Delhi District Court
M/S Vrg Steels vs Grand Venice Developers Pvt. Ltd on 3 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMAI
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Civ. DJ No. 611815/2016
M/s VRG Steels ................Plaintiff
Versus
Grand Venice Developers Pvt. Ltd. ................Defendant
ORDER
This order shall dispose of an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. Reply to the application has been filed by the plaintiff.
2. I have heard Shri Madhur Sapra - Ld. Counsel for the applicant/defendant and Shri Abhishek Kumar - Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the records of the case.
3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.8,94,439/. The plaintiff is a proprietorship firm of Shri Hitesh Kumar Goyal and situated at BS Road, Loha Mandi, Ghaziabad, UP. The suit has been filed through SPA Shri Baljeet Singh Khurana. The defendant is a private limited company and was earlier known as Grand Venezia Developers Pvt. Ltd. but subsequently, changed its name to Grand Venice Developers Pvt. Ltd. It has been averred that the plaintiff supplied steel for carrying out constructions for the project of the defendant, namely Grand Venezia at Pari Chowk, Greater Noida, UP. It is averred that pursuant to the purchase order dt. 24.12.2012, issued by the defendant, the plaintiff supplied various material to the defendant and Civ. DJ No. 611815/2016 1 of 5 raised different invoices against which payments used to be made by the defendant. However, an invoice dt. 05.2.2013, bearing No. 253 for a sum of Rs.8,93,603/ remained unpaid for which various requests were made to the defendant but without any success. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice dt. 02.2.2016 but despite that the defendant failed to pay the said amount and hence the suit.
4. The suit was initially filed under Order 37 CPC but subsequently and vide order dt. 11.1.2017, it was converted into an ordinary suit for recovery.
5. The defendant appeared pursuant to the service of summons and filed its written statement wherein it denied each and every allegation and further denied any liability to pay the suit amount, submitting that the transactions with the plaintiff were closed as the material supplied by it was not of specified quality and all the bills were duly paid and its account was closed.
6. The plaintiff filed replication denying the counter allegations and reiterating the contents of the plaint. Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties on 24.8.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the affidavit in evidence of Shri Kuljeet Singh Khurana. On 26.4.2018, the present application was filed.
7. The only contention as raised in the application is that the present suit is barred by limitation and therefore, the plaint is required to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It was pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the defendant/applicant that the invoice, which is the subject matter of the present suit, was raised on 05.2.2013 and the material under the said invoice were received on 06.2.2013, but the suit for recovery of Civ. DJ No. 611815/2016 2 of 5 the amount under the said invoice, i.e. the present suit, has been filed on 19.4.2016, i.e. much beyond the period of three years. It was submitted that the payments were made by the defendant to the plaintiff on bill to bill basis and as per the statement of account filed and relied upon by the plaintiff, this fact stands verified.
8. It was also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that in order to bring the suit within limitation upon the objection raised by the Court, the plaintiff forged and fabricated an entry dt. 21.4.2016 in its statement of account, showing payment of Rs.15,000/ in cash by the defendant but without any supporting receipt or voucher. He further submitted that even that entry or payment would be of no help to the plaintiff since the said amount was allegedly deposited after the expiry of three years period.
9. Countering the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff was maintaining a running account of the defendant wherein payments used to be received in part and not on bill to bill basis. It was submitted that the defendant had made a part payment of Rs.15,000/ on 21.4.2016, thus revalidating the limitation period and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of The Limitation Act.
10. I have considered the rival submissions.
11. It is a settled law that for the purposes of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint and at the most documents filed alongwith can be considered by the Court and therefore, the observations of this Court would be limited only to the plaint and the documents filed therewith .
Civ. DJ No. 611815/2016 3 of 5
12. It is not disputed that the parties to the suit had dealings inter se under which the plaintiff had supplied certain material to the defendant for which payments were also made by the defendant. The case of the plaintiff and the contention of the defendant in the present application can be very well appreciated from the statement of account filed alongwith the plaint. It shows that the first invoice was raised by the plaintiff on 26.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.13,65,616/ and the payment for the said invoice was made on 07.1.2013. Similarly, the payment in respect of invoices No. 214 and 215 both dt. 29.12.2012 were made also on 07.1.2013. The payment in respect of invoices No. 219 and 220 both dt. 04.1.2013, as well as invoice No. 229 and 231 dt. 11.1.2013 and 12.1.2013 respectively, was made on 19.1.2013. The last invoices bearing No. 265 and 266 were raised by the plaintiff on 27.2.2013 and their payments were also made by the defendant on 17.4.2013. Thus, the only invoice which is reflected as unpaid in the said statement is the disputed invoice No. 253 dt. 05.2.2013.
13. It is observed from the above discussion of the statement that the last invoice was raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant for the goods supplied on 27.2.2013 and the last payment was received by it on 17.4.2013. Thereafter, no transaction has been shown in the said statement between the parties. It is very clear from the appreciation of the said statement that it was not a running account as claimed by the plaintiff, but the payments were made by the defendant on bill to bill basis. It is not that the defendant made payment of some amount at regular intervals so as to term it as a running account but the payment was made of the entire invoice amount at one time and therefore, it is Civ. DJ No. 611815/2016 4 of 5 observed that it was not a running account.
14. As aforesaid, the last invoice was raised on 27.2.2013 and the last payment was received on 17.4.2013. Hence, even if the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is accepted for the sake of arguments that it was a running account, the suit is clearly time barred having been filed on 19.4.2016, i.e. three days after the expiry of limitation period of three years, which expired on 16.4.2016.
15. The argument that a sum of Rs.15,000/ in cash was deposited by the defendant on 21.4.2016 is also of no help to the plaintiff because even if that amount was deposited by the defendant, though denied, that was deposited after the limitation has already expired for filing the suit and therefore, no benefit of Section 18 of The Limitation Act can be granted to the plaintiff.
16. In view of the aforesaid, there is no hesitation to hold that the present suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation and therefore, is clearly barred under the law. The application is accordingly allowed and the plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.
No order is passed as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
ON 3rd day of April 2019 SHARMA Date: 2019.04.03
16:02:09 +0530
(SANJAY SHARMAI)
Addl. District Judge04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Civ. DJ No. 611815/2016 5 of 5