company for thesupply of magnesite bricks. For the supply of the aforesaid bricks, theplaintiff used to despatch the goods as per instructions of the defendant company and thereafter the defendant company was making payments thoughthe said payments were delayed by a few months instead of 30 days creditpractice prevailing and agreed upon by the defendant company. It has beenstated that the last bill in respect of magnesite bricks supplied to the defendant was dated 19/04/1988 for a sum of Rs. 1,13,548. 44. The saidinvoice/bill is Ex. Public Witness 1/6. It has been stated that the payment in respect ofthe amount of the aforesaid bill has not been made by the defendant. It hasthen been alleged in the plaint that in reply to plaintiff s letter dated 1 2/11/1988, the defendant sent a letter dated 22/11/1988which is Ex. Public Witness 1/10. In this letter it has been stated that the defendant beaccommodated for some more period as the production was expected to startvery shortly. The plaintiff in their letter dated 12/11/1988 whichis Ex. Public Witness 1/9 had clearly stated that a sum of Rs. 1,13,548. 44 was outstanding against the defendant for the supply of magnesite bricks in the month ofapril, 1988. The plaintiff in their letter dated 12/11/1988 whichis Ex. Public Witness 1/9 had clearly stated that a sum of Rs. 1,13,548. 44 was outstanding against the defendant for the supply of magnesite bricks in the month ofapril, 1988. It has further been stated that the plaintiff sent a legal noticedated 12/04/1991 to the defendant though their Counsel but inspite ofthis notice, the payment has not been received by the plaintiff. Since theamount mentioned above was not paid by the defendant, the present suit hasbeen filed by the plaintiff-company. ( 4 ) SUMMONS of this suit were sent to the defendant. The defendantwas proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12/03/1992 as thedefendant despite service did not appear. On the same date the plaintiff wasdirected to file the affidavit by way of ex parte evidence within 10 weeks. On 1/10/1992 Mr. P. N. Misra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of thedefendant and sought adjournment to move an appropriate application forsetting aside the Exparte order but no application was filed on behalf of thedefendant. Pursuant to the order dated 12/03/1992 the plaintiff has filedthe affidavit of Sh. Anil Popli, Assistant Company Secretary of the plaintiffcompany. All the averments and allegations made in the plaint have beenduly proved by the said witness. ( 5 ) AS stated hereinabove Public Witness 1 is the extract of the resolution dated 29/06/1989 in terms of which Sh. K. B. Rathi who has signed and verifiedthe plaint was authorised to file the present suit and to sign and verify theplaint. Public Witness 1/6 is the invoice/bill regarding bricks supplied by the plaintiffcompany to the defendnat. Public Witness 1/9 is the letter dated 12/11/1988sent by the plaintiff-company to the defendant wherein the defendant wascalled upon to release the outstanding payment of Rs. 1,13,548. 44. Exhibitpw 1/10 is the letter dated 22nd November, 1988 in reply to Exhibit Public Witness 1/9wherein the defendant has not denied its liability but has requested theplaintiff-company to accommodate the defendant for some more period. Ex. Public Witness 1/12 is the office copy of the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to thedefendant. Ex. Public Witness 1/13 and Ex. Public Witness 1/18 are the UPC and postal receiptin respect of the said legal notice. All these exhibits have been duly provedby the evidence of Sh. Anil Popli. Ex. Public Witness 1/12 is the office copy of the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to thedefendant. Ex. Public Witness 1/13 and Ex. Public Witness 1/18 are the UPC and postal receiptin respect of the said legal notice. All these exhibits have been duly provedby the evidence of Sh. Anil Popli. ( 6 ) AS stated hereinabove the defendant was proceeded against ex parteon 12/03/1992 since none appeared on its behalf despite service. Thedefendant has not filed any written statement controverting the avermentsand allegations made in the plaint nor it has examined any witness. On theother hand, the plaintiff has proved its case through the evidence of Sh. Anilpopli. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in this case. ( 7 ) DURING the course of the arguments learned Counsel for theplaintiff contended that the plaintiff was also entitled to interest at the rate of18% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the passing of thedecree under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended. I find merit in the contention of the plaintiff. ( 8 ) IN view of the above discussian, the suit is decreed with costs. Theplaintiff will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum fromthe date of the filing of the suit till the date of the decree. The decree may bedrawn accordingly. Petition dismissed