Delhi District Court
Indrajeet Singh Rathore vs Naresh Kumar Sharma @ Pappu And Anr on 3 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01) : NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 219/2020
CNR No. DLNT01-001432-2020
In Re :-
SH. INDRAJEET SINGH RATHORE
S/O LATE SH. SRI DAYAL,
R/O H.No. I-931, I-BLOCK,
JAHANGIRPURI, DELHI-110033.
.....PLAINTIFF
VS.
1. SH. NARESH KUMAR SHARMA @ PAPPU
2. SH. GANESH KUMAR SHARMA
BOTH SONS OF SH. SOHAN SHARMA,
BOTH PROP. OF M/S CHIRAG FRUITS,
TRADE MARK (CF) EARLIER TRADEMARK
(HE) HARMAN PREET ENTERPRISES,
SHOP NO. B- 37-38, NEW SUBZI MANDI KHANNA,
PUNJAB
BOTH ALSO AT
VILLAGE NAKKI, TEHSIL NOORPUR,
DISTT. KANGDA, (HP)
....DEFENDANTS
Date of institution of case : 13.02.2020
Date of arguments : 03.01.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.01.2025
AMIT
Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR Page No. 1 of 3
Date:
KUMAR 2025.01.03
15:29:18 +0530
JUDGMENT:
1. Present is a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 7,09,789/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the suit as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is in the business of sale and purchase of fruits and used to supply fruits to both the defendants who are real brothers and jointly working in the name of M/s Chirag Fruits. As per the plaint, suit amount is due till March 2017 which has not been paid by the defendants despite legal notice, hence this suit.
2. Summons of the suit were refused by the defendants and they were deemed to be served. None appeared for them and defense was struck off on 21.10.2023.
3. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as the only witness and proved on record only one promissory note as Ex. PW-1/1, Legal notice dated 06.03.2019 as Ex. PW-1/3, Postal receipts as Ex. PW-1/4 and Non-starter report as Ex. PW- 1/5. The plaintiff though did file the statement of account and the ledger account, but same were not proved and were only marked as Mark-A and Mark-B.
4. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the promissory note has been duly proved which read with statement of account is sufficient to pass decree against both the defendants.
AMIT Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.01.03 15:29:25 +0530 Page No. 2 of 3
5. I have perused the record.
6 The so-called promissory note Ex. PW-1/1 is only a document alleged to be written by the defendant no. 1 mentioning that an amount of Rs. 70,09,789/- is balance. To whom this amount is to be paid and towards whom this amount is balance is not mentioned in the said promissory note Ex. PW-1/1. Even there is no date on this document. The suit amount is only 7,09,789/- where the amount mentioned on this note/receipt is 70,09,789/- and is not the suit amount. The statements of account mark A and B which have not been proved at all, are of no help to the plaintiff in view of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff has failed to prove any liability towards any of the defendants much more against the defendant no. 2 as Ex. PW-1/1 is purported to be signed only by the defendant no. 1. The suit therefore, is dismissed against both the defendants.
No order as to cost.
7. Copy of this judgment be sent to all the parties by electronic mode, if available or otherwise.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.01.03 15:29:33 +0530 (AMIT KUMAR) District Judge, Comm. Court-01, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
03.01.2025 Page No. 3 of 3