Delhi District Court
Kapil Goel vs Jitender Singh Bhukker on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI DISTRICT JUDGE-04,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI
Civil Suit No. 2426/2016
CNR No.: DLET01-003474-2016
KAPIL GOEL
S/o N.M Goel
Proprietor of M/s Kapil Creations,
25/1, Street No. 1
East Azad Nagar
Opp. Shakti Mandir, Delhi-51 .......... Plaintiff
Versus
JITENDER SINGH BHUKKER
Proprietor of M/s Vishal International
1317, Jyoti Colony, Barsat Road,
Distt. Panipat, Haryana ......... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,21,97,618/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE
TWENTY ONE LAC NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN).
Date of institution : 11.03.2016
Date when judgment reserved : 15.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025
CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 1 of 20
Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present suit filed by plaintiff against defendant seeking suit for recovery of Rs. 1,21,97,618/-.
2. The case of plaintiff in brief as averred in plaint is as under:
3. It is stated that plaintiff has been carrying on business of fabrication of garments and sale/purchase thereof in name and style of M/s Kapil Creations from address as mentioned in memo of parties.
4. It is stated that defendant has also been carrying on business of garments in name and style of M/s Vishal International as proprietorship concern.
5. Defendant came into contract with plaintiff for fabrication of clothes as well as for purchase of cloth both on credit basis. Defendant reposed full faith in plaintiff, plaintiff being a honest businessman and slowly slowly, plaintiff started dealing with defendant on credit basis since October 2011. Defendant started maintaining running account with plaintiff by making payments in round figure from time to time.
6. Defendant used to send his goods to plaintiff at the above mentioned address in Delhi for fabrication and after fabrication, clothes as per order and instruction of defendant used to be delivered to defendant or his employee. Defendant sometimes used to purchase clothes from plaintiff on credit basis from office of plaintiff at Delhi. Thus, a mutual running account was being maintained between parties and by CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 2 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker plaintiff. After execution of job, plaintiff used to raise bills/invoices which were duly signed by defendant or by his employee.
7. It is stated that after giving adjustment of part payments made from time to time in the running account, defendant owes a sum of Rs. 66,08,969/- to plaintiff after deducting TDS for which bills / invoices were duly received by defendant under signatures.
8. Defendant failed to make payment of dues of plaintiff after 02.05.2013 and he made last payment of Rs. 2 lakhs through cheque dated 02.05.2013. Despite repeated requests, defendant failed to make payment of the said amount. Defendant has thus rendered himself liable to pay interest @ 24 % p.a. from date of each bill till remittance. However, plaintiff is claiming interest only after 02.05.2013 i.e. from date of last payment made by defendant. Accordingly, sum of Rs. 55,88,649/- has become due from defendant to plaintiff from 02.05.2013 till 29.02.2016. In aggregate total sum of Rs. 1,21,97,618/- has become due from defendant.
9. It is stated that plaintiff sent legal notices dated 23.11.2015 and 02.01.2016 to defendant in this regard but to no avail. Hence, present suit.
10. Plaintiff has prayed for passing decree in sum of Rs. 1,21,97,618/- against defendant along with agreed rate of interest @ 24% p.a. from date of institution till realization.
11. Summons of the suit were ordered to be issued to defendant CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 3 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker on 11.03.2016 whereafter defendant put up appearance before Court through counsel and filed written statement.
12. In written statement filed by defendant, defendant took some preliminary objections. It is stated that plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and has filed false and frivolous suit against defendant without any rhyme or reason, hence, present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action has ever arisen in favor of plaintiff and against defendant and plaint filed by plaintiff thus is liable to rejected U/o 7 rule 11 CPC. Alleged statement of account filed with the suit is not complete statement of account and plaintiff has failed to show as to how he has claimed amount of Rs. 66,08,969/- and how interest of Rs. 55,88,649/- is being claimed by him. It is stated that there is no contract of any kind between parties regarding rate of interest and hence interest claimed @ 24% p.a. is totally illegal, unjustified and exorbitant. Defendant lodged complaint against plaintiff with PS Model Town, Panipat on 17.10.2013 and claimed sum of Rs. 70 lakhs from plaintiff as plaintiff has not supplied goods after preparation on 02.04.2013 and has forced defendant to suffer loss of Rs. 70 lakhs by supplying goods of inferior quality. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from defendant and hence present suit is not maintainable. Present suit has been filed by plaintiff with malafide intention and with ulterior motive to extract more money from defendant by filing such sort of false and frivolous suit.
CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 4 of 20Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker
13. It is stated that plaintiff has forged and fabricated bill/invoice No. 53 dated 12.03.2013 for sum of Rs. 41,06,290.50/-, invoice No. 38 dated 19.01.2012 for sum of Rs. 9,16,502/- and invoice No. 35 dated 06.01.2012 for sum of Rs. 9,54,826/-. The goods mentioned in these bills were never supplied to defendant at any point of time and hence, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this Court.
14. It is stated that proper Court fees has not been affixed by plaintiff on the plaint filed by him and in absence of proper Court fee, present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. No legal notice was ever served upon defendant before filing of present suit.
15. On reply on merits, it is denied that after giving adjustment to part payments made from time to time in running account, defendant still owes sum of Rs. 66,08,969/- to plaintiff after deducting TDS for which bills/invoices were duly received by defendant under signatures. It is stated that defendant is not in arrears of Rs. 66,08,969/- as alleged. It is stated that whatever goods were supplied to defendant, the same were duly received by defendant who has shown the same in his statement of account. It is stated that when the goods were not supplied to defendant by plaintiff, question of entering these invoices in statement of account does not arise at all.
16. It is stated that defendant paid sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on 02.05.2013. It is denied that defendant is in arrears of any amount whatsoever. It is denied that defendant has rendered himself liable to CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 5 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker pay interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of each bill till remittance. It is denied that sum of Rs. 55,88,649/- has become due from defendant to plaintiff from 02.05.2013 till 29.02.2016. Plaintiff has played a fraud upon defendant by raising invoice Nos. 53, 38 and 35 for respective amounts as mentioned in the plaint. It is stated that defendant has already made entire payment to plaintiff.
17. It is prayed to dismiss suit filed by plaintiff with heavy costs.
18. Replication to written statement of defendant was filed on behalf of plaintiff.
19. In reply to preliminary objections, it is denied that plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands or has filed false and frivolous suit against defendant without any rhyme or reason. It is denied that present suit is not maintainable in present form. It is stated that plaintiff has come to Court with clean hands and has given correct facts.
20. It is denied that no cause of action has arisen in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. It is stated that cause of action has arisen in favor of plaintiff and against defendant when defendant purchased clothes from plaintiff on credit basis and also when defendant used to send goods to plaintiff in Delhi for fabrication and when after fabrication of clothes, defendant used to take delivery of the same and when bills used to be raised by plaintiff upon defendant and when certain bills were sent through courier were received by defendant and when defendant failed to pay outstanding dues of plaintiff despite service CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 6 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker of legal notices dated 23.11.2015 and 02.01.2016. Thus, all these facts gave cause of action to plaintiff to file present suit against defendant who intentionally and deliberately failed to pay claim in the suit to plaintiff.
21. It is denied that complete statement of account has not been filed by plaintiff with present suit. It is stated that statement of account of plaintiff reflects all invoices and bills as well as part payments made by defendant to plaintiff against mutual running account leaving a balance of Rs. 66,08,969/- by way of principal amount. Interest @ 24% p.a. has been calculated from date of each pending bill till remittance, however it has been claimed at the said rate w.e.f. 02.05.2013, when the last payment was made by defendant and accordingly sum of Rs. 55,88,649/- has become due towards interest from defendant to plaintiff. The said rate of interest has been mentioned as one of the terms and conditions of business in the invoices. It is denied that there is no contract between parties to make payment of interest @ 24% p.a. in case, dues/claim are not paid. It is stated that bills / invoices have been signed by defendant or his representative and said rate of interest has been mentioned in the same.
22. It is not disputed that defendant lodged false and frivolous complaint against plaintiff on 16.08.2013 with PS Model Town, Panipat whereupon plaintiff was summoned by concerned police officials and plaintiff gave his statement before IO on 02.09.2013. Plaintiff in his statement stated that defendant owed sum of Rs. 66,08,969/- to plaintiff.
CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 7 of 20Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker Plaintiff further stated that when he demanded money from defendant, defendant went to factory of plaintiff and threatened him besides using filthy abuses. Plaintiff stated that defendant has filed false complaint in order to defeat claim of plaintiff and that he never replaced the goods. Defendant also gave statement on 02.09.2013 wherein he admitted to have purchased goods worth Rs. 70 lakhs from plaintiff and falsely stated that after inspection of goods, plaintiff replaced the same on account of defendant's buyer stopped the payment. The concerned IO gave report to the effect that complaint has been made by defendant to usurp claim of plaintiff and that defendant owes sum of Rs. 66,08,969/- as principal amount to plaintiff. Defendant made every attempt to usurp just claim of plaintiff even by making false complaint in PS Model Town, Panipat.
23. It is denied that plaintiff filed present suit with malafide intention and ulterior motive to extract money from defendant claim of plaintiff is absolutely genuine which has been so found even by police official of PS Model Town, Panipat on complaint of defendant.
24. It is denied that plaintiff prepared forged and fabricated bill No. 53 dated 12.03.2013 amounting to Rs. 41,06,290.50/-. The said bill was duly received by defendant which pertains to purchase of 80515/500 meter rayon fabric under his signatures. The said bill has not been disputed by defendant in his complaint made to police nor he has repudiated the same by giving reply to legal notices dated 23.11.2015 CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 8 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker and 02.01.2016 which have been duly served upon him. Goods as mentioned in bill No. 53 have been duly supplied by plaintiff to defendant.
25. It is stated that bill No. 38 dated 19.01.2012 pertains to supply of 10,415 meters of cotton fabric worth Rs. 9,16,520/- and bill No. 35 dated 06.01.2012 pertains to supply of 10860/30 meter of cotton fabric worth Rs. 9,54,826/- which was also shown by defendant in his statement of account duly sent to plaintiff. Had goods been not received by defendant under invoices No. 35 & 38, defendant should have disputed the same before police official of PS Model Town, Panipat. Defendant has only contended that goods were replaced by plaintiff which allegations are otherwise false. Defendant has intentionally denied receipt of the said bills and goods mentioned therein because the same were not signed by defendant and plaintiff supplied the goods in good faith because of their routine business dealing. Defendant has not filed his statement of account to disprove claim of plaintiff in this behalf or otherwise.
26. It is denied that proper court fee has not been paid by plaintiff and hence, suit is not maintainable. It is stated that requisite court fee has been paid by plaintiff. It is denied that no proper legal demand notice was served upon defendant before filing of present suit. Proper legal notices dated 23.11.2015 and 02.01.2016 were sent and duly served upon defendant but despite receipt of the same, defendant neither paid CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 9 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker just claim of plaintiff nor even replied the same.
27. On reply on merits, it is denied that defendant does not owe sum of Rs. 66,08,969/- to plaintiff after deducting TDS against bills/invoices received by defendant. It is prayed to decree suit filed by plaintiff in terms of prayer made in the plaint.
28. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 20.02.2017 which are as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, as alleged by the defendant? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, as alleged by the defendant? OPD
3. Whether the bills and invoices No. 35, 38 and 53 are forged and fabricated as alleged by the defendant? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.1,21,97,618/- as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
6. Relief.
29. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 10 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker who exhibited his evidence affidavit vide Ex.PW-1/A. In his deposition, PW-1 relied upon and exhibited following documents:-
SI. No. Documents Exhibited/Marked
1. Statement of account pertaining to Ex.PW-1/1
defendant maintained by plaintiff
2. Carbon copies of the bills/invoices Ex.PW-1/2 to
Ex.PW-1/13
3. Office copy of notice under order 12 Ex.PW-1/13A
rule 8 CPC
4. Office copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW-1/14
23.11.2015
5. Office copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW-1/15
02.01.2016
6. Postal receipts of the legal notice Ex.PW-1/16 (two
dated 23.11.2015 postal receipts)
7. Postal receipts of the legal notice Ex.PW-1/17 (two
dated 02.01.2016 postal receipts)
8. Photocopy of complaint dated Mark X (colly)
17.10.2013
9. Certificate/affidavit u/s 65B of Indian Ex.PX (inadvertently Evidence Act not exhibited in testimony of PW-1 but exhibited in actual on Certificate/affidavit)
30. Plaintiff also examined summoned witness HC Saroj Kumar (1146-PPT) PS Sec.13/17, Panipat Haryana. He brought letter dated 06.01.2021 having subject 'destruction of old records' and the same CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 11 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker was exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A. He identified seal / stamp on Mark X (colly) to be that of office of Superintendent of Police, Panipat.
31. PE was closed on 17.03.2021 on submissions made by counsel for plaintiff.
32. In order to prove his defence, defendant examined himself as DW-1 who exhibited his evidence affidavit vide Ex.DW-1/A. Defendant was shown document i.e. ledger account from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 which was marked as Mark X1 in his cross-examination. Another document i.e. statement of defendant recorded by IO on 02.09.2013 was exhibited in his cross-examination vide Ex.DW-1/P1 (part of Mark X). Defendant was also put invoice number 1313 pertaining to his firm in his cross examination vide Mark A.
33. I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including judgments filed by both the parties.
34. My issue-wise findings are as below:-
ISSUES No. 4 & 5Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.1,21,97,618/- as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP & Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 12 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker
35. Onus to prove these issues was upon plaintiff. These issues are being taken up together as issue No.5 is dependent upon outcome of issue No.4.
36. Plaintiff has based his claim against defendant on bills/invoices Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/13 and statement of account / ledger account Ex.PW-1/1.
37. Plaintiff in his evidence affidavit has deposed that on basis of assurances and faith reposed by defendant in him, he started dealing with defendant on credit basis since October 2011. He deposed that thus the defendant started maintaining running current account with his concern by making payments to him in round figure from time to time.
38. It is well settled that for an account to be mutual, open or current, there has to be reciprocity of demands between parties i.e. ledger account has to show credit balance sometimes in favor of one party and sometimes in favor of other party. It is also well settled that for an account to be labeled as running account, it must be established that there are debits and credits going on simultaneously and balances are struck with some periodicity and not that there are number of invoices, some of which have remained unpaid. It is also well settled that non payment of invoices and payment without specifying a particular invoice shall not make the transaction a running account.
39. Perusal of statement of account/ledger account Ex.PW-1/1 pertaining to defendant filed by plaintiff does not show that there is any CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 13 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker reciprocity of demands between plaintiff and defendant nor balance appear to be struck with some periodicity. In absence of essential ingredients as discussed in last para, I am of the view that statement of account produced by plaintiff Ex.PW-1/1 cannot be said to be mutual, open and running account between plaintiff and defendant.
40. The contention as to whether Ex.PW-1/1 can be said to be open, mutual and current running account has been dealt with by me as during course of arguments, counsel for defendant pointed that alleged claim of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation whereas contention of counsel for plaintiff was that account between parties are mutual, open and current running account wherein limitation is governed by Article 1 of Limitation Act as per which limitation in such a case will commence at end of financial year for which transactions are entered into.
41. Limitation in present suit will thus be governed vis a vis invoices separately, goods qua which are admitted to have been supplied to / received by defendant.
42. Defendant in his cross examination has admitted bill Ex.PW-1/2, Ex.PW-1/4, Ex.PW-1/6, Ex.PW-1/10, Ex.PW-1/11, Ex.PW-1/12 and Ex.PW-1/13. Except Ex.PW-1/2, rest of admitted invoices pertain to year 2012 and 2011. Ex.PW-1/2 is dated 15.03.2013. Plaintiff filed present suit on 11.03.2016 meaning thereby that only claim qua Ex.PW-1/2 can be said to be within period of limitation. Stand of defendant is that he made complete payment to plaintiff for his dues.
CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 14 of 20Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker Initial burden of non payment by defendant was upon plaintiff. Plaintiff has not proved statement of account of his bank which could have shown payment received by him. Mere entries in statement of account / ledger account without any corroborative evidence being led in support of entries in the same are of no consequences. Ex.PW-1/1 is supported by affidavit / certificate of plaintiff U/sec 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.Px but the said certificate cannot be said to be sufficient to prove Ex.PW-1/1 as firstly it is made in year 2017 and claim pertains to year 2012-13, secondly, it does not contain any particulars of computer wherein information was stored nor it says that the said computer is inaccessible for others in house/establishment of plaintiff nor it says that it is not tempered with and thirdly, no make and model of the printer from which output was taken has been mentioned in the same. In today's world of changing technology, it is difficult to believe that a person will not change his computer / smart devices for period of more than 4-5 years particularly when he is carrying out business in a progressive city like Delhi. Hence, statement of account pertaining to defendant filed by plaintiff cannot be said to be of any consequence and cannot be said to have been proved. When plaintiff has not been able to discharge his burden, the burden cannot be shifted upon defendant to prove that he made payment towards his dues to plaintiff. Plaintiff should have proved his bank account statement in order to show receipt of money by him from defendant.
CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 15 of 20Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker
43. Plaintiff filed judgment in case titled as "M/s Fresh & Healthy Enterprises Ltd. Vs. M/s R. K. Brothers in RFA No. 319/2017 decided on 24.08.2018". This judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi deals with Article 1 of Limitation Act dealing with aspect of limitation in case of open, mutual and current account but this judgment is not applicable in facts and circumstances of present case as discussed above and account produced by plaintiff in this case cannot be said to be open, mutual and running account.
44. Plaintiff further filed judgment in case titled as "Prakash Industries Limited Vs. Sarve Kirti Kumar Sharma 2017 (4) CLJ 356 Del", wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that once defendant has consumed the goods supplied by the plaintiff, the defendant is bound to pay price of the same. Ratio in this judgment is not applicable in facts and circumstances of present case as plaintiff has not been able to prove that defendant did not make payment of due amount to him.
45. In view of my above made discussion, I am of the view that plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden qua issue No.4 which is accordingly decided in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.
46. In view of issue No.4 being decided in favor of defendant, issue No.5 is also decided in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 3Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 16 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker with clean hands, as alleged by the defendant?
OPD & Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, as alleged by the defendant? OPD & Whether the bills and invoices No. 35, 38 and 53 are forged and fabricated as alleged by the defendant? OPD
47. Onus to prove these issues was upon defendant. All these issues are being taken up together being interconnected.
48. On account of my finding qua issue No.4, it can be said that plaintiff has not been able to prove any cause of action against defendant qua subject matter of present suit. Hence, issue No.2 is decided in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.
49. Defendant has contended that invoices No. 35, 38 and 53 are forged and fabricated. Defendant in his cross examination has stated that Ex.PW-1/3, Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/7 (invoices No. 53, 38 and 35 respectively) does not relate to business transaction with him. Defendant in his cross examination further stated that Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/13 (invoices) does not bear his signatures. He has denied the suggestion CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 17 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker that Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/13 bears his signatures. He stated that he has not filed any complaint against plaintiff regarding forgery of bills No. 35, 38 and 53. He denied the suggestion that no complaint has been lodged by him against plaintiff in respect of forgery of above bills as he had received fabric from plaintiff under the said bills. He stated that he has not filed any case against the plaintiff till today in respect of alleged forgery.
50. In case titled as "Shree Sanyeeji Sponge and Alloys Ltd.
Vs. Parmeshwar Lal Saraf 2014 SCC Online Cal 13844", it was held that in the absence of the seal on delivery challan, the doubts were cast on the validity of raised bills. In case titled as "Millennium Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ind Barath Energes (thoothukud) 2021 SCC Online Mad 2611", where the issue was as to whether alleged transactions between parties took place and whether plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to prove delivery of goods to defendant. The said suit was dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove delivery of goods. In case titled as "Bipp System Ltd. Vs. Tata Infotech Ltd. RFA No. 69/2023", Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that plaintiff failed to prove the supply of goods.
51. Counsel for defendant during course of arguments submitted that plaintiff failed to prove delivery of goods / fabrics to plaintiff and delivery of sold goods is a non negotiable precedent and a pre condition for accomplishment of sale under Sales of Goods Act. He submitted that in absence of any evidence qua actual delivery of goods claimed to have CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 18 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker been sold by plaintiff to defendant, sale of alleged fabric / delivery of fabric for doing job cannot be presumed and it can be said that plaintiff failed to prove his case against defendant.
52. No doubt, plaintiff has not proved delivery of fabric to defendant for the purpose of sale / doing job work however it can be said that it was due to non production of relevant evidence by plaintiff in this regard but at the same time it cannot be said with certainty that invoices No. 35, 38, 53 have been forged and fabricated by plaintiff. To my mind, defendant has failed to discharge his burden qua issue No.3. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.
53. Onus to prove issue No.1 was upon defendant. Plaintiff filed ledger account / statement of account pertaining to defendant vide Ex.PW-1/1 wherein last transaction showed between parties was dated 05.06.2013. In the said statement, transaction of receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs on 02.05.2013 has also been shown by plaintiff. Questions pertaining to these transactions have been asked from plaintiff by defendant in cross examination of plaintiff which plaintiff has admitted. Most of invoices on which plaintiff has based his claim are time barred and plaintiff has not been able to prove delivery of goods / fabrics to defendant regarding invoice which is in period of limitation. Plaintiff though has not been able to prove delivery of goods/fabrics to defendant but it cannot be said that he has not come before Court with clean hands as alleged by defendant. In these circumstances, issue No.1 is decided in favor of plaintiff and CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 19 of 20 Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker against defendant.
RELIEF
54. In view of my findings qua issues No. 4 & 5, I am of the view that suit filed by plaintiff is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree-Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SONU SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.08
15:19:02 +0530
Announced in open Court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
today on 31.07.2025 DJ-04, East District, KKD
Courts/Delhi
CS No. 2426/16 Page No. 20 of 20
Kapil Goel Vs. Jitender Singh Bhukker