The court finds the loan recovery as a commercial dispute and establishes entitlement to compensatory costs due to vexatious evasion of payments.

1. There is a sole plaintiff and a lone defendant in this suit. Sole plaintiff is a juristic person, i.e., private limited company. Lone defendant is an individual, i.e., a natural person.

2. With regard to jurisdiction of this Commercial Division, the same has been articulated in paragraph 9 of the plaint. Paragraph 9 of the plaint reads as follows:

"9.The subject matter of this suit is for recovery of the loan advanced to the defendant along with the agreed interest. The loan was released by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, in its ordinary course of business as a financier and the said loan is duly supported by mercantile documents including the loan agreement dated 13th December, 2011, promissory note dated 13th December, 2011; the mortgage deed dated 13th December, 2011 and the MOU dated 16th April, 2018, which were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant has failed to honour his commitment under the said documents, the plaintiff is seeking to enforce its rights through this suit and as such the dispute involved in this suit is a 'commercial dispute', within the meaning of S.2(1)c(i) of Act 4 of 2016. Further, the money sought to be recovered in this suit is Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only), which is of specified value as stipulated under S.2(i) of Act 4 of 2016."

3. The defendant was duly served with suit summons, but as he did not enter appearance through counsel and as he did not choose to appear before this Court in person either, the defendant was set ex parte on 07.01.2019. The suit was set down for recording ex parte evidence before the Additional Master - I on 10.01.2019. One Mr.Deepak Kothari, authorised representative of the plaintiff's company deposed as P.W.1 and 10 exhibits, i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked. The suit is listed today before me for arguments post recording of such ex parte evidence and Mr.K.Surendar, learned counsel on record for the sole plaintiff is before me.

4. Today also, name of the defendant with his full / complete address is shown in the cause list, but there is no representation. As mentioned supra, the defendant was already set ex parte on 07.01.2019 and ex parte evidence was recorded on 10.01.2019.

5. A perusal of the plaint reveals that it is a simple loan transaction. It unfurls from plaint averments that plaintiff is a Non Banking Financial Company engaged in the business of finance for more than a decade (a decade as on the date of presentation of the suit). It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant approached the plaintiff some time in December, 2011 and sought financial assistance stating that he is carrying on business in the name and style 'Allwyn Builders'. It is submitted that the defendant sought financial assistance for his business, i.e., for his business "Allwyn Builders". Defendant offered the property set out in the schedule in the plaint as security for the financial assistance and the said schedule reads as follows:

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of the land measuring an extent of 2 Acre and 50 cents, comprised in Survey No. 19/1A2 part of Poyyappakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District, bearing Patta No. 106 and bounded on the

North by : Road

South by : Residential plots of Alliyar Bai

East by : land belonging to Amudhu Porkol Arasi

West by : Road

Situated within the limits of Registration Sub District of Arammonam (Joint - II) and Registration District of Arakkonam.

6. The plaintiff advanced moneys, i.e., provided financial assistance to the defendant taking the aforesaid immovable property as security. This was under a loan agreement which has been marked as Ex.P.3. The loan advanced is Rs.50 lakhs. It is submitted that