Delhi District Court
Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders on 8 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010056282023
CS (COMM.) No. 687/2023
CNR No. DLCT010056282023
M/s Sandeep Goel
Proprieter of Sayam Traders
4064, Ist Floor, Naya Bazar
New Delhi 110006 ......Plaintiff
Versus
A One Traders
House No. 3191, Block D
Aerocity Mohali
Behind World Trade Centre
Punjab-140603 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 25.04.2023
Date of Argument : 28.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 08.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit for recovery of Rs.4,68,584/- (Rs Four Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Four only) filed by the plaintiff Sandeep Goyal, Proprietor of "Sayam Traders" against the defendant "A One Traders", a Proprietorship Firm.
Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 1 of 31 ) FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Brief facts of the case as made out from the plaint are that plaintiff is the proprietor of "Sayam Traders" and is engaged in the business of broking and trading of pulses, chana and other allied products; defendant is a proprietorship firm; plaintiff supplied the pulses to the defendant vide invoice no. 0001565 dated 09.07.2020 in the sum of Rs.64,150/-, which was duly received by the defendant.
3. It is further stated that plaintiff is working as a broker also in the market and as a broker, he got supplied material through "JRPL Rice Land LLP"
to the defendant in the sum of Rs.1,00,200/- vide bill no. 20-21/604G dated 09.07.2020 and in the sum of Rs.1,55,500/- vide bill no. 20-20/665G dated 14.07.2020; out of the aforesaid total amount of Rs.2,55,700/- (Rs.1,00,200/- + Rs. 1,55,500/-), the defendant made direct payment to "JRPL Rice Land LLP" in the sum of Rs.75,010/- but the balance amount of Rs.1,80,690/- (Rs.2,55,700/- - 75,010/-) was paid by the plaintiff to the said firm on behalf of the defendant.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that plaintiff had got supplied Urad , Razma and lobiya Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 2 of 31 ) through another firm namely "Swadeshi Grains" to the defendant in the sum of Rs.83,550/- vide bill no. 6281 dated 08.07.2020; defendant made the payment of Rs.20,000/- directly to M/s Swadeshi Grains but the balance amount of Rs.63,550/- was paid by the plaintiff to the said firm on behalf of the defendant.
5. Plaintiff has claimed a total principal amount in the sum of Rs.3,08,390/- (Rs.64,150/- + Rs.1,80,690/- + Rs.63,550/-) alleging that the same is due and outstanding against the defendant. Plaintiff has also claimed the interest in the sum of Rs.1,52,653/- at the rate of 18% per annum for the period from 14.07.2020 to 14.04.2023 and thus has prayed for a decree in the sum of Rs.4,68,584/- (Rs.3,08,390/- as principal amount + Rs.1,52,653/- as interest). It is stated that since the said amount was not paid by the defendant, hence the present suit was filed.
6. Since, the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, the plaintiff is said to have approached Central DLSA in terms of section 12 (A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the Central DLSA has released a non-starter report Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 3 of 31 ) dated 08.02.2023 in per-institution mediation process.
7. On being served the summons of the suit, defendant made the appearance and filed the written statement.
8. In the written statement, the defendant has taken certain preliminary objections to the effect that the plaintiff has filed the present suit just to harass the defendant; this court has no pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit; plaintiff should have filed three separate suits for recovery; plaintiff is guilty of suppression of true and correct facts; suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not pleaded the rate of interest claimed; no supply was ever made to the defendant and the invoice and the ledger of the plaintiff are false and fabricated.
9. On the merits, it is stated that plaintiff is not the proprietor of the plaintiff firm; the correct and complete name of the defendant has not been mentioned in the memo of parties; the invoice no.
0001565 dated 09.07.2020 in the sum of Rs.64,150/- is forged and fabricated; it is denied that any material was supplied to the defendant through the plaintiff as a broker; it is stated that defendant Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 4 of 31 ) has purchased the goods from "JRPL Rice Land and LLP" in the sum of Rs.1,00,200/- against bill no. 20-21/604G dated 09.07.2020 and the defendant had already made the payment; the second bill in the sum of Rs.1,55,500/- as referred to by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated; regarding the invoice raised by "Swadeshi Grains" in the sum of Rs.83,550/-, it is stated that the defendant had already made the said payment. All other allegations made by the plaintiff, have been denied by the defendant and it is prayed that the present suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with exemplary cost.
10. Plaintiff has filed the replication to the written statement of the defendant and has denied the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
11. Both the parties have filed their affidavits of admission and denial of the documents filed by them.
12. From the pleadings of the parties vide order dated 20.01.2024, Ld. Predecessor of this court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case (Para 2 and 5 of Preliminary Objection of the defendant) ? (OPD).
Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 5 of 31 )
2. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case (Para 3 of Preliminary Objection of the defendant) ? (OPD).
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the principal amount, as asked for in the plaint ? (OPP)
4. In case if issue no. 3 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, as asked for in the plaint ? (OPP)
5. Relief.
13. Ld. Court Commissioner has already submitted his report dated 04.07.2024, wherein it is stated that plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 on 21.05.2024 and the plaintiff evidence was closed on the same day. It is further stated that although the defendant had filed evidence by way of affidavits of three witnesses but the defendant has examined only one witness namely Amit Jain, Proprietor of defendant firm as DW1 and the defendant evidence was closed on 01.07.2024.
14. PW1 Sandeep Goyal has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint in his evidence filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the following documents:-
S.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. Copy of GST Certificate ExPW1/1
2. Printed copy of bill invoice no. ExPW1/2 000156S dated 09.07.2020
3. Copy of bills and certificate ExPW1/3 Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 6 of 31 ) dated 20.03.2023 of receiving (colly) issued by M/s JRPL Rice Land LLP ( page 19-22 of paper book)
4. Copy of bills, ledger account and ExPW1/4 certificate of M/s Swadeshi (colly) Grains ( page no.23-37 of paper book)
5. Ledger accounts from ExPW1/5 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 (page (colly) no.28-39 of paper book)
6. Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian ExPW1/6 Evidence Act
15. PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant before the Ld. Court Commissioner.
16. As stated herein above, the defendant has examined one Amit Jain as DW1. DW1 Amit Jain tendered his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW- 1/A and has deposed on the lines of stand taken in the written statement filed by the defendant. DW1 has relied upon the documents i.e GST details of plaintiff's firm ExDW1/1 and GST details of defendant's firm and common certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act ExDW1/2 and ExDW1/3 respectively. DW1 was cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed
17. Written synopsis of arguments have been filed on behalf of the both the parties.
Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 7 of 31 )
18. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff has been able to establish his case. She has taken me to the testimony of plaintiff witness and the cross examination of the DW1 and submitted that it stands proved that the goods were supplied to the defendant as averred in the plaint vide various invoices. While replying to the objections of the defendant regarding jurisdiction, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that since part cause of action arose in Delhi within the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court has the territorial jurisdiction. She further submitted that plaintiff has claimed the the suit amount of Rs 4,68,584/- which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court.
19. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that plaintiff has joined together three cause of action for which there should have been three separate suits. He submitted that to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction, three claims have been added by the plaintiff which is not permissible, therefore, the plaint cannot be entertained. He further submitted that no cause of action arose in Delhi. Defendant is working at Punjab therefore, this court has no jurisdiction and the plaint is liable to be rejected. On merits, it is Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 8 of 31 ) stated that the plaintiff has not placed on record the valid certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the computer generated invoices, as relied upon by the plaintiff, therefore, the same cannot be cannot be read in evidence. He further submitted that the invoices and the ledgeer account filed by the plaintiff are false and fabricated.
20. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant.
21. For the sake of convenience, Firstly, I would be deciding issue no.1 and 2 together, then issue no.3, then issue no.4 and in the last issue no.5.
Issue No.1:
Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case (Para 2 and 5 of Preliminary Objection of the defendant) ? (OPD).
Issue no.2 Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case (Para 3 of Preliminary Objection of the defendant) ? (OPD).
22. Both these issues are with regard to the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, they are being decided together.
Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 9 of 31 )
23. Regarding the objections of pecuniary jurisdiction, the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff has joined the three cause of action/claims which is not permissible. Since the present suit is being challenged for misjoinder of causes of action also, it is pertinent to mention here the law on the point, which is as under:
Order 2 Rule 3 "3. Joinder of causes of action.--(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisd iction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit."
Order 2 Rule 6 "6. Power of court to order separate trials.--Where it appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice."
24. The expression "cause of action" is the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 10 of 31 ) which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.
25. The order 2 Rule 3 provides for the joinder of several causes of action and states that a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly or several plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or defendants jointly may unite them in one suit. The remedy for any possible inconvenience with regard to the said rule is supplied by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 6, which authorises the Court to order separate trials of causes of action which though joined in one suit cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together.
26. In the case of Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, (2007) 2 SCC 551 , it was held that:-
"11. Order 2 deals with frame of suits. It provides that every suit shall be framed as far as practicable so as to afford grounds for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 11 of 31 ) them. It is also insisted that every suit shall include the whole of the claim that a plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of its subject-matter. There is a further provision that the plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant and the plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant, may unite such causes of action in the same suit. It provides that objection on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action should be taken at the earliest opportunity. It also enables the court, where it appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action may embarrass or delay the trial or otherwise cause inconvenience, to order separate trials or to make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice.
12. Thus, in a case where a plaint suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action either in terms of Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 3 on the one hand, or Order 2 Rule 3 on the other, the Code itself indicates that the perceived defect does not make the suit one barred by law or liable to rejection. This is clear from Rules 3-A, 4 and 5 of Order 1 of the Code, and this is emphasised by Rule 9 of Order 1 of the Code which provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and the court may in either case deal with the matter in controversy so far as it regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. This is further emphasised by Rule 10 of Order 1 which enables the court in appropriate circumstances to substitute or add any person as a plaintiff in a suit. Order 2 deals with the framing of a suit and Rule 3 provides that save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of actions against the same defendant and any plaintiffs having causes of actions in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant may unite such causes of action in the same suit. Rule 6 enables the court to order separate trials even in a case of misjoinder of causes of action in a plaint filed.
13. After the amendment of Order 16 Rule 1 in England, it was held by the Court of Appeal in England in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 12 of 31 ) LKB 577 (CA)] thus:
"Whatever the law may have been at the time when Smurthwaite v. Hannay [1894 AC 494 : (1891-4) All ER Rep 865 (HL)] was decided, joinder of parties and joinder of causes of action are discretionary in this sense, that if they are joined there is no absolute right to have them struck out, but it is discretionary in the Court to do so if it thinks right."
14. The Privy Council in Mahant Ramdhan Puri v. Chaudhury Lachmi Narain [AIR 1937 PC 42 : 1937 All LJ 556] pointed out: (AIR p. 45) "It is desirable to point out that under the rules as they now stand the mere fact of misjoinder is not by itself sufficient to entitle the defendant to have the proceedings set aside or action dismissed."
Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the abovequoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
15. It is well understood that procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. The scheme of Order 1 and Order 2 clearly shows that the prescriptions therein are in the realm of procedure and not in the realm of substantive law or rights. That the Code considers objections regarding the frame of suit Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 13 of 31 ) or joinder of parties only as procedural, is further clear from Section 99 of the Code which specifically provides that no decree shall be reversed in appeal on account of any misjoinder of parties or causes of action or non-joinder of parties unless a court finds that the non-joinder is of a necessary party. This is on the same principle as of Section 21 of the Code which shows that even an objection to territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted, could not be raised successfully for the first time in an appeal against the decree unless the appellant is also able to show consequent failure of justice. The Suits Valuation Act similarly indicates that absence of pecuniary jurisdiction in the court that tried the cause without objection also stands on the same footing. The amendment to Section 24 of the Code in the year 1976 confers power on the court even to transfer a suit filed in a court having no jurisdiction, to a court having jurisdiction to try it. In the context of these provisions with particular reference to the rules in Order 1 and Order 2 of the Code, it is clear that an objection of misjoinder of plaintiffs or misjoinder of causes of action, is a procedural objection and it is not a bar to the entertaining of the suit or the trial and final disposal of the suit. The court has the liberty even to treat the plaint in such a case as relating to two suits and try and dispose them of on that basis.
16. Order 7 Rule 11(d) speaks of the suit being "barred by any law". According to Black's Law Dictionary, bar means, a plea arresting a law suit or legal claim. It means as a verb, to prevent by legal objection. According to Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, "bar" is that which obstructs entry or egress; to exclude from consideration. It is therefore necessary to see whether a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action is excluded from consideration or is barred entry for adjudication. As pointed out already, on the scheme of the Code, there is no such prohibition or a prevention at the entry of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action. The court is still competent to try and decide the suit, though the court may also be competent to tell the plaintiffs either to elect to proceed at the instance of one of the plaintiffs or to proceed with one of the causes of Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 14 of 31 ) action. On the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot therefore be held that a suit barred for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action is barred by a law, here the Code. This may be contrasted with the failure to comply with Section 80 of the Code. In a case not covered by sub-section (2) of Section 80, it is provided in sub-section (1) of Section 80 that "no suit shall be instituted". This is therefore a bar to the institution of the suit and that is why courts have taken the view that in a case where notice under Section 80 of the Code is mandatory, if the averments in the plaint indicate the absence of a notice, the plaint is liable to be rejected. For, in that case, the entertaining of the suit would be barred by Section 80 of the Code. The same would be the position when a suit hit by Section 86 of the Code is filed without pleading the obtaining of consent of the Central Government if the suit is not for rent from a tenant. Not only are there no words of such import in Order 1 or Order 2 but on the other hand, Rule 9 of Order 1, Rules 1 and 3 of Order 1, and Rules 3 and 6 of Order 2 clearly suggest that it is open to the court to proceed with the suit notwithstanding the defect of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action and if the suit results in a decision, the same could not be set aside in appeal, merely on that ground, in view of Section 99 of the Code, unless the conditions of Section 99 are satisfied. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action be held to be barred by any law within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code.
17. Thus, when one considers Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code with particular reference to clause (d), it is difficult to say that a suit which is bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, is a suit barred by any law. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joinder of causes of action or the frame of the suit, could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits.
Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 15 of 31 )
18. It cannot be disputed that the court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 37, para 69.) If there is power in the court to consolidate different suits on the basis that it should be desirable to make an order consolidating them or on the basis that some common questions of law or fact arise for decision in them, it cannot certainly be postulated that the trying of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is something that is barred by law. The power to consolidate recognised in the court obviously gives rise to the position that mere misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not something that creates an obstruction even at the threshold for the entertaining of the suit.
19. It is recognised that the court has wide discretionary power to control the conduct of proceedings where there has been a joinder of causes of action or of parties which may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient. In that situation, the court may exercise the power either by ordering separate trials of the claims in respect of two or more causes of action included in the same action or by confining the action to some of the causes of action and excluding the others or by ordering the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect which cause of action is to be proceeded with or which plaintiff should proceed and which should not or by making such other order as may be expedient. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 37, para 73.) Surely, when the matter rests with Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 16 of 31 ) the discretion of the court, it could not be postulated that a suit suffering from such a defect is something that is barred by law. After all, it is the convenience of the trial that is relevant and as the Privy Council has observed in the decision noted earlier, the defendant may not even have an absolute right to contend that such a suit should not be proceeded with.
27. Coming to the case at hand, in the present case although few invoices have been raised by two different entities as well namely JRPL Rice Land LLP and Swadeshi Grains but the ultimate liability in case of default by the defendant, even qua said invoices, was of the plaintiff being broker. One of the invoices dated 09.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 64,150/- has been raised by the plaintiff himself. That being so, plaintiff was within his right to claim the outstanding amount against all the aforesaid invoices from the defendant by clubbing the same as all the invoices are against the present defendant only. The total suit amount, as claimed by the plaintiff, on the basis of the said invoices including the interest, is Rs 4,68,584/- which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
28. Regarding the objection of territorial jurisdiction, as per the case of the plaintiff set up in the plaint, the plaintiff is said to have supplied the material to the defendant vide invoice no. 0001565 Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 17 of 31 ) dated 09.07.2020 ExPW1/2 and the subsequently goods were supplied by the plaintiff as a broker through M/s JRPL Rice land LLP to the defendant vide invoices no.20-21/694 G dated 09.07.2020 and invoice no. 20-20/665 G dated 14.07.2020, ExPW1/3(colly); plaintiff has also supplied the pulses to the defendant through M/s Swadeshi Grains vide invoice no. 6281 dated 08.07.2020 ExPW1/4 (collly). It is further averred that defendant had placed order of supply of Pulses and rice in the office of the the plaintiff situated at Delhi, goods have been transported from Delhi and the same has been supplied from the office of the plaintiff at Delhi.
29. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and has filed the evidence by way of affidavit and deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint even regarding the aforesaid facts touching the jurisdiction. Although, PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant but the testimony of the witness in this regard has gone unchallenged and nothing could be elicited from the testimony of PW1 in this regard. Not even a suggestion was put to the PW1 that defendant never placed any order to the plaintiff at Delhi or the order Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 18 of 31 ) was placed somewhere else. Further, the terms and conditions clause of the invoice ExPW1/2 clearly indicates that it was 'subject to Delhi Jurisdiction'. Another invoice pertaining to M/s JRPL, which is said to have supplied the goods to the defendant also located and works at Naya Bazar, Delhi which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, M/s Swadeshi Grains is also having its office at Naya Bazar, Delhi and at the top of its invoice ExPW1/4 (colly), it is specifically mentioned that 'all subject to Delhi Jurisdiction".
30. Having said so, it is clear that part of cause action also arose within the jurisdiction of this court, thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction also to adjudicate the present case. Hence, issues no.1 & 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 3.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the principal amount, as asked for in the plaint ? (OPP)
31. The claim of the plaintiff is basically based upon three counts which are as under :
(a) The material was supplied by the plaintiff vide invoice no. 0001565 dated 09.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 64,150/-/- ExPW1/2.
(b) As a broker, plaintiff has supplied the material to the defendant through JRPL Rice Land LLP vide Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 19 of 31 ) bill no. 20-21/604 G and 20-20/665 G dated 09.07.2020 and 14.7.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,00,200/- and Rs 1,55,500/- respectively ( total amount of Rs 2,55,700/- ) ExPW1/3 (colly).
(c) plaintiff had also supplied the material as a broker through Swadeshi Grains to the defendant vide bill no. 628 dated 08.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 83,550/- ExPW1/4 (colly).
32. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he had supplied or got supplied the material to the defendant in the sum of Rs 4,03,400/- ( Rs 64,150/ + Rs 2,55,700/ + Rs 83,550/-) out of which defendant is said to have made a payment of Rs 75,010/- to JRPL and Rs 20,000/- to Swadeshi Grains and now a sum of Rs 3,08,390/- ( Rs 4,03,400/- - Rs 75,010/-
- Rs 20,000/-) is due and outstanding against the defendant.
33. As per the averments made in the written statement, the stand of the defendant to the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff is as under:
(a) The invoice no. 0001565 dated 09.7.2020 in the sum of Rs 64,150/- ExPW1/2 is fake and fabricated ( para 3 on merits of the written statement).
(b) Defendant had purchased the goods in the sum of Rs 1,00,200/- vide bill no. 20-21/604G dated 09.7.2020 but the payment has already been made.
According to the defendant the another bill raised by JRPL Rice Land LLP dated 14.07.2020 in the Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 20 of 31 ) sum of Rs 1,55,500/- is fake and fabricated. Meaning thereby, defendant has partly admitted the receipt of the goods vide invoices ExPW1/3 (colly). ( para no. 4 on merits of written statement).
(c) The defendant had purchased the goods in the sum of Rs 83,550/- from Swadeshi Grains vide bill no. 628 dated 08.07.2020 but the defendant had already made the full payment ( para 4 on merits on written statement).
34. From the aforesaid respective pleadings of the parties certain fact stands established i.e the defendant has not disputed the invoice no. 20- 21/604G dated 09.7.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,00,200/- raised by JRPL Rice Land LLP ( part of ExPW1/3 (colly)) and another invoice no. 6281 dated 08.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 83,500/- (part of ExPW1/4 (colly)). That being so, now the dispute remains qua the Invoice no. 0001565 dated 09.7.2020 in the sum of Rs 64,150/- ExPW1/2 and Invoice no. 20-20/665 G dated 14.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,55,500/- ( part of ExPW1/3 (colly) ) only.
35. This takes me to the testimonies of the witnesses examined by both the parties. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and the defendant Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 21 of 31 ) firm has examined its proprietor Amit Jain as DW1. Both these witnesses have filed their evidence by way of affidavit which is basically reproduction of their respective pleadings. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, I would not be reproducing their examination in chief; however their cross examination would be referred to wherever necessary.
36. A careful examination of the cross examination of PW1 would reveal that even during his cross examination the testimony of PW1 has gone unchanged and nothing could be elicited from his cross examination for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. During the cross examination, PW1 replied that defendant used to send its own vehicle for supply of the goods; he admitted that none of the bills is having any receiving from the defendant; he is having the licence of brokerage. PW1 further admitted that defendant had given some part payments in his account. PW1 has denied all other suggestions put to him.
37. In the evidence filed by way of affidavit, ExPW1/A, PW1 has categorically deposed that he had supplied the material to the defendant vide invoice dated 09.7.2020 ExPW1/2, vide invoice Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 22 of 31 ) dated 09.07.2020 and 14.07.2020 ExPW1/3 (colly) through JRPL Rice Land LLP and vide invoice dated 08.07.2020 ExPW1/4 (colly) through Swadeshi Grains. Regarding this part of deposition made by PW1, only one or two suggestions have been put to him by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant which were replied by PW1 as " It is wrong to suggest that invoices/bills at page no.18 & 20 of paper book of judicial file are forged and fabricated. It is wrong to suggest that ExPW1/5 ( colly) is manufactured for the conveyance and they are forged and fabricated...".
38. Meaning thereby, the testimony of PW1 Sandeep Goyal on material points has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Even otherwise also the plaintiff has been able to prove invoices as referred to in the plaint. As far as the invoice dated 09.7.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,00,200/- raised by JRPL Rice Land LLP ExPW1/3 (colly) and the invoice dated 08.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 83,500/- are concerned, are not in dispute as the defendant has not denied the same and according to the defendant, he has already made the payments towards the same. But, nothing has been brought on record indicating that the defendant has made the payment qua these invoices. Therefore, as far as the Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 23 of 31 ) aforesaid two invoices are concerned, the same stands admitted and proved. Even if there is no certificate u/s 65 B of the then Indian Evidence Act, it would not make any difference because admitted documents need not to be proved. The total of these two invoices, would be Rs 1,83,750/-( Rs 1,00,200/- + Rs 83,550/-).
39. As per the invoice and certificate ExPW1/3 (colly), it is evident that two invoices dated 09.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,00,200/- and another invoice dated 14.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,55,500/- were raised by JRPL Rice Land LLP in the name of defendant; from these two invoices, it is evident that the plaintiff name has been shown as a broker; another document dated 20.03.2023 which is part of ExPW1/3 (colly), is the communication sent by the plaintiff Sayam Traders ( plaintiff firm) which would indicate that JRPL Rice Land LLP has been requested to adjust certain payments in the account of the defendant; the certificate dated 20.03.2023 given by JRPL Rice Land LLP has reference of aforesaid two invoices and also the fact that JRPL Rice Land LLP has received an amount of Rs 75,010/- and an amount of Rs 1,80,690/- is due and outstanding against the said invoice for which Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 24 of 31 ) plaintiff is liable to made the payment on behalf of the defendant.
40. Similarly, in respect of the invoice dated 08.07.2020 ExPW1/4 (colly) raised by "Swadeshi Grains" in the name of the defendant would indicate that the name of the plaintiff has been indicated as broker and vide communication dated 20.03.2023 sent by the plaintiff to Swadeshi Grains, a request has been made to adjust certain payments in the account of the defendant and Swadeshi Grains has also issued a communication/letter to the plaintiff wherein it has been mentioned that Swadeshi Grain had sold the material/goods to the defendant through broker namely Sandeep Goyal and they have received Rs 63,550/- through NEFT from Sayam Traders on behalf of the defendant.
41. All these documents have not been disputed by the defendant. Not even a suggestion was put to the witness that these documents are forged or fabricated. The credibility of these documents and certificates given by the JRPL Rice Land LLP and Swadeshi Grains, have not been challenged. The plaintiff has deposed the aforesaid facts on affidavit. There is nothing on record not to rely upon these documents even in the absence of certificate u/s 65 Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 25 of 31 ) B of the then Indian Evidence Act in respect of the invoice dated 14.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,55,500/- ExPW1/3 (colly). As far as the invoice dated 09.07.2020 ExPW1/2 in the sum of Rs 64,150/- is concerned, the plaintiff has placed on record the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act ExPW1/6.
42. This takes me to the cross examination of defendant's witness. Defendant has examined Amit Jain as DW1. During his cross examination, DW1 has replied that he had a firm in the name of A One Traders since 2001 till 2021 and he was dealing in sale and purchase of Kiryana goods etc; plaintiff is known to him since the year 2019. DW1 stated that he filed the income tax return and maintained books of accounts. He also admitted that he was having cash transactions also but the same has not been placed on record. When he was asked whether he can bring the record of such cash transactions, he simply stated that " I cannot".
43. Regarding placing the order on the plaintiff, DW1 replied that he placed the purchase order through whatsapp and he used to receive the goods from the plaintiff through transport and provided the information of receiving the goods to the plaintiff Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 26 of 31 ) through whatsapp message only. He has admitted having received the goods vide invoice ExPW1/3 (colly) dated 09.07.2020 in the sum of Rs 1,00,200/-. Regarding the payment having been made against the receipt of the goods, he replied that he had made the payment through e-banking mode /RTGS but he has not placed any such record. He also admitted that he had made the payment of some of the invoices but the details of the payments made by the defendant were not placed on record by him. DW1 has also admitted the payment of Rs 75,000/- and Rs 20,000/- made by him to the plaintiff against invoices/bills.
44. From the aforesaid testimony of DW1, it is evident that although he is claiming to have been maintaining books of accounts but the same were not placed on record for the reasons best known to the defendant. The defendant could have challenged the case of the plaintiff by producing the requisite record indicating the receipt of the goods and payments made. It is true that in such type of cases, plaintiff has to stand on his own legs but at the same time in case the plaintiff has been able to establish his case by the principle of preponderance of probability, in that eventuality it was the bounden Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 27 of 31 ) duty of the defendant to point out the dent in the story or in the case as set up by the plaintiff, which is failing in the present case.
45. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact will be said to be proved if it's proved by a preponderance of probabilities. The principle of preponderance essentially requires the plaintiff to introduce more or even slightly better evidence than the defence. In other words, this principle could also refer to a more probable and rational view in adjudicating a specific fact/issue. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it as the"standard of proof in most civil cases in which the party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence which is more credible or convincing than that presented by the other party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not.
46. The concept has been very succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane [AIR (1975) (SC) 1534] by observing as follows:-
"The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, section 3, a fact Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 28 of 31 ) is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where. the preponderance of probabilities lies."
47. In the present case the plaintiff has been able to pass the said test of preponderance of probabilities as the Plaintiff's evidence is better than the stand taken by the defendant . The case as set by the plaintiff on merits is more credible or convincing than that presented by the defendant.
48. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has been able to establish that principal amount of Rs 3,08,390/- is due and outstanding against the defendant as on 14.07.2020. Hence, issue no.3 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 29 of 31 ) Issue No.4.
In case if issue no. 3 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, as asked for in the pl aint ? (OPP)
49. The plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 18% p.a. in the sum of Rs 1,52,653/- for the period from 14.07.2020 to 14.04.2023. The invoices, ExPW1/2, ExPW1/3 (colly) and ExPW1/4 (colly) are silent about the rate of interest to be charged on delayed payments, therefore, plaintiff has failed to explain as to on what basis he is claiming the interest @ 18% p.a. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met by awarding interest @ 8 % per annum on Rs 3,08.390/- ( Rs Three Lakh Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety only ) w.e.f 14.07.2020 till actual realization.
Issue No.5 Relief
50. In view of my aforesaid discussion, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 3,08.390/-
( Rs Three Lakh Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety only ) from the Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 30 of 31 ) defendant.
(ii) Plaintiff is also awarded interest @ 8 % p.a from 14.07.2020 till actual realization.
(ii) Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
51. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
52. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
RAJESH Digitally by RAJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 KUMAR GOEL GOEL 16:51:20 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 08.10.2024 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 08.10.2024 Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders Date of judgment 08.10.2024 (Page 31 of 31 )