Delhi District Court
Daman Preet Singh Chawla, Proprietor vs Renu Maggo, Proprietor on 19 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NIRJA BHATIA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM.) (DIGITAL-07),
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm) 568/2022
Daman Preet Singh Chawla,
(Prop. Chawla and Company)
S/o Sh. Param Pal Singh
R/o 5/37, Old Double Storey,
Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi.
..... Plaintiff
Vs.
Renu Maggo
(Prop. Jatin Enterprises)
W/o Sh. Arun Maggo,
R/o H. No. B-345, Janta Flats,
Second Floor, Avantika, Rohini.
..... Defendant
Date of Institution: 03.06.2022
Arguments concluded on: 18.01.2024
Date of Judgment: 19.01.2024
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by Sh. Daman Preet Singh Chawla, proprietor of M/s Chawla and Company (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff) (the amendment being brought in memorandum of parties vide order dated 07.07.2023), against Ms. Renu Maggo, Proprietor of M/s Jatin Enterprises (hereinafter to be referred as defendant) for recovery of Rs. 4,63,054/- alongwith interest @ 18%.
The facts in brief
2. The parties have disclosed the facts that the defendant alongwith her husband Sh. Arun Maggo, proprietor of M/s Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 1 of 20 Anshika Fashion, had approached the plaintiff and introduced themselves being supplier of the fabrics, ready-made kurtis and other apparels, operating from registered office at G-51, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi-24, in the year 2017. Consequent to showing the interest, the defendant engaged in purchase of material from plaintiff from time-to-time for procurement of goods purportedly to be used in manufacturing of garments, re-sale through various units and against the said purchase orders, the deliveries were made by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff states that as per the understanding, initially in the year 2017, the defendant had in the interest of business relations and practice made the plaintiff agree to the 30 days credit of payment against invoice.
4. Plaintiff states that in due course of business, the defendant in the year 2018 requested the plaintiff to revisit the aforementioned practice and convert the payment terms on the basis of running transactions/ running account.
5. As the trust between the parties had developed on account previous business transactions, the plaintiff agreed to the same and the payment pattern was changed from bill-to-bill basis to running account in periodical installments, regularly within few days of receiving of goods.
6. Plaintiff states that for a few months, the defendant made the running payments into the account, however, w.e.f 05.01.2021 there has been no realisation against the supplies made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff on several occasion requested the defendant for clearing the outstanding, however, the defendant "dilly-dallied" the matter and made false promises of payments. Plaintiff claims that the amount of Rs. 4,63,054/- was Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 2 of 20 due and payable to plaintiff. Plaintiff also asked for interest @ 18% and has calculated it at the amount of Rs. 1,25,054/-.
7. The plaintiff made a detailed statement of cause of action having first arisen on 21.10.2018 till the issuance of legal demand notice on 26.04.2021 and it is stated to be still continuing as efforts for pre-litigation mediation yielded no result or response from the defendant.
Note of the proceedings
8. Present suit was instituted as commercial suit. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.06.2022 has made observations of having received the compliances in terms of the provisions of Commercial Courts Act 2015 and was pleased to issue the process. The process issued was returned with the report "served through sales persons, Sh. Pappu on 02.09.2022" as observed against order dated 27.10.2022, whereupon it was observed that service is complete. As no appearance or written statement was received despite grant of opportunity and waiting, the opportunity to file written statement was closed on 19.12.2022 and defendant was proceeded exparte. Consequent thereto, the matter was listed for EPE by way of affidavit. In the meanwhile, an application was moved by the plaintiff through Counsel, for transfer of the present case to the Court of Ld. Predecessor who was holding the other two matters bearing No. 400/2022 titled as M/s Manohar Singh Parampal Singh Vs. M/s Anshika Fashion and No. 537/2022 titled as M/s Manohar Singh Parampal Singh Vs. M/s Jatin Enterprises. The then Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket, was pleased to send the present case file to this Court presided by the Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 3 of 20 Ld. Predecessor. Consequent thereto, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC came to be moved on 15.05.2023 for recall of the exparte order which met with rejection after a detailed order on 08.06.2023.
Plaintiff's Evidence
9. The defendant had participated in the cross- examination after dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and has cross-examined PW-1 Sh. Daman Preet Singh, who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit and documents. PW-1 exhibited the following documents in support of his examination:
1. Copy of statement of accounts as Ex. PW1/2.
2. Copy of the legal notice as Ex. PW1/3.
3. Copy of Non-starter report dated 19.02.2022 as Ex. PW1/4A.
4. Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no.
1095 dated 21.10.2018 amounting to Rs. 35,872/- as Ex. PW1/4. (OSR)
5. Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no.
0082 dated 26.05.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,33,471/- as Ex. PW1/5. (OSR)
6. Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no.
0092 dated 31.05.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,12,027/- as Ex. PW1/6. (OSR)
7. Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no.
0095 dated 07.06.2019 amounting to Rs. 13,029/- as Ex. PW1/7. (OSR) Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 4 of 20
8. Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no.
0096 dated 07.06.2019 amounting to Rs. 18,900/- as Ex. PW1/8. (OSR)
10. At this stage, it is appropriate to take note of the cross-examination on 07.07.2023 by Sh. S. K. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. During the cross-examination, plaintiff stated that receipts of the payments received against cash were not required under the GST though the confirmation of the payments were sent on WhatsApp message and statement of account was also delivered to their shop/ addresses in terms of the practice stated by their CA Sh. Ankush Jain. The plaintiff could not narrate any specific provision in support. The plaintiff clarified that present bills which are exhibited are based on "running account dues" as the amounts claimed by the plaintiff are more than the six bills which are mentioned in the account statement. He detailed that the statement of account is prepared by the accountant with his assistance and is kept in the computer at their shop in the ordinary course of business.
11. Plaintiff was asked about address of the defendant. He denied that dues have been recovered by way of receipts of balance amount in cash. The suggestions that the plaintiff is entitled for any recovery was denied whereafter, EPE was closed on 17.07.2023.
Submissions by both parties
12. Written submissions in support of arguments has been filed by the defendant.
13. Though written submissions have been placed just before the matter has been kept for the judgment, it seems that Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 5 of 20 plaintiff has not taken due care to go through contents of the written submission which seemingly are verbatim the same as the one filed in suit No. 567/2022 and are also based on the exhibits relied in suit No. 567/2022. However, since oral submissions have already been heard, the written submissions are ignored.
14. Sh. Sanjog Singh Arneja, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has made detailed oral submissions. He submits that the defendant asked the plaintiff to accept "on account payments" in "lumpsum" rather than taking payments "bill-wise", whereafter, the account was converted as "running account". The plaintiff was constrained to ask the defendant to make the payments who started defaulting in making payments after 05.01.2021 and plaintiff requested the defendant to make the payments by calling and WhatsApp messages and an amount of Rs. 4,63,054/- became due as payable as principal amount outstanding. Legal notice dated 26.04.2021 was issued through Counsel to the defendant and sent through speed post as well as WhatsApp. However, no reply was received. It is averred that the compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act was made in which no participation of the defendant was received and a non-starter report was issued. It is averred that plaintiff has the invoices for the goods sold and has duly generated GST invoices against GST input has been taken by the defendant. Though, no such record could be produced by the plaintiff, who is claiming to be of old age, having no knowledge of operations of computer and it is claimed that GST input bills are annexed with present written arguments. (However, no such proof of GST input is filed, though with arguments plaintiff has proposed to file certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which can not be Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 6 of 20 permitted and called appropriate as no permission for above was sought or allowed at any stage). Further, the written arguments are already directed to be ignored in view of above observation
15. It is averred that plaintiff has proved the case sufficiently by showing all evidence including counter-foil of bills, receivings, GST input and bills generated. Plaintiff has relied upon all the exhibits tendered alongwith affidavit.
Written arguments on behalf of defendant
16. Sh. S. K. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has made his submissions by way of written submissions. The short note of the defendant's submissions are also taken into account wherein it is averred that plaintiff is holding the material of defendant as the transactions between the parties were agreed as B to B i.e. business-to-business transactions and has not reflected any credit against the same in his accounts. It is averred that in para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant approached him in the year 2017 and stated his address as G-51, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and allegedly admitted in the cross-examination that the defendant's firm was at B-345, Avantika, Rohini Sector-1, for selling the raw material through his friend and requested to purchase from defendant. It is alleged that despite having the knowledge of correct address of defendant, plaintiff made over the wrong information to Court by filing incorrect address in memorandum of parties to deprive him of opportunity to contest and is guilty of suppression of facts. It is stated that the terms and conditions were arrived at between the parties at the above registered office at Avantika, Rohini, Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 7 of 20 which fact was within the knowledge of plaintiff who deliberately withheld the actual address.
17. Defendant claims that plaintiff has not issued cash receipt against the payments received which fact is admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination. The plaintiff did not issue the receipt after taking the balance amount in cash. It is claimed that in para 11 while the cause of action is stated to be invoices bearing No. 1095, 0082, 0092, 0095 and 0096, 0097 and 156, the amounts are not matching with the suit, as the suit amount claimed is @ Rs. 4,63,054/- whereas the bills stated in para 11 are of amount Rs. 4,76,556/- which also indicates that the suit is filed for claiming false amounts. It is stated that plaintiff has admitted that recovery is claimed on basis of six bills whereas in the cross-examination, he claimed that the amount is beyond the six bills which also indicates that plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands. Cause of action is denied. It is alleged that plaintiff has not maintained appropriate ledger and account books. The defendant has doubted the veracity of statement of account. It is alleged that the statement of account is not supported with certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act.
18. Defendant has relied upon various case law as below:
(1) S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jaganath, AIR 1994 SC 583; (2) Kishore Samrite Vs. State of UP, (2013) 2 SCC 398; (3) Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP, (2010) 2 SCC 114; (4) P. V. Anvar Vs. P. K. Basheer and Ors, AIR 2014 SC 473; (5) Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kushanrao Goranyal & Ors, AIR 2020 SC 641;
Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 8 of 20 (6) Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2022 SC
620.
19. I have heard the submissions as adduced by both sides and have carefully perused the material placed on record.
Discussion & Relief
20. In the light of material placed on record by way of pleadings and the evidence, it is observed that the plaintiff has rested its case on the ground that the parties met in the year 2017 with intention to engage in business transactions and the business transactions were held from 2017 up till May 2021, whereas plaintiff states that no payments were realised thereafter.
21. As per the plaintiff the mode of realization of payments initially agreed between the parties was based on each transaction with credit of 30 days as per market practice which was later on 'altered' on account of 'trust', built with the passage of time to a running account on receiving the payment in 'lumpsum'. The above facts are restated on oath while the examination is made over to Court by affidavit. The plaintiff in total has relied upon 13 documents by exhibiting each of them on record. No objection qua any of the document being tendered is raised at any stage. The admissibility hence is not disputed nor denied. Plaintiff has specifically relied upon Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/8, the invoices bearing details as below:
(1) Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no. 1095 dated 21.10.2018 amounting to Rs. 35,872/- (Ex. PW-1/4). (2) Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no.
0082 dated 26.05.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,33,471/- (Ex. PW1/5).
Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 9 of 20 (3) Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no. 0092 dated 31.05.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,12,027/- (Ex. PW1/6).
(4) Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no. 0095 dated 07.06.2019 amounting to Rs. 13,029/- as (Ex. PW1/7).
(5) Copy of bill (third copy counter foil) bearing invoice no. 0096 dated 07.06.2019 amounting to Rs. 18,900/- (Ex. PW1/8).
21. Perusal of Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/8 shows them having been issued against separate dates. The plaintiff states that against the invoice No. 1095 on 21.10.2018, supplies were made of amount of Rs. 35,872/-, against the invoice No. 0082 on 26.05.2019, supplies were made of amount of Rs. 1,33,171/-, against the invoice No. 0092 on 31.05.2019, supplies were made of amount of Rs. 1,12,027/-, against the invoice No. 0095 on 07.06.2019, supplies were made of amount of Rs. 13,029/-, against the invoice No. 0096 on 07.06.2019, supplies were made of amount of Rs. 18,900/-.
22. The support to the above mentioned bills is sought from the ledger Ex. PW-1/2. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that the Ld. Predecessor was pleased to seek clarifications regarding the matching invoice entries against the voucher number which had been clarified by the Accountant after making appearance in the Court.
23. It is observed that the bills against the invoices Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/8 are stated in the ledger (page 3) against the dates of the bills and the invoice numbers are entered as voucher numbers which is clarified on account of "default setting" with the "tally operation system". Since the invoice Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 10 of 20 numbers and amounts are matching, the entries are reflected to be matching to with the statement of account Ex. PW-1/2 and none of its entry is subjected to dispute. It is taken note that Ex. PW- 1/2, ledger, is stated to be maintained in ordinary course of business and is an admissible evidence under Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, which for reference is reproduced as below:
"34. [Entries in books of account including those maintained in an electronic form] when relevant [Entries in the books of accounts, including those maintained in an electronic form], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
24. There is no denial to the parties having been engaged in the business transactions and the defendant having entered in purchase of material from the plaintiff. The fact that the invoices and the amounts which are mentioned therein are sought to be recovered against the balance of a running account is specifically stated by the plaintiff. Though, there is no cross- examination to entries in Ex. PW-1/2 despite the opportunity having been availed by the defendant. Coupled with the fact that the mode of payment having been agreed as lumpsum and the discharge of liabilities based on credit in lumpsum what gain persistence is the overdue as stated at the end of the ledger which is shown as Rs. 4,63,054/-. The suit of the said amount is instituted by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has sought to counter this entry by claiming that the plaintiff has in the pleadings (plaint) claimed that no payment was made after Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 11 of 20 21.05.2021 whereas the ledger is filed up till 01.03.2020 which raises doubt to the credibility of the documents, however, he has failed to show any reason for raising the doubt. Merely for the reason that the plaintiff has chosen to file the suit after waiting for payments till May 2021 while relying on the ledger up till 01.03.2020 would not in itself constitute a proof of any intention to play mischief. Moreover, defendant himself was duty bound to counter the veracity of ledger and the bills entered therein by bringing his own accounts and record for confrontation at the stage of cross-examination as the original invoices must have been in his possession.
25. At this stage, it is also material to take note of the fact that any written document can be countered by writing and not by oral submissions. The said is the mandate of Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act, which is reproduced herein below:
"91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained."
26. In view of the fact that defendant has not countered the fact that the parties had business transactions and had agreed Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 12 of 20 to discharge the payments in lumpsum, and has no material or document from her own side to show the discharge of payment, only the oral plea that the payments were made by cash would not be a proof sufficient to counter the pleas of claim raised by the plaintiff.
27. Defendant has asserted that defendant is not liable to make any payment for the fact that balance amounts have been paid to the plaintiff by way of cash. In the cross-examination conducted on 17.07.2023, it is put specifically to the plaintiff that all the balance amounts have been cleared by the defendant by making cash payment. Prior thereto, he had been confronted on this practice of not issuing the receipts against the cash receipts. The plaintiff though has admitted that the payments were on certain occasions received by cash and that he did not issue any separate cash receipt as the receipts were issued against the GST has specifically stated that all the receipts are accounted in the ledger. There is no dispute that the invoices/ delivery challan is the receipt which is showing the purchase order and the details of material. In the present case, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/8, entries of which are not denied. Though the receipts against the cheques are mentioned specifically in the ledger. While the above is taken note, the question that arise is whether the fact that the plaintiff has been asked that the remaining payment has been made by cash and the said is denied, the assertion in itself would be a sufficient proof to show a release/ discharge of liability of payment in, more so, specifically when the defendant has not brought on record any of its own account books, ledger etc to show the payment having been made in cash. From the fact that an attempt has been made to corner Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 13 of 20 the plaintiff against the cash receipts impliedly assume the delivery of material and its supply to the defendant as a matter of fact. Consequent thereto, the defendant was under the liability to show that the payments have been made in due course towards the discharge. Even if the submission that the plaintiff has not been carrying the practice of issuance of receipts against cash is believed, it in itself be not sufficient to show that the defendant had discharged the payments against receipt of material. At this stage, it is also necessary to note that the proceedings are arising out of civil suit wherein the test of evidence is "in preponderance of probabilities". The provisions of Sections 101 & 102 regarding the discharge of onus are crystallized by Hon'ble Supreme in Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, wherein it observed as below:
"19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same."
Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 14 of 20
28. In view of the above, as the plaintiff has placed on record bills, coupled with the ledger account which are neither denied nor controverted by the defendant, the discharge of liability of payment was required to be shown in view of the submission that the plaintiff is not carrying the practice of issuing the receipts. The defendant was well within her rights to confront the plaintiff with the original invoices to contradict the ledger and show proof of mode of payment. There is no cross-examination of plaintiff stating any date, month, time or venue and/ or presence of a third party at the time of payment or any particular date to a person authorised by plaintiff and/ or plaintiff himself, which question must have been put to the plaintiff who appeared as PW-1. There is no single suggestion to the above effect and/ or to the effect specifying the amounts. In view that the defendant has not been able to show any material towards the discharge of liability of Rs. 4,63,054/-, which is shown due at the end of balance sheet against the defendant, the plaintiff has discharged its onus in preponderance of probabilities.
29. Ld. Counsel for the defendant though has made an attempt to point that there is an anomaly in the statement of account by claiming that Rs. 4,63,054/- is claimed as dues to the amount of bills against the amount of Rs. 4,76,556/-, the same is duly answered by the witness who stated that claim is being on outstanding whereafter no effort to discredit entries of either bills Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/8 or ledger Ex. PW-1/2 is made, in the absence of which no anomaly towards the computation is shown.
30. While the plaintiff stated that the receipts were not issued as he was told by his CA that under the GST, he was Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 15 of 20 issuing the confirmation through WhatsApp message and statement of account was delivered against the cash receipt. The defendant has proposed no further cross-examination on his statement. There is no suggestion that the defendant did not receive any WhatsApp message or the statement of account was not delivered by the plaintiff against the cash receipts.
31. The defendant has not specifically stated any date, month, time, occasion when the payments were made in cash. He has not detailed even the quantum of amount handed over to the plaintiff by way of cash. It is not stated if the said transaction of cash was witnessed by any person. In view thereof, the statement that the liability was discharged by payment of cash as is proposed to be state din the cross-examination seems to be vague and weak defence and does not inspire confidence. While the plaintiff added during cross-examination that defendant has taken the advantage of GST input against the supplies, the said fact is not countered by the defendant at any stage.
32. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has raised vociferous objections to the plaintiff having not filed certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the documents obtained from the computer and has relied upon the case law titled P. V. Anvar Vs. P. K. Basheer (supra), Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs, Kushanrao Goranyal (supra) and Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra). However, consequent to the insertion of the provisions of Order XI Rule 6 in CPC appended to the Commercial Courts Act wherein the provision as below is specifically laid that a print out filed having been retrieved from the computer is an admissible material and accordingly, the Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 16 of 20 objection finds less merit than proposed by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. The relevant provisions is as below:
6. Electronic Records.- (1) In case of disclosures and inspection of Electronic Records (as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), furnishing of printouts shall be sufficient compliance of the above provisions.
(2) At the discretion of the parties or where required (when parties wish to rely on audio or video content), copies of electronic records may be furnished in electronic form either in addition to or in lieu of printouts.
(3) Where Electronic Records form part of documents disclosed, the declaration on oath to be filed by a party shall specify-
(a) the parties to such Electronic Record;
(b) the manner in which such electronic record was produced and by whom;
(c) the dates and time of preparation or storage or issuance or receipt of each such electronic record;
(d) the source of such electronic record and date and time when the electronic record was printed;
(e) in case of e-mail ids, details of ownership, custody and access to such e-
mail ids;
(f) in case of documents stored on a computer or computer resource (including on external servers or cloud), details of ownership, custody and access to such data on the computer or computer resource;
(g) deponent's knowledge of contents and correctness of contents;
(h) whether the computer or computer resource used for preparing or receiving or storing such document or data was functioning properly or in case of malfunction that such malfunction did not affect the contents of the document stored;
Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 17 of 20
(i) that the printout or copy furnished was taken from the original computer or computer resource.
(4) The parties relying on printouts or copy in electronic form, of any electronic records, shall not be required to give inspection of electronic records, provided a declaration is made by sch party that each such copy, which has been produced, has been made from the original electronic record.
(5) The Court may give directions for admissibility of Electronic Records at any stage of the proceedings.
(6) Any party may seek directions from the Court and the Court may of its motion issue directions for submission of further proof of any electronic record including metadata or logs before admission of such electronic record."
33. It is also alleged that the plaintiff is guilty of supperssio veri and that the plaintiff has filed the present suit mischievously against the defendant detailing wrong address. The fact that the service of legal notice is not duly proved, it is requisited to note that in the cross-examination, no question pertaining specifically to service of legal notice is asked. The cross-examination is centered on the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the Rohini address of the defendant. However, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was aware of the Rohini address of the defendant, the claim of the plaintiff at the address stated in the memo of parties would not be ousted for the reason that the defendant has not denied or disputed his presence at the said address and has also not successfully countered the receipt of process/ summons of settlement of the present suit and as Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 18 of 20 observed by Ld. Predecessor, during cross-examination defendant himself uttered that consequently he has shifted five addressed in which background defendant having gaining the knowledge of present suit was duty bound to tender on record the information of change in address by furnishing fresh address form. Moreover, merely that the postal receipts are not filed on record, the defendant would not be absolved of the liability as it is specifically stated by the plaintiff in the suit that apart from the postal report, service was made through WhatsApp which fact is not disputed even during cross-examination despite opportunity. With the above assumption, it is also taken note of the fact that the defendant merely has challenged the plaintiff of suppression of material facts without citing any specific instance and/ or putting in cross-examination to the said impact. The context asserted is vague and as regards the filing of suit at an address stated to be not in use by the defendant, discussions have been made above. In view thereof, the relevance of case law titled S. P. Chengalvaraya Vs. Jagannath (supra), Kishore Samrite Vs. State of UP (supra) and Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP (supra), is not attracted to the merits of this case.
34. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff hence is proved in preponderance of probabilities and plaintiff is held entitled to amount of Rs. 4,63,054/-.
35. The aforementioned brings to the quantum of interest. While plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18%, there is no agreement to support the same. The bills which are placed on record as Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/8 do not show any signature of the defendant intending to agree with the aforementioned rate of interest. In view of the settled provision, the plaintiff hence is Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 19 of 20 entitled only to the interest prevailing under the commercial transactions in terms of Section 34 CPC. Accordingly, interest @ 12% is hereby accorded in favour of the plaintiff on the principal amount of Rs. 4,63,054/- from the date due till its realization. Plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of Court fees appended to the suit @ Rs. 8,000/-. Counsel's fee @ Rs. 10,000/- is also accorded in the absence of any certificate having been filed under Section 35 CPC.
36. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn.
37. File be consigned to record room after completion of the necessary formalities.
Announced in open Court (Nirja Bhatia)
today on 19th January 2024 District Judge
(Comm. Court) (Digital-07)
South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi
Daman Preet Singh Chawla Vs. Renu Maggo Page No. 20 of 20