Delhi District Court
Sh. Manoj Sobti vs Ram Prakash Sharma on 21 April, 2023
BEFORE Dr AJAY GULATI
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02
DELHI ( WEST)
RCA DJ No.-87/2022
CNR NO. DLWT01-02845-2022
1. Sh. Manoj Sobti
Proprietor M/s Shree Shyam Components
G-102, Sagar Sadan,
Plot No. 113, I.P. Extension,
Patparganj, Delhi-110092
2. M/s Shree Shyam Components
Through its Proprietor Shri Majoj Sobti
B-23, FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area,
New Delhi
......Appellants
Versus
Ram Prakash Sharma
Proprietor of M/s Om Electronics,
B-66, Aman Puri, Najafgarh Road,
Nangloi, New Delhi-110041
.....Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 17.10.2022
Date reserved for judgment : 14.03.2023
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: 21.04.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants who were defendants before the ld. Trial Court, are aggrieved by the Trial Court judgment dt. 27.8.2022 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff which was for a claim of Rs. 1,03,244 RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 1/10 against the defendants. Pendent lite and future interest has also been awarded to the respondent/plaintiff. Appellants contends that the evidence on record of the trial court was not correctly appreciated and hence the matter is required to be remanded to the trial court.
2. Brief factual recapitulation would be relevant before proceeding to assess the merits of the appellate submissions.
3. Appellant and Respondent had a commercial relationship. Respondent was a supplier of plastic bobbins whereas Appellants dealt in Computer hardware. In the course of his business, Appellants would require plastic bobbins for which they placed regular orders with the Respondent. Admittedly, both had business relations from 2012 to 2014. The last order of the Appellants serviced by the Respondent was on 30.6.2014. Thereafter, no goods were supplied by the Respondent. Since there was a running account of the Appellants with the Respondent, part payments used to be made. Respondent/plaintiff contended before the ld. Trial court that as on 30.6.2014, there was an outstanding liability of Rs. 72,036 due towards it but despite service of legal notice on 18.12.2015, the said liability had not been discharged by the defendant/s. Respondent/plaintiff RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 2/10 placed reliance on all the invoices raised by it during the course of business relationship with the Appellant, in addition to legal notice served on the respondent/defendants and a document dt. 27.2.2016 which the respondent/defendants contend to be a debit note which they had raised against the plaintiff on account of defective goods having been supplied by the plaintiff. This 'debit note' forms the core of appellate submissions and will be referred to later.
4. On entering appearance before the ld. Trial Court, defendant/Appellants denied any liability to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff/respondent. Even before the ld. Trial Court, major argument put forward in defense was that plaintiff had supplied defective goods in respect of which a debit note had been raised by the defendants. In replication, plaintiff contended that the debit note had been forged by the defendants and had been created after the present suit was filed, and defendants were served with summons of the suit.
5. On appreciation of the respective pleadings, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,03,244/- as prayed for ? ( OPP) RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 3/10
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
3. Relief.
6. On appreciating evidence led on either behalf, ld. Trial Court returned findings in favour of the respondent/plaintiff under issues no. 1 & 2 and consequently decreed the suit. Claim for pre- suit interest was declined but ld Trial Court awarded interest @ 9% for the period of pendency of the suit and further interest @ 6% from the date of decree till realisation of the decretal amount.
7. Aggrieved by the trial court judgment, defendants have preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:
1. Ld. Trial court did not appreciate the evidentiary value of the 'debit note' Ex. PW 1/50
2. Defendants' right to cross-examine PW 1 was unjustifiably closed
3. Defendants had made 3 part payments i.e. of Rs. 10000, Rs.
8000 and Rs. 7500 through NEFT in the account of the plaintiff but despite the same having been brought to the notice of the ld. Trial Court, the said payment (and the 'debit note') were not accounted for while delivering the impugned judgment.
4. The suit claim of Rs. 1,03,244/- included Rs. 15000 which is the legal fee component. However, in the legal notice sent RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 4/10 to the defendant/s, the charges demanded towards legal notice were Rs. 5500.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and re- assessed the evidence led.
9. Respondent/plaintiff himself appeared as PW 1 but was not cross-examined leading to a strong presumption that defendants had nothing to say in their defense. Defendants did not even make a request for recalling the order closing their right to cross- examine PW 1. The chief-examination of the plaintiff was a reiteration of the facts averred in the plaint albeit on oath. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff.
10. In order to lead defense evidence, Appellant no. 1/def. no. 1 appeared as the solitary witness. In his cross-examination, DW 1 admitted that the debit note Ex. PW1/50 had been prepared by him after he received summons from the Court. He also admitted that the rates mentioned in the 'debit note', of the goods which were claimed by him to be defective, were higher than the actual rates which were mentioned in the invoices through which the said goods had been supplied (and received by defendants) but he volunteered to state that the rates mentioned were higher since he had added freight charges. The interesting aspect of DW 1's RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 5/10 testimony is that though he claims to have added freight charges while working out the amount of 'debit note', he further admitted that the goods were never sent back/returned to the respondent/plaintiff. There was no explanation coming forth from DW 1 that if the last consignment of plastic bobbins had been supplied by the plaintiff to defendants way back in June 2014, why is that the defective goods were retained by him for close to 2 years and then a 'debit note' ( in the year 2016) was raised only when the outstanding dues were demanded by the respondent/plaintiff. What is even more surprising is that defective goods were not even returned to the respondent/plaintiff. Further, it is undisputed that that the defendant waited till 27.2.2016 to raise the debit note i.e. till after filing of the suit (suit was instituted on 14.01.2016). In his cross- examination, DW 1 also admitted that there was no document filed by him to show that on 18th July 2014, he had informed the respondent/plaintiff that the defective goods supplied by him were still lying with the defendants. Further, the date of 'debit note' is 27.2.2016 but it also bears the invoice date of 17.8.2015 which doesn't appear to have any basis since there is no invoice raised by the respondent/plaintiff after 30.6.2014. If the invoice refers to return invoice raised by the respondent/plaintiff in regard to defective goods supplied by the respondent/plaintiff, there is no RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 6/10 explanation as to why was this invoice raised more than a year after the last consignment was supplied in June 2014 and also, as to why was there a further delay of 5 months in raising a 'debit note' i.e. from the date of invoice? This coupled with the fact that 'defective goods' were never returned makes the 'debit note' and invoice mentioned therein sans any relevance. In view of the responses of DW 1 to the questions put in regard to the 'debit note', ld. Trial Court was correct in holding that the claimed 'debit note' was a suspicious document and hence, not worthy of reliance. Plaintiff's assertion that defendants were liable to clear the outstanding dues of Rs.72,036 was never cross-questioned by the defendants since PW 1 was not cross-examined which effectively meant that none of the documents relied upon and exhibited by the respondent/plaintiff were controverted and hence, deemed to have been admitted. As already highlighted, the documents exhibited included all the invoices from the yr. 2012 till 30.6.2014 when the last consignment of goods was supplied to the defendants/appellants, and the legal notice sent by the respondent/plaintiff which was admittedly received by the defendants (as admitted in the cross-examination) but not replied to. With practically no defense to speak of, ld. Trial Court was correct in decreeing the suit.
RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 7/10
11. So far as the submissions made before this Court are concerned, it would be relevant to highlight that appellant/defendants have relied on certain documents, none of which were filed before the ld. Trial Court. These documents include a bank account statement of the Appellant firm i.e. appellant no. 2 to show that 3 specific amounts by way of NEFT, were transferred to the account of respondent/plaintiff; email reply dt. 18.7.2014 to the email dt. 15.7.2014 sent by the respondent/plaintiff asking for outstanding dues; and ledger account of the Appellant firm reflecting the debit note as also the 3 NEFT transfers, after accounting for which, the outstanding due as per the Appellant firm is merely Rs. 11,814/-. It needs a highlight that DW-1 did not exhibit any document in his evidence even though trial court record shows that he had filed the ledger maintained by him in respect of the transactions with the respondent/plaintiff firm. What is intriguing is that though the written statement was filed on 25 August 2016, the ledger account filed along with (which though was not exhibited) showed transactions recorded only till 30.6.2014. However, in the present appeal, ledger account filed is reflecting the details of 3 NEFT transfers along with the deduction on account of 'debit note'. The final accounting entry in the ledger account filed by appellant/defendants along with the present appeal is dated RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 8/10 25.5.2016. Therefore, this ledger account must have been in existence even before filing of the written statement in the Trial Court (which was filed in August 2016) and yet, this ledger was not filed or exhibited by DW 1. Infact, the 3 NEFT transfers that appellants are now relying on were neither mentioned in the written statement nor in affidavit of evidence of DW-1. It is only 5 days before the judgment was to be pronounced that a letter was addressed to the ld. Trial Judge informing him of the NEFT transfers. The letter was directed to be put on the day fixed for pronouncement of judgment. On the day of pronouncement, defendant was present in person but the order sheet does not record that defendant ever pressed for the letter to be taken into consideration. The conduct of defendants in not bringing the bank statement reflecting NEFT transactions and the updated ledger account on record despite having the same in their possession puts the documents in a serious circle of doubt. Instead of addressing a letter to the ld. Trial Judge, defendants should have moved an application for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Addressing a letter to the Trial Judge requesting him to take into consideration documents which were in the possession of the defendants but were neither pleaded nor exhibited is an unusual way to plead defense. In the best understanding of the court, the documents on the basis of which Appellant seeks RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 9/10 remand of the case suffer from serious lack of authenticity. Relevant to highlight that the bank statement is uncertified and the reply by email dt. 18.7.2014 (purportedly of the defendants) is not supported by any certificate u/s 65 - B of the Indian Evidence Act. The final argument that Respondent/plaintiff was wrongly awarded Rs. 15000 as legal fees is also not tenable since the said amount was awarded on the basis of lawyer's certificate. What was claimed as fees for sending legal notice was different than the fee charged by the ld. Advocate for the trial. Consequently, there is little merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 20000 to be deposited with Bharat Ke Veer fund.
Trial Court record be sent back alongwith copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today the 21st April, 2023 (Ajay Gulati-I) ADJ-02,West/Delhi RCA DJ No. 87/22 Manoj Sobti & Ors Vs Ram Prakash Sharma 10/10