JUDGMENT : M. Sundar, J. Mr. R. Dasaratha Rao, counsel on record for sole plaintiff is before this Commercial Division. 2. Jurisdiction of this Commercial Division was determined by proceedings dated 31.08.2018, which reads as follows: 'Ms. V. Usha Rani, learned counsel on record for sole plaintiff is before this Commercial Division. 2. There are six defendants in all in this suit. From the cause list, it comes to light that all the six defendants have been duly served and their names together with full/complete address as in the short and long cause titles have been shown in the cause list, but none appears. 3. It is pointed out by learned counsel for plaintiff that no written statement has been filed. 4. Under such circumstances, I heard learned counsel for plaintiff on jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit. Learned counsel submitted that plaintiff company is a 'Non-Banking Financial Company' ('NBFC' for brevity) and that this lis pertains to a hire purchase transaction with the defendants. The fact that the plaintiff is a NBFC has been set out in paragraph 3 of the plaint, which reads as follows: '3. The plaintiff is a non-banking financial company engaged in the business of providing leasing, hire purchase, factoring and Bill Discounting facilities to various persons.' The nature of transaction, as it unfurls from the plaint, is a hire purchase agreement, which according to plaintiff's counsel is an ordinary transaction of a financier. To be noted, as mentioned supra, plaintiff is a NBFC. 5. Therefore, this lis will qualify as a commercial dispute under sub-clause (i) of Section 2(1)(c) of 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015' ('said Act' for brevity), is her say. Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(1)(c) of said Act reads as follows: '(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents.' 6. This takes us to the specified value aspect of the matter. A perusal of the valuation paragraph of the plaint i.e., paragraph No.19 reveals that this suit has been valued at Rs. 2,10,62,014/-. In other words, this suit has been valued at over Rs. 2.10 crores. Therefore, this suit qualifies qua specified value also under Section 2(1)(i) read with Section 12 of the said Act, is her further say. 7. A perusal of the valuation paragraph of the plaint i.e., paragraph No.19 reveals that this suit has been valued at Rs. 2,10,62,014/-. In other words, this suit has been valued at over Rs. 2.10 crores. Therefore, this suit qualifies qua specified value also under Section 2(1)(i) read with Section 12 of the said Act, is her further say. 7. After hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, I perused the plaint and I have no difficulty in accepting her submissions regarding jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit. 8. Jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit thus determined. 9. Having determined jurisdiction, I now turn to the stage of this suit. 10. As mentioned supra, all six defendants have been duly served and their names together with full/complete address as in the short and long cause titles have been shown in the cause list, but none appears, though their names were called aloud thrice in open Court. 11. Registry to list this matter in the 'UNDEFENDED BOARD' on 10.09.2018.' 3. Thereafter, as the six defendants, who have been duly served with suit summons, did not enter appearance, suit was listed in the "Undefended Board" on 10.09.2018, on which day, defendants were set ex parte. 4. Suit was placed before learned Additional Master II for recording ex parte evidence and ex parte evidence was recorded on 05.10.2018. 5. The aforesaid narrative is about the trajectory of this suit thus far. 6. With regard to the facts of the case, suit pertains to Hire Purchase Agreements, wherein and whereby defendants have availed financial assistance from the plaintiff for purchase of Air Conditioners, Generators, Colour Televisions, Telephone systems and Kitchen Equipments for installation in their new hotel at Nagerkoil, which was under construction at the time of inception of this suit. 7. The nucleus of this entire lis is constituted by five Hire Purchase Agreements. Two Hire Purchase Agreements are dated 06.11.1996, one is dated 10.12.1996 and two other Hire Purchase Agreements are dated 19.06.1997 and 27.06.1997. 8. 7. The nucleus of this entire lis is constituted by five Hire Purchase Agreements. Two Hire Purchase Agreements are dated 06.11.1996, one is dated 10.12.1996 and two other Hire Purchase Agreements are dated 19.06.1997 and 27.06.1997. 8. The manner in which the Hire Purchase Agreements came to be entered into is articulated in Paragraph 5 of the plaint, which reads as follows: 'The Plaintiff states that during October 1996, the First Defendant through Third Defendant approached the Plaintiff for financial assistance by way of Hire Purchase for the purchase of Air Conditioners, Generators, Colour Televisions, Telephone Systems and Kitchen Equipments to install in its new hotel at Nagerkoil which was under construction. The Plaintiff agreed to grant Hire Purchase Facility to the first defendant for a sum not exceeding Rs. 60,00,000/- on the terms and conditions setout in their letters dated 23rd October 1996 and 10th December 1996. The terms of sanction provided that the first defendant would repay the amount in 48 monthly installments together with interest at the rate of 17.25 % per annum. It was also specified that additional finance charges at the rate of 4% per month at monthly rests would be charged for delayed payment of Hire Installments. It was also specified that the facility would be personally guaranteed by the 2nd to 5th Defendant, Land and Building at Nagerkoil to the provided as collateral security with Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds and Power of Attorney. Further, Pre Agreement Service Charges will be levied from the date of disbursement till the date of contract. The First Defendant agreed to all these conditions by signing on the copy of the letter. The said offer letters are filed herewith as Document No. 1 to 3.' 9. Thereafter, it is the case of the plaintiff that in December 1996, the first defendant informed the plaintiff that construction has been completed, but to commence the operation of the new hotel, finance facility is required. Based on such representation, the Hire Purchase Agreements in 1997, referred to supra, came to be executed is his say. Thereafter, it is the case of the plaintiff that in December 1996, the first defendant informed the plaintiff that construction has been completed, but to commence the operation of the new hotel, finance facility is required. Based on such representation, the Hire Purchase Agreements in 1997, referred to supra, came to be executed is his say. It is submitted by plaintiff that there is also a mortgage to secure this transaction and the property that has been mortgaged by the third defendant to secure this transaction has been set out in the plaint and the same reads as follows: 'SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that land and building in Door No17/2/42 SARANYA LODGE in Nagercoil municipality in R.S.No.Q7/78 (old Survey No.1679/4037A) in Vadiveeswaram Village, Agatheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, comprising and extent of 10.7/16 cent along with electricity and water connections and bounded on the East Property belonging to Ramakrishna Asari and Subramania Pillai West Property belonging to Pichandi and Leelavathy South Property belonging to Nagarajan and Gomathy Ammal North Property belonging to Nagarajan.' 10. It is submitted that second and fifth defendants stood as guarantors. Particulars and details of the aforesaid mortgage as set out in the plaint, reads as follows: 'The particulars of the mortgage is as follows: Name of the Mortgagor :Sri S. Nagarajan Name of the Mortgagee : Upasana Finance Limited Date of creation of Mortgage : October 23rd 1996 & 8th August 1997 Amount covered by the Mortgage: Rs. 2,10,62,014/-' 11. Plaintiff submits that inspite of repeated demands and requests, defendants did not make good the account and did not surrender the assets which were taken on hire from the plaintiff. 12. Plaintiff caused a pre-suit notice dated 13.04.2007 to be issued. Defendants neither replied nor complied. Therefore, the instant suit was filed/presented in this Court on 30.04.2008. Thereafter, the trajectory which this suit took has been alluded to supra. 13. The prayer in the plaint is as follows: '21.The plaintiff therefore prays for a decree and judgment: (i) directing the Defendants Jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. Defendants neither replied nor complied. Therefore, the instant suit was filed/presented in this Court on 30.04.2008. Thereafter, the trajectory which this suit took has been alluded to supra. 13. The prayer in the plaint is as follows: '21.The plaintiff therefore prays for a decree and judgment: (i) directing the Defendants Jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 2,10,62,014/- together with further interest at 18% per annum for the Hire Purchase dues from the date of Plaint till date of payment; (ii) in default of payment of the amount as claimed above in para (i) for sale of the mortgaged property mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint and to apply the sale proceeds (after deducting the sale expenses) towards the amount due under the decree; (iii) in the event of sale proceeds not being sufficient to satisfy the decree grant liberty to the plaintiff for personal decree against the Defendants; (iv) for costs of the suit; and (v) such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit.' 14. With regard to the evidence one Mr. Sathya Raj, working as Accountant with the plaintiff company and who is also the Authorized representative of the plaintiff company deposed as PW1. As many as 30 documents i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 were marked before the learned Additional Master II. 15. As mentioned supra, five Hire Purchase Agreements constitute the nucleus of this lis and those five Hire Purchase Agreements have been marked as Exs.P6 to Ex.P8, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. Pre-suit notice dated 13.04.2007 has been marked as Ex.P27. 16. I perused the deposition of PW1. 17. The deposition is in tune with and it synchronizes with the plaint averments. 18. A perusal of the exhibits in the light of pleadings and deposition reveals that the plaintiff has proved it's claim. 19. To be noted, with regard to property, which is subject of matter of mortgage, an Encumbrance Certificate has been filed and the same has been marked as Ex.P29. 20. With regard to the rate of interest that has been claimed i.e., 18% per annum, I perused the aforesaid 5 exhibits (5 Hire Purchase Agreements), which constitute the nucleus of this suit. I find that there is a covenant to the effect that the rate of interest shall be 18% per annum. 20. With regard to the rate of interest that has been claimed i.e., 18% per annum, I perused the aforesaid 5 exhibits (5 Hire Purchase Agreements), which constitute the nucleus of this suit. I find that there is a covenant to the effect that the rate of interest shall be 18% per annum. As there are contracts between the parties regarding the rate of interest, plaintiff is entitled to interest at the covenanted rate of 18% per annum. 21. From the narrative thus far, as mentioned supra, it emerges clearly that plaintiff has proved its claim and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. Prayer paragraph has already been extracted supra. 22. Defendants shall pay to the plaintiff the sum claimed in Sub-paragraph (i) of the prayer paragraph within three months from the date on which the certified copies of judgment and decree are furnished. In default, plaintiff will be entitled to prayers in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of Paragraph 21 of the plaint in the light of the narrative supra. 23. With regard to costs, considering the trajectory this litigation has taken, plaintiff is entitled to costs. Plaintiff shall file bill of costs as per prevailing procedures. 24. With regard to the residuary prayer contained in sub-paragraph (v) of the prayer paragraph, I take recourse to amended Section 35-A of "The Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908" as amended by "The Commercial Courts Act, 2015" ("said Act" for brevity). In the light of amended Section 35-A of CPC, there is no cap qua quantum on compensatory costs. 25. The plaint has been presented on 30.04.2008 after issuing pre-suit notice on 13.04.2007. Today we are on 10.10.2018. Defendants after having been duly served, have compelled the plaintiff to carry this litigation virtually for one decade expending money, energy and effort. 26. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case to award compensatory cost of Rs. 2 lakhs. Suit decreed on above terms.