Delhi District Court
Ms Shallika Fashion Wear P. Ltd vs Aruna Mann on 17 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SOMITRA KUMAR,
DISTRICT JUDGE - 06 (EAST DISTRICT),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO.:- DLET01-005390-2015
SUIT NO.:- 1785/2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office
E-57, 1st Floor, Room No. 101,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092
(Through its Authorized Representative
Sh. Manish Soni) ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Ms. Aruna Mann
Proprietor of
M/s Haus Mod
A-206, Sector - 83,
Noida, U.P. ....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 15.01.2015
Date of Reserving judgment : 26.07.2025
Date of pronouncement : 17.09.2025
Decision : Dismissed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 8,36,240/- (RUPEES EIGHT
LAKH THIRTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FORTY
ONLY)
Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17
17:01:23 +0530
CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 1 of 27
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present judgment, the court shall adjudicate upon a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking recovery of Rs. 8,36,240/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Forty only) along with interest.
CASE OF PLAINTIFF
2. The case of the plaintiffs as averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff is a duly incorporated company under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at E-57, 1st Floor, Room No. 101, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092; that Sh. Manish Soni, the marketing executive of the plaintiff company, has been duly authorized vide resolution dated 01.11.2014 passed by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff to sign, verify and institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.
3. It is further averred that the plaintiff company has been in the business of manufacturing and supplying fabric and clothes of different kinds for many years and has attained a very good reputation in the market.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant is the proprietor of M/s Hauz Mod and is one of the customers of the plaintiff company. The defendant had placed purchase orders and purchased different kinds of fabric and clothes from the plaintiff since 2011. The plaintiff duly supplied the material/goods as per the orders of the defendant, and details of the material/cloth supplied are mentioned in the invoices raised by the plaintiff Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:01:31 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 2 of 27 from time to time. The invoices with the material/cloth were duly received by the authorised representatives of the defendant. The defendant has been making part payments towards the purchases made by it from time to time and thus has maintained a running account with the plaintiff company.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant was irregular in making the payment of the outstanding dues and lastly on 17.01.2012 a sum of Rs. 53,696/ was paid by the defendant towards the outstanding amount leaving a balance of Rs. 5,43,013/- (Rupees Five Lakh Forty Three Thousand and Thirteen only) in the running account reflecting all the sales made by the plaintiff to the defendant along with all the payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant did not make any further payment to the plaintiff despite a number of requests and reminders made by the plaintiff in this regard. Thus, as per the running account, a sum of Rs 5,43,013/- is still outstanding towards the defendant, and the defendant is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff. However, the defendant tried to avoid making the payment of the plaintiff company's dues, and whenever the representative of the plaintiff tried to contact the defendant, no proper response was given.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 18.11.2014 upon the defendant and called upon her to make the payment of the amount outstanding against her. The said legal notice was served upon the defendant by Regd. A. D. post, and an A.D. Card was received back, and despite the Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.09.17 17:01:35 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 3 of 27 receipt of the legal notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment as demanded in the said legal notice.
7. It is further averred in the plaint that the act of the defendant of withholding payment of outstanding amount is illegal and unlawful and on account of failure of the defendant to make payment of the legitimate dues of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to make payment of outstanding amount as reflected in running amount maintained by the plaintiff along with an interest @18% per annum from the date of last payment till the realization of the amount.
8. It is further averred in the plaint that upto the date of filing of the present suit a sum of Rs. 2,93,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Three Thousand only) has already become due on account of interest alone calculated 18% per annum from the date of last payment till the filing of the present suit, besides the principal amount of Rs. 5,43,013/- and in all the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 8,36,240/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Two hundred and Forty only) till the filing of the present suit and the plaintiff is legally entitled to recover the same from the defendant. The defendant is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the suit amount during the pendency of the present suit and till such time that the amount is actually realized by the plaintiff from the defendant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
9. Upon service of summons of the suit, the defendant contested this suit by filing written statement. In the written Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:01:39 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 4 of 27 statement, the defendant denied the claims of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the present suit is not maintainable because as per the alleged bills annexed with the suit, it is clear and admitted by the plaintiff company, that the last alleged bill raised by the plaintiff against the defendant is of 10.12.2011, and the present suit was filed in 2015, hence, the same is hopelessly barred by time and is liable to be dismissed at threshold.
10. It is further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff is trying to combine different alleged invoices in one suit; that, as per the case of the plaintiff, every invoice raised by the plaintiff is different, and payment of the invoices was to be made invoice-wise by the defendant. Therefore, one single suit without delineating how much payment is due for which bill, the present suit is not maintainable.
11. It is further averred in the written statement that the defendant or any person on her behalf had never visited the plaintiff's alleged office and had never seen it and no talks took place there and no goods were received from there; that whatever orders was placed by the defendant, was placed at the defendant's office at Noida, goods were supplied at the defendant's office, talks/negotiations happened at the office of the defendant and the payment was also taken in full as final settlement by the plaintiff from the office of the defendant at Noida. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit, and hence, the present suit is not Digitally signed maintainable.
by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.09.17 17:01:48 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 5 of 27
12. It is further averred in the written statement that the goods vide invoice no. 20 dated 28/29.06.2011, invoice no. 33 dated 18.07.2011, invoice no. 39 & 40 dated 28.07.2011, invoice no. 46 dated 07.08.2011, invoice no. 49 & 50 dated 29.08.2011 were never ordered or were never delivered to the defendant and the all the said invoices are created one; that none of the invoices (as filed with the plaint) of the plaintiff bears the signatures/stamp of the defendant or any of its authorized representative, and the said invoices are forged by the plaintiff for the purpose of filing the present false suit against the defendant; and that the plaintiff very cleverly on its own has put the stamp and signatures on the invoices alleged to be of the defendant to file the present false suit against the defendant.
13. It is further averred in the written statement that the present suit is not maintainable as the suit is not validly instituted on behalf of the company as the person signing is not authorized as per law in that regard to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company; that the present suit has no proper verification clause and is not verified as per law; that the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands and filed the present suit based on false, fabricated and concocted story.
14. It is further averred in the written statement that the present suit is not maintainable as there was never any running account between the plaintiff and the defendant; that payments were always made bill wise to the plaintiff and whatever goods were purchased, the payment was made bill wise and the entire Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:01:54 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 6 of 27 outstanding was cleared long time back by the defendant and nothing is due to the plaintiff against the defendant.
15. Rest, all the allegations made in the plaint were denied by the defendant.
REPLICATION TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
16. In replication, the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint and made necessary denials of the defendant's averment in the written statement. It is further clarified that on 17.01.2012, the defendant had made the last part payment of Rs. 53,696/- to the plaintiff towards the entire outstanding amount due in the running account maintained by the plaintiff and the present suit was filed on 13.01.2015, which is within the limitation period.
17. It is further averred in the replication that the registered office of the plaintiff is at West Vinod Nagar, Delhi where entire negotiations between the parties were made with the defendant; that the defendant took the delivery of the material from the said office of the plaintiff and also made part payments at Delhi office of the plaintiff.
18. It is also averred that, as per the terms of the invoices, all the disputes between the parties were subject to Delhi jurisdiction; therefore, this Hon'ble court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
19. It is further averred that out of 33 bills raised by the plaintiff only seven have been disputed by defendant, which means that the defendant admits that the other 25 invoices raised Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:02:01 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 7 of 27 by the plaintiff on the orders of the defendant and duly supplied the material/goods. It is further averred that it can be seen from the said invoices that all the said 7 invoices were duly received by the employees of the defendant with the seal of the defendant's firm in the same manner as the other invoices were received. The naked eye comparison of the signatures and seal of the defendant's firm on the 7 invoices shows that they match with the other admitted invoices, and it clearly shows that the defendant also received the said invoices and also received the goods, and the defence taken by the defendant is false. Thus, all the invoices are duly raised, and material/goods were supplied, and they contain the stamp and signature of the employees of the defendant.
20. It is further averred that the plaintiff company is maintaining the running account of the transactions with the defendant, in which all the debit and credit entries have been duly reflected, the payments were made by the defendant through cheques only. It is submitted that the defendant has failed to place on record its books of account, and a false stand has been taken by the defendant.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
21. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor Judge on 28.07.2018:-
1. Whether suit is barred due to misjoinder of cause of Digitally signed action? OPD by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:02:07 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 8 of 27
2. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as same is not verified as per law? OPD
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed?
OPP
5. Relief.
22. Vide order dated 22.04.2024, application of defendant under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC was allowed and the following additional issues were framed and the additional issues are numbered as under:
5. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the present suit is not validly instituted having been not duly filed by authorized person? OPD
7. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
23. In support of its claim, the authorized representative of plaintiff / Sh. Manish Soni was examined as PW-1, and tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A in his evidence wherein he deposed on the line of plaint and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/41.
24. PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17
17:02:12
+0530
CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 9 of 27
25. Ms. Shaheen Ali Khan was examined as PW-2 and tendered affidavit Ex.PW2/A in her evidence and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/27; Ex.PW1/28 to Ex.PW1/31; Ex.PW1/35 and Ex.PW1/36.
26. PW-2 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
27. Vide a separate statement of AR of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 20.07.2024.
28. Vide order dated 27.01.2025, application under Order XVIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC was allowed and plaintiff was given liberty to lead rebuttal evidence and thereafter PW-3/ Sh. Koushik Goswami, Manager Standard Chartered Bank, and PW-4/ Ms. Sandhya Jaiswal, Manager, IDBI Bank, were examined as summoned witness.
29. Sh. Koushik Goswami, Manager-Internal Services Unit, Standard Chartered, Liability Operations, is a summoned witness and examined as PW-3. He has brought the summoned record i.e. certified copy of statement of account no. 52005007301 in the name of M/s Haus Mod for the period from 01.01.2011 to 29.02.2012 with Standard Chartered Bank along with certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Certified copy of statement of account, Ex.PW3/1 (Colly.), certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW3/2.
30. PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:02:19 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 10 of 27
31. Ms. Sandhya Jaiswal, Manager from IDBI Bank, Mahipalpur Branch, South Delhi, is a summoned witness and examined as PW-4. She has brought the summoned record i.e. certified copy of statement of account no. 0075102000019831 in the name of Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 07.05.2011 to 31.01.2012 with IDBI Bank along with certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Certified Copy of the statement of account, Ex.PW4/1 (Colly.) and certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW4/2.
32. PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
33. In her defence, the defendant examined herself as DW-1 and tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A in her evidence wherein DW-1 deposed on the line with the written statement.
34. DW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
35. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was closed on 30.11.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
36. Final arguments were advanced at length by Sh. Rajesh Mahindru, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Rahul Tomar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Written submission were also filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant. Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:02:44 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 11 of 27
37. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited vs. A. P. Agencies, Salem (AIR 1989 SC 1239), and Thangam & Anr. Vs. Navamani Ammal, (2024 INSC 164);
judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. (2011 Legal Eagle 1756), M R Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. RCC Eco Build System Ltd. (CS(COMM) 154/2022, Dod 29.11.2023), Mrs. Shradha Wassan & Ors. vs. Mr. Anil Goel & Anr. (CS(OS) 2045/2007, Dod 05.05.2009), and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in the matter of Renganathan vs. Saravana Store (2018 Legal Eagle 2468).
38. Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. Vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. ( 2025 IN SC 485, Dod: 15.04.2025) ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
39. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully. The issue-wise findings, in this suit, are as follows. As issue no. 3 pertains to the maintainability of the present suit; this issue is taken up and decided first.
ISSUE NO. 3:-
3. Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:02:32 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 12 of 27
40. As issue no. 3 pertains to the maintainability of the present suit, this issue is taken up and decided first. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendant. The defendant avers in the written statement as well as in the evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW1/A that the payment of the invoices raised by the plaintiff company was made bill-wise, and the last alleged invoice/bill bearing no. 073 raised by the plaintiff against the defendant is dated 10.12.2011. Therefore, the present suit, as filed on 15.01.2015, is barred by limitation and, hence, is liable to be dismissed.
41. As per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court must see if a suit has been filed within time or it is barred by limitation, even if no objection of limitation is raised by parties to the suit. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid contention of the defendant, now the onus of proving that the plaint has been filed within the prescribed limitation period shifts to the plaintiff.
42. The plaintiff contends that the account between the plaintiff company and the defendant was an open, running and non-mutual account; therefore, the limitation period commences from the date of accrual of the cause of action. In this connection, the plaintiff brought on record the invoices/bills Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/37, raised by the plaintiff company against the defendant company for the goods supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant. The plaintiff also brought in evidence the ledger account statement, Ex. PW1/3 for the transaction carried out by the plaintiff company with the defendant, showing debit and credit entries in respect of the price of goods supplied Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:02:58 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 13 of 27 by the plaintiff company to the defendant and the payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff company from time to time. The plaintiff also brought in evidence its bank statement, Ex. PW-4/1 and the bank statement of the defendant, Ex. PW-3/1 showing payment made at different times by the defendant to the plaintiff company. The defendant has not placed on record any document to show that the defendant made invoice /bill-wise payment to the plaintiff company for the invoices raised by the plaintiff company. The invoices, the ledger statement and the bank statements when read in conjunction clearly establish that there was an open, running, and non-mutual account between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein payment are not made bill wise by the defendant to the plaintiff. Instead, an open, running and non-mutual account was maintained between the plaintiff company and the defendant for the goods supplied by the plaintiff company and the payment made by the defendant in lieu thereof.
43. It is the contention of the plaintiff that for an open, running and non-mutual account, the period of limitation shall be determined by Article 113 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 not by Article 1 (which prescribes period of limitation of mutual, open and running account) or Article 14 (which prescribe three years limitation period from the date of delivery of goods for filing of the suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon) of the said schedule. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:03:03 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 14 of 27 Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. (2011 Legal Eagle 1756), which was relied upon by the plaintiff during argument. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as follows:
21. In this regards, it is important to note the following observations made in the decision reported as (1849) 7 C.
3. 106 Dood v. Wigley when it was observed:-
"Where goods are ordered of a tradesman on the 1st of January and distinct orders for other goods are given on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., if from the previous dealings between the parties, or from general usage, or otherwise, it is to be inferred that it was contemplated by the parties, that, in the event of the dealing continuing, the several items should be included in the monthly, quarterly, or yearly bills, the result of such an arrangement, and the legal position of the parties, seems to be this,-upon the delivery and acceptance of the first parcel of goods, delivered on the 1st of January, an entire contract is created, and a complete cause of action accrues, the tradesman, being) under no engagement to sell other goods, or to give credit beyond the price of the articles then delivered : when, on a subsequent day, other goods are delivered and accepted, a new contract arises, not simply a contract to pay for the goods then delivered, but a new entire contract by which the tradesman waives his existing right to payment off the goods delivered on the 1st of January, and the purchaser agrees to pay for both parcels as upon one entire sale... After the successive waiver and extinguishment of each preceding contract, the only subsisting contract and cause of action ex contractu will be the last."
22. The observations in the decision reported as (1856) 18 C.B. 325 Bonsey v Woodsworth are also worthy of being noted; and are as under:-
"where a tradesman has a bill against a party for any amount, in which the items are so connected together that it appears that the dealing is not intended to terminate with Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:03:10 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 15 of 27 one contract, but to be continuous, so that one item, if not paid, shall be united with another, and form one continuous demand, the whole together forms but one cause of action and cannot be divided."
23. The upshot of the above discussion is that Article 14 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to suits for recovery of money due on a running and current but a non-mutual account between the buyer and seller i.e. an account of the kind with which we are dealing.
24. There being no Article in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 dealing with suits for recovery of money due on running and current but non-mutual accounts, in such circumstances, the residual article viz. Article 113 applies to such suits.
25. Under Article 113, the period for limitation for filing a suit is three years and the same begins to run when the right to sue would accrue when claim was denied in response to the legal notice dated 26.06.1985 on 13.07.1985 but since `7,000/- was paid on 13.07.1985 and 24.07.1985 (`2,000/- on the former date and `5,000/- on the latter date), limitation would commence from 24.07.1985. The suit being filed on 02.09.1985, governed for purposes of limitation by Article 113 the suit would be within limitation. (emphasis added)
44. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that in the case of an open, running and non-mutual account, which is the case in the present matter, the period of limitation is determined by Article 113 of the schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, as per Article 113 of the schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for filing the present suit is three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action.
45. In order to bring the case within the limitation period, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the cause of action for filing Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.09.17 17:03:17 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page+0530 No. 16 of 27 the present suit arose when the plaintiff sent the legal notice dated 18.11.2014, Ex. PW1/38 calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,43,013/- along with interest@18% per annum within three days on receipt of the said notice, and the defendant neither paid the said amount nor replied to the said legal notice. Therefore, it is contended that, calculated from the stated date of legal notice, the present suit is well within the prescribed period of limitation.
46. As regards the legal notice dated 18.11.2014, Ex. PW1/38, the defendant, in her written statement, denied that any legal notice was sent or served upon the defendant. In view of this, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the service of the said legal notice on the defendant. In order to prove the service of the legal notice dated 18.11.2014, the plaintiff brought in evidence Postal Receipt Ex. PW1/39 and Acknowledgment due card Ex. PW1/40. However, perusal of the Acknowledgment due card, Ex. PW1/40 shows that it bears a date stamp of 08.12.2013. It is inexplicable that for a legal notice dated 18.11.2014, the Acknowledgment due card bears a stamp date of 08.12.2013. In view of the said discrepancy in the date of the Acknowledgment due card, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the service of the legal notice by examining a witness from the postal department. However, for reasons best known to the plaintiff, no witness from the postal department was summoned to prove the service of the legal notice dated 18.11.2014.
47. Most crucially, PW1/Sh. Manish Soni, in his cross- examination conducted on 01.02.2024, admitted that no legal Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:03:23 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 17 of 27 notice was sent by the plaintiff company to the defendant. He further deposed that some letters were sent to the defendant, but those letters were refused by the defendant. The relevant extract of the testimony of PW1 is reproduced as under:
"It is correct that no legal notice was sent by the plaintiff company to the defendant. Again said, some letters were sent to the defendant and those letters were refused by the defendant and once I tried to deliver letter to the defendant myself, however, I was not allowed to meet the defendant."
48. In view of the aforesaid testimony of the plaintiff as well as evidence on record, the plaintiff failed to establish the service of the legal notice dated 18.11.2014, Ex. PW1/38 on the defendant.
49. It is also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant made the last payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012, and calculated from the said date of the part payment, the present suit also falls within the prescribed period of limitation.
50. As regards the part payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 by the defendant to the plaintiff company is concerned, the plaintiff examined witness Ms. Sandhya Jaiswal/PW4, Manager, IDBI Bank, Mahipalpur, Delhi who brought in evidence the bank account statement, Ex. PW4/1, of the plaintiff's bank account for the period 07.05.2011 to 31.01.2012. In Ex. PW4/1, there is an entry showing payment of Rs. 53,696/- in the account of the plaintiff company on 17.01.2012. Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:03:28 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 18 of 27
51. However, it is argued on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff examined another witness, Sh. Koushik Goswami/PW3 from Standard Chartered Bank, who brought in the evidence bank account statement of the defendant's bank account, Ex. PW3/1 in the name of M/s Haus Mod for the period 01.01.2011 to 29.02.2012. In Ex. PW3/1, there is no corresponding entry showing payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 from the bank account of the defendant. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the defendant that the said payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 was never made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
52. In this connection, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff offered counter argument that payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 was not denied by the defendant either in her written statement or her evidence by way of affidavit or during cross examination of PW1 or cross examination of the defendant/DW1, and it is possible that the said payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 might have been made by the defendant from her different bank account.
53. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence/additional evidence after the closure of the defendant's evidence to establish all the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant through the production of the bank account statement of both the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff was required to prove positively the payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 by the defendant to the plaintiff. As the plaintiff failed to prove the said payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 despite availing all Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:03:42 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 19 of 27 the opportunity to lead rebuttal/additional evidence, the plaintiff cannot be heard to say now that non-denial of payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 by the defendant amount to admission of the same and the defendant might have made the said payment from a different bank account. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 by the defendant to the plaintiff and hence the said contention of the plaintiff is of no assistance to the plaintiff in extending the period of the limitation or giving the plaintiff a fresh period of limitation under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in terms of part payment on account of debt.
54. Therefore, in view of the failure of the plaintiff to establish service of the legal notice dated 18.11.2014, Ex. PW1/38, the case of the plaintiff does not fall under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Further, the plaintiff also failed to establish payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, it is evident that the present suit was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and is barred by limitation. Hence, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 11. Whether suit is barred due to misjoinder of cause of action? OPD
55. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendant. It is deposed by the defendant in her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW1/A that every invoice raised by the plaintiff is different Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:03:51 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 20 of 27 and payment of the invoices were to be made invoice-wise by the defendant, therefore, a single suit without delineating how much payment is due for which bill, the present suit is not maintainable. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to establish that payments were made bill-wise by the defendant to the plaintiff company. On the other hand, the plaintiff brought on record the invoices/bills Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/37, raised by the plaintiff company against the defendant company for the goods supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant; the ledger account statement, Ex. PW1/3 for the transaction carried out by the plaintiff company with the defendant, and its bank statement, Ex. PW-4/1 and the bank statement of the defendant, Ex. PW-3/1 showing payment made from time to time by the defendant to the plaintiff company.
56. In view of the analysis and discussion on issue no. 3, it is established that the defendant did not make payments invoice/bill wise to the plaintiff and there was an open, running and non- mutual account between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff company and payments made by the defendant company thereof. Therefore, the transaction of the plaintiff supplying goods to the defendant and the defendant making payment from time to time in a running account maintained by the plaintiff, and the amount remaining outstanding in the said running account, does not constitute a transaction relating to different and separate cause of action. The present suit has not been filed in connection with Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17 17:04:03 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 21 of 27 payment due on individual invoices. Thus, there is no misjoinder of cause of action for filing of the present suit. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
2. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as same is not verified as per law? OPD
57. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendant. The defendant has made a bald averment in the written statement that the suit has no proper verification clause and is not verified as per law. The verification clause at the foot of the plaint reads as under:-
"Verified on this 13th day of January 2015 at Delhi that the contents of the para no. 1 to 8 of the plaint are true and correct to my knowledge and from the records of the plaintiff and those of para no. 9 to 11 are true on the basis of information received and believed to correct. The last para is the prayer made to this Hon'ble Court."
58. The aforesaid verification clause complies with the requirement of Order VI Rule 15(2) of CPC. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the plaint has been verified in accordance with the law. Hence, issue no. 2 decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4:-
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed?
OPP Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.09.17
17:04:08
+0530
CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 22 of 27
59. The onus to prove the said issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought in evidence invoices/bills Ex. PW1/4 to Ex.
PW1/37. The plaintiff also brought on record ledger statement, Ex. PW1/3 reflecting debit and credit entry qua goods supplied by the plaintiff and the payments made by the defendant. The said entries in the ledger statement are supported by the invoices/bills, e.g. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/37 and the account statement of the plaintiff and defendant i.e. Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW3/1 except the entry of payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012.
60. It is not the case of the defendant that there was no transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. However, the defendant contends that the defendant made payment for whatever goods were purchased from the plaintiff company. In the written statement and evidence by way of the affidavit, Ex. DW1/A, the defendant disputes invoices no. 20 dated 28/29.06.2011, invoices no. 33 dated 18.07.2011, invoice no. 39 & 40 dated 28.07.2011, invoice no. 46 dated 07.08.2011, invoice no. 49 & 50 dated 29.08.2011 being forged and fabricated stating that goods vide the said invoices were never ordered and they were never delivered to the defendant.
61. It is seen that the said invoice/bills bear the stamp of the proprietorship firm of the defendant i.e. M/s Haus Mod, and the said stamp on all the invoices is the same. The defendant failed to place on record any document, including invoices and the payment proof, to show that she made payment for all the goods purchased from the plaintiff company. PW1, in his evidence by Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:04:14 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 23 of 27 way of affidavit, deposed about the employees of the defendant signing the said invoices. Defendant denies having employed Mr. Sharda, Mr. Vikas Kakkar, Mr. Arun Kumar, Me. Hans Raj and Mr. Karanpal and Ms. Shaheen and averred that the signature and stamp of the said persons on the invoices, Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/37 are forged and fabricated. In this connection, the plaintiff examined PW-3/Mr. Koushik Goswami, who brought in the evidence bank statement, Ex. PW3/1, of the defendant and the said bank statement shows a transfer of money in favour of the aforesaid person from the bank account of the defendant proprietorship firm M/s Haus Mod. Further, the entire testimony of the defendant/DW1 during her cross-examination is filled up with the answers that does not remember the name of person employed by her in the year 2010-2012, name of store keeper who verified transaction with the plaintiff company, name of her Chartered accountant at relevant point of time etc. The entire testimony of the defendant/DW1 during her cross-examination is vague and highly evasive to the extent that an adverse inference is liable to be drawn from the said testimony.
62. Per contra, the plaintiff has placed on record all the documents qua goods supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant and payments received from the defendant. The defendant failed to rebut the record and failed to present any evidence of payment made to the plaintiff for the goods supplied by the plaintiff. The defendant did not deny the invoices raised by the plaintiff company against the defendant except for seven invoices. However, the defendant failed to file any document to Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.09.17 17:04:19 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 24 of 27 show that the payment was made by the defendant to the plaintiff for the said admitted invoices. Therefore, on preponderance of probabilities, it is established that the defendant did not make payment of the purchase price of all the goods received by it from the plaintiff company. However, the exact outstanding amount which the plaintiff is liable to recover from the defendant cannot be ascertained as payment of Rs. 53,696/- on 17.01.2012 reflected in the ledger account has not been proved by the plaintiff.
63. In view of this, although it is established that the defendant has not paid the entire amount for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding amount from the defendant, it is not established what exact amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant. Further, in view of the finding of issue no. 3, the present suit is also not maintainable, being time-barred. Accordingly, issue no. 5 qua recovery of amount claimed of Rs. 8,36,240/- is also decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5:-
5. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
64. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendant. However, the defendant, apart from oral evidence, has not filed any document to establish that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter. On the other hand, the plaintiff placed on record invoices, Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/37 raised on the Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:04:24 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 25 of 27 defendant for the goods supplied to the defendant. The defendant did not dispute all of the said invoices. The plaintiff company has its office address at E-57, Ist Floor, Room No. 101, West Viond Nagar, Delhi-110092 which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court, and the aforesaid invoices were issued from the said office of the plaintiff company.
65. Further, from invoices brought on record by the plaintiff company, it is established that goods were supplied to the defendant company from the jurisdiction of this Court and invoices were issued from the jurisdiction of this Court; therefore, part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as per section 20(c) of CPC. Hence, issue no. 5 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 6:-
6. Whether the present suit is not validly instituted having been not duly filed by authorized person? OPD
66. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendant. Except for oral evidence, the defendant has not led any evidence to prove the said contention. On the other hand, the plaintiff brought in evidence, an Extract of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff Company held on 01.11.2014, Ex. PW1/1 authorising Sh. Manish Soni to institute a suit against the defendant for the recovery of the amount from the defendant. The said extract of minutes has been signed by Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:04:30 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 26 of 27 Ms. Rajni Soni, who as per Article of Association of the plaintiff company, i.e. Ex. PW1/2, is one of the directors of the plaintiff company.
67. In view of this, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff company through a duly authorised person and therefore, it has been validly instituted. Hence, issue no. 6 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
68. In view of my aforesaid findings, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, and hence, the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed.
69. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR Announced in the open Court on KUMAR Date:
this 17th day of September 2025 2025.09.17 17:04:34 +0530 (SOMITRA KUMAR) District Judge-06, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 27 of 27