Delhi District Court
Ram Prakash Sharma vs (1) Sh. Manoj Sobti on 27 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI FAHAD UDDIN,
COMMERCIAL CIVIL JUDGE (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ 611674/2016
CNR NO. DLWT03-001176-2016
Ram Prakash Sharma
Proprietor of M/s Om Electronics,
B-66, Aman Puri, Najafgarh Road,
Nangloi, New Delhi-110041. ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
(1) Sh. Manoj Sobti
Proprietor M/s Shree Shyam Components,
G-102, Sagar Sadan,
Plot no. 113, IP Extension,
Parparganj, Delhi-110092.
(2) M/s Shree Shyam Components,
Through its Proprietor Shri Manoj Sobti,
B-23, FIE, Patparganj Industrial Estates,
New Delhi. .....Defendants
Date of filing : 14.01.2016
Date of Judgment : 27.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff namely Ram Prakash Sharma against the defendant Sh. Manoj Sobti, proprietor of M/s Shri Shyam Components for recovery of Rs. 1,03,244/- (One Lakh Three Thousand Two hundred and Forty Four only) alongwith interest as mentioned in the plaint. Brief facts necessary for the CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 1 of 19 disposal of the present case may be described as under:
Plaintiff's case as per the plaint:
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic bobbins having its registered office at B-66, Aman Puri, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041. The defendant no. 1 is a proprietor of Shri Shyam Components (defendant no. 2). The defendant had approached the plaintiff firm for purchase of plastic bobbins and the defendant was regularly placing orders for purchasing of garment accessories since October 2012 to June 2014. After accord and satisfaction, the defendant placed orders for manufacturing of plastic bobbins with the plaintiff from time to time. The plaintiff manufactured the items/plastic bobbins as and when required by the defendant against which, the plaintiff issued various invoices from time to time and the aforesaid materials/plastic bobbins were duly received by the defendant and the defendant also made certain payments against the purchase. In terms of order placed by the defendant for manufacturing of items/plastic bobbins, an amount of Rs. 72,036/- (Seventy Two Thousand, Thirty Six only) is due and payable by the defendant as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff. Since a huge amount was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, the plaintiff brought the same to the knowledge of the defendant and requested for making of payment by the defendant to the plaintiff. However, despite repeated requests and reminders made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the remaining balance amount as claimed by the plaintiff which comes to Rs. 1,03,244/- (Rs. 72,036/-
CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 2 of 19towards balance payment, Rs. 16,208/- towards interest @ 15% per annum calculated for the period 01.07.2014 till 14.01.2016 i.e. the date of filing of the present suit and Rs. 15,000/- towards legal fees of the advocate). After repeated requests and reminders made by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant failed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff and for this reason, a legal notice dated 18.12.2015 was issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant which was duly received by the defendant. However, despite this, the defendant failed to make any payment to the plaintiff and for this reason, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the said amount.
Defendant's case as per the WS:
3. The defendant filed WS to the suit of the plaintiff wherein the defendant stated that the plaintiff has not come before this court with clean hands and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this court. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendant. The plaintiff wants to extort money from the defendant by filing the present false suit against the defendant. The defendant denied that in terms of order placed by the defendant for manufacturing of items/plastic bobbins, the plaintiff manufactured the said items and as per the statement of account, a sum of Rs. 72,036/- is due and payable by the defendant. The plaintiff has not mentioned any date in the said order. The defendant denied that a huge amount on account of balance payment towards the purchase of material/plastic bobbins was due and payable by the defendant and the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant stated that no date is mentioned CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 3 of 19 and it is also not mentioned as to how many items were supplied and no invoice numbers have been given. The defendant stated that he had informed the plaintiff on 27.02.2016 through retail invoice dated 17.08.2015 regarding return of goods for a total amount of Rs. 34,722/- and the said retail invoice has been attached with the WS filed by the defendant. The defendant denied that after repeated requests and reminders made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the amount due and payable towards the supply of plastic bobbins. The defendant denied that he is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,03,244/- as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff wants to extort money from the defendant by filing the present false and frivolous suit and hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
Replication:
4. The plaintiff filed replication to the WS filed on behalf of the defendant wherein he submitted that the plaintiff lastly supplied the goods/material to the defendant on 30.06.2014. Thereafter, no complaint was received by the plaintiff in respect of the materials/goods supplied to the defendant. The defendant has issued a false and fabricated debit note/invoice dated 27.02.2016/17.08.2015 i.e. after filing of the present suit. The defendant has not mentioned as to which goods/materials were returned to the plaintiff. It is stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had supplied the materials to the defendants which was duly received by the defendant and the defendant failed to make the payment of goods/plastic bobbins supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has supplied the goods to the defendant through various invoices w.e.f. 26.10.2012 to 30.06.2014 and all CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 4 of 19 the invoices have been mentioned in the statement of account filed by the plaintiff and as per the statement of account filed by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 72,036/- is due and payable by the defendant. The plaintiff stated that the defendant had issued a false invoice on 27.02.2016/17.08.2015 after filing of the present suit and the description of items given in the said invoice/debit note is not as per the details of goods/rates of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. Hence, the defendant has tried to mislead this court. The invoices filed by the plaintiff show that the defendant has received the material from time to time and the said debit note has been filed by the defendant to escape from his legal liability towards the plaintiff and the defendant has not filed any statement of account to corroborate the said debit note and has not mentioned as to on which dates the items mentioned in the debit note were returned by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied that he has filed the present suit to extort money from the defendant as alleged by the defendant. The plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed all the facts as stated in the plaint and prayed for decree of the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Issues:
5. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the court for adjudication in the present matter:-
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,03,244/- as prayed for? (OPP) Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 5 of 19 the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP) Issue no. 3: Relief.
Plaintiff's evidence:-
6. In order to prove his case against the defendant, the plaintiff got examined PW-1 namely Sh. Prem Prakash Sharma, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A on court record. In his evidence by way of affidavit, PW-1 reiterated and reaffirmed all the facts as stated in the plaint on oath. Besides this, PW-1 also relied upon the following documents in support of his case:-
1. Original invoice no. 320 dated 26.10.2012 is Ex.PW1/1.
2. Original invoice no. 333 dated 04.01.2013 is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Original invoice no. 336 dated 10.01.2013 is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Original invoice no. 338 dated 19.01.2013 is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Original invoice no. 341 dated 25.01.2013 is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Original invoice no. 342 dated 02.02.2013 is Ex.PW1/6.
7. Original invoice no. 343 dated 05.02.2013 is Ex.PW1/7.
8. Original invoice no. 344 dated 09.02.2013 is Ex.PW1/8.
9. Original invoice no. 357 dated 26.04.2013 is Ex.PW1/9.
10. Original invoice no. 359 dated 26.04.2013 is Ex.PW1/10.
11. Original invoice no. 368 dated 26.06.2013 is Ex.PW1/11.
12. Original invoice no. 375 dated 24.07.2013 is Ex.PW1/12.
13. Original invoice no. 380 dated 05.08.2013 is Ex.PW1/13.
14. Original invoice no. 383 dated 12.08.2013 is Ex.PW1/14.
15. Original invoice no. 384 dated 19.08.2013 is Ex.PW1/15.
16. Original invoice no. 389 dated 29.08.2013 is Ex.PW1/16.CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 6 of 19
17. Original invoice no. 390 dated 02.09.2013 is Ex.PW1/17.
18. Original invoice no. 392 dated 20.09.2013 is Ex.PW1/18.
19. Original invoice no. 393 dated 26.09.2013 is Ex.PW1/19.
20. Original invoice no. 396 dated 07.10.2013 is Ex.PW1/20.
21. Original invoice no. 399 dated 09.10.2013 is Ex.PW1/21.
22. Original invoice no. 401 dated 14.10.2013 is Ex.PW1/22.
23. Original invoice no. 402 dated 26.10.2013 is Ex. PW1/23.
24. Original invoice no. 406 dated 11.11.2013 is Ex.PW1/24.
25. Original invoice no. 410 dated 09.12.2013 is Ex.PW1/25.
26. Original invoice no. 414 dated 24.12.2013 is Ex.PW1/26.
27. Original invoice no. 416 dated 28.12.2013 is Ex.PW1/27.
28. Original invoice no. 418 dated 10.01.2014 is Ex.PW1/28.
29. Courier receipt dated 10.01.2014 is Ex.PW1/29.
30. Original invoice no. 420 dated 15.01.2014 is Ex.PW1/30.
31. Courier receipt dated 15.01.2014 is Ex.PW1/31.
32. Original invoice no. 424 dated 04.02.2014 is Ex.PW1/32.
33. Original invoice no. 428 dated 20.02.2014 is Ex.PW1/33.
34. Courier receipt dated 20.02.2014 is Ex.PW1/34.
35. Original invoice no. 432 dated 08.03.2014 is Ex.PW1/35.
36. Courier receipt dated 08.03.2014 is Ex.PW1/36.
37. Original invoice no. 435 dated 28.03.2014 is Ex.PW1/37.
38. Original invoice no. 438 dated 04.04.2014 is Ex.PW1/38.
39. Original invoice no. 439 dated 07.04.2014 is Ex.PW1/39.
40. Original invoice no. 442 dated 14.04.2014 is Ex. PW1/40.
41. Original invoice no. 443 dated 17.04.2014 is Ex.PW1/41.
42. Courier receipt dated 17.04.2014 is Ex.PW1/42.
43. Original invoice no. 448 dated 10.05.2014 is Ex.PW1/43.CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 7 of 19
44. Original invoice no. 461 dated 30.06.2014 is Ex.PW1/44.
45. Statement of account/ledger account is Ex.PW1/45.
46. Legal notice dated 18.12.2015 is Ex.PW1/46.
47. Postal receipts are Ex.PW1/47 and Ex.PW1/48.
48. Bill issued by the advocate dated 04.01.2016 is Ex.PW1/49.
49. Debit note dated 27.02.2016/17.08.2015 is Ex.PW1/50.
50. Postal envelope is Ex.PW1/51.
Despite repeated opportunities given, PW-1 was not cross examined on behalf of the defendant. Thus, keeping in view the negligent conduct of the defendant, the right of the defendant to cross examine PW- 1 was closed on 19.12.2017 and no other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff in support of his case and PE was also closed on 19.12.2017 itself.
Defendant's Evidence
7. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant got examined one witness i.e. DW-1 namely Manoj Sobti, proprietor of M/s Shri Shyam Components who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW-1/A on court record. The averments made in the affidavit by the defendant are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and same shall be dealt with later on at an appropriate stage.
DW-1 was cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff and in his cross examination, DW-1 stated that he knew the plaintiff since 2012 and plaintiff is his supplier of goods i.e. plastic bobbins. He stated that it is correct that the plaintiff had duly supplied the goods from 26.10.2012 to 30.06.2014 CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 8 of 19 and it is also correct that no supply of goods was made by the plaintiff since 30.06.2014. He stated that it is correct that Rs. 72,036/- was outstanding on 30.06.2014. He denied that no defective material was supplied by the plaintiff. DW-1 stated that he had issued a debit note on 27.02.2016 which is Ex. PW1/50 and the items mentioned at serial no. 2 in debit note Ex. PW1/50 i.e. bobbins and the items at serial no. 3 mentioned in Ex. PW1/6 are similar. Further, invoice no. 342, book no. 7 at point A and Ex.PW1/10 invoice no. 359 and book no. 8 at point B are similar items. DW-1 stated that it is correct that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to him through invoices which are Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/44. It is correct that no goods were supplied by the plaintiff after 30.06.2014. He stated that he had telephonically informed the plaintiff about the defected goods. He stated that neither he had filed any document for return of the defected material till 30.06.2014 nor he has mentioned in his affidavit as well as in his evidence. He denied the suggestion that no defected material was supplied by the plaintiff. DW-1 admitted that he had received the legal notice Ex.PW1/46 and that he had not replied to the said legal notice Ex.PW1/46. DW-1 admitted that he had issued invoice Ex.PW1/50 dated 27.02.2016 which was sent through speed post Ex.PW1/51. He stated that the rate of goods mentioned in Ex. PW1/50 are same as the plaintiff had mentioned in the invoices at the time of supply. He admitted as correct the fact that w.e.f. 30.06.2014 till 26.02.2016, no defected goods/materials were found and that he had issued the invoice Ex.PW1/50 after receiving the summon from this court. He admitted that the rate mentioned in the Ex. PW1/50 are higher than the rate of supply since he had added the freight charges in each item. He stated that he did not remember the date when the plaintiff had visited physically in his office but CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 9 of 19 admitted that the plaintiff had visited before filing the present suit. DW-1 admitted that no receiving of the plaintiff is mentioned on Ex.PW1/50 and also admitted that the items mentioned in debit note Ex.PW1/50 were not returned/refunded by him to the plaintiff. However, DW-1 denied that Ex.PW1/50 is forged and fabricated and issued just to escape the liability. DW-1 further denied his liability as claimed in the suit and denied the suggestion that no intimation was given to the plaintiff on 18.07.2014 regarding the replacement of the material. However, DW-1 admitted that he had not filed any document with regard to the intimation dated 18.07.2014. No other material fact was deposed to by DW-1 and after conclusion of cross examination, DW-1 was discharged and DE was closed.
Findings:
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence led by the parties before this court, the issue wise findings of this court are as under:-
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,03,244/- as prayed for? (OPP) Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
9. Both the issues no. 1 and 2 are being taken up together as they are inter-connected and the onus to prove the same is on the plaintiff.CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 10 of 19
10. In brief, it may be stated that it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic bobbins. The defendant is the proprietor of M/s Shyam Components and the defendant had approached the plaintiff for purchase of plastic bobbins and the defendant was regularly placing the orders for purchase of garment accessories since October 2012 to June 2014. After accord and satisfaction, the defendant placed orders for manufacturing plastic bobbins from time to time and the materials/plastic bobbins were duly received by the defendant and paid certain amounts against the purchase. However, in terms of the orders placed by the defendant with the plaintiff, an amount of Rs. 72,036/- (Seventy Two Thousand, Thirty Six only) was due and payable by the defendant. The plaintiff brought the said amount into the knowledge of the defendant from time to time. The plaintiff also sent legal notice dated 18.12.2015 which was duly received by the defendant but the defendant failed to pay the balance amount as demanded by the plaintiff by way of the aforesaid legal notice and consequently, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,03,244/- (72,036/- principal amount + interest @ 15% per annum from 01.07.2014 till the filing of the present suit i.e. Rs.
16,208/- as well as Rs. 15000/- towards legal fees and other charges).
11. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has not come before this court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this court. The plaintiff wants to extort money from the defendant by filing the present false, frivolous and wrong suit against the defendant. The defendant denied that in terms of orders placed by the defendant for manufacturing of items/plastic bobbins as manufactured by CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 11 of 19 the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 72,036/- is due and payable against the defendant. The defendant has denied the case of the plaintiff and submitted that no date is mentioned and it is also not mentioned that how many items were supplied and no invoice number has been given. Further, the defendant informed the plaintiff on 27.02.2016 through retail invoice number 256/15-16 dated 17.08.2015 regarding return of goods as mentioned in the said invoice and thus the total amount comes to Rs. 34,722/-. The defendant denied that he is liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff towards the materials supplied by the plaintiff. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and thus, the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed.
12. In reply to the case of the defendant, the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff lastly supplied the goods/materials to the defendant on 30.06.2014 and thereafter, no complaint was received by the plaintiff in respect of the materials/goods supplied. The defendant has issued a false and fabricated debit note/invoice dated 17.08.2015 and that after filing of the present suit to avoid his liability and no materials/goods were ever returned by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had supplied the materials to the defendants which was duly received and the defendant failed to make the payment of the goods/plastic bobbins. The defendant has not filed any statement of account as per the invoice for Rs. 34,722/-. The plaintiff had supplied the goods and issued the invoices w.e.f. 26.10.2012 to 30.06.2014. The defendant had issued a false invoice on 17.08.2015 which was sent on 02.03.2016 i.e. after filing of the present suit. By way of the said invoice, the defendant is manipulating his records and the items as well as quantities and the rates at which they were CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 12 of 19 supplied are fabricated and the defendant is trying to mislead the court to avoid his liability. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as prayed for in the plaint.
13. To prove his case against the defendant, the plaintiff examined one witness i.e. PW-1 namely Ram Prakash Sharma who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A on court record. In the said affidavit, PW-1 reaffirmed and reiterated all the facts as stated in the plaint on oath. Further, PW-1 relied on the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/51. Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/44 are the different invoices from the period 26.10.2012 till 30.06.2014 by which various quantities of plastic bobbins were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.PW1/45 is the ledger account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff during the ordinary course of business which shows the transactions occurred between the parties and the said statement of account shows a balance amount of Rs. 72,036/- outstanding against the defendant as on 30.06.2014. Ex.PW1/46 is the legal notice dated 18.12.2015 issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant whereby the defendant was asked to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs. 72,036/- alongwith interest @ 15% from 01.07.2014 till payment. Ex.PW1/47 and Ex.PW1/48 are the postal receipts for the said legal notice issued to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.PW1/49 is the certificate of legal expenditure filed on behalf of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the present case. Debit note dated 17.08.2015 allegedly issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 34,722/- is Ex.PW1/50. Postal envelope for the same is Ex.PW1/51. It may be noted that despite opportunity given, the plaintiff's witness/PW-1 was not cross examined on behalf of the defendant and the opportunity of the defendant CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 13 of 19 to cross examine the said witness was closed vide order dated 19.12.2017.
14. On the other hand, to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant had got examined only one witness DW-1 namely Manoj Sobti who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A in court record wherein DW-1 stated that the plaintiff has not come before this court with clean hands. The plaintiff wants to extort money from the defendant. It is not mentioned as to how many items were supplied and invoice numbers are not given. Further, the defendant informed the plaintiff on 27.02.2016 through retail invoice no. 256/15-16 on 17.08.2015 regarding return of the goods as mentioned in the said invoice and the total amount comes to Rs. 34,722/-. Further, the defendant had given intimation to the plaintiff on 18.07.2014 regarding replacing/taking back the said articles from the defendant. However, in his cross examination, DW-1 stated that he knew the plaintiff since 2012 and the plaintiff was his supplier of goods i.e. plastic bobbins. He admitted that the plaintiff had duly supplied the goods from 26.10.2012 to 30.06.2014 and that no supply of goods was made by the plaintiff since 30.06.2014. He admitted as correct that Rs. 72,036/- was outstanding on 30.06.2014. He stated that he had issued a debit note on 27.02.2016 which is Ex.PW1/15 on court record. He further admitted that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to him through invoices which are Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/44. He admitted that no goods were supplied by the plaintiff after 30.06.2014. DW-1 stated that he had telephonically informed the plaintiff about the defected goods. He admitted that neither he had filed any document for return of the defected material till 30.06.2014 nor he had mentioned in his affidavit as well as in CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 14 of 19 his evidence. DW-1 admitted that he had received the legal notice Ex.PW1/46 and that he had not replied to the said legal notice. DW-1 admitted that he had issued invoice Ex.PW1/50 dated 27.02.2016. He admitted that w.e.f. 30.06.2014 till 26.02.2016, no defected goods/materials were found and that he had issued the invoice Ex.PW1/50 after receiving the summons from this court. He further admitted that the rate mentioned in the invoice dated 27.02.2016 i.e. Ex.PW1/50 are higher than the rate of supply since he had added the freight charges in each item. DW-1 admitted that no receiving of plaintiff is mentioned in Ex.PW1/50 and that the items mentioned in the said debit note were not returned/refunded by him to the plaintiff. DW-1 admitted that he had not filed any document with regard to intimation dated 18.07.2014 allegedly given by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding return of goods. No other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant and no document has been placed on record by the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff.
15. Thus, after hearing the submissions of both the parties, their respective cases as well as appreciation of evidence and the documents placed on record, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant on the basis of preponderance of probabilities since the documents filed by the plaintiff on record Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/44 clearly show that materials/plastic bobbins were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant between the period 26.10.2012 till 30.06.2014. Further, ledger account maintained by the plaintiff against the defendant which is Ex.PW1/45 clearly shows that an amount of Rs. 72,036/- was due and payable against the defendant as on 30.06.2014.
CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 15 of 19Further, vide legal notice dated 18.12.2015, the plaintiff had demanded the said balance amount of Rs. 72,036/- from the defendant alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from 01.07.2014 till payment. The said legal notice dated 18.12.2015 is Ex.PW1/46 on court record. Ex.PW1/47 and Ex.PW1/48 are the postal receipts to prove the issuance of the said legal notice on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.PW1/49 is the certificate of the professional fee of Rs. 15,000/- charged by the lawyer of the plaintiff in the present case. All these documents collectively corroborate and support the case of the plaintiff.
16. Further, no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff. No statement of account has been filed on behalf of the defendant to disprove that no amount was due and payable by the defendant as alleged. Further, there are clear cut admissions in the cross examination of the defendant regarding the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had duly supplied the goods from 26.10.2012 to 30.06.2014 and that Rs. 72,036/- were outstanding on 30.06.2014. The goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant through invoices Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/44 and no goods were supplied by the plaintiff after 30.06.2014. The defendant admitted that he neither filed any document for return of the defected material till 30.06.2014 nor has mentioned in his affidavit as well as in his evidence. He admitted that he has received the legal notice dated 18.12.2015 Ex. PW1/46 and had not replied the same. He admitted that he had issued invoice/debit note Ex.PW1/50 dated 27.02.2016 after receiving the court notice. He further admitted that w.e.f. 30.06.2014 till 26.02.2016, no defected materials/goods were found and the rate mentioned in the Ex.PW1/50 are CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 16 of 19 higher than the rate of supply as he had added freight charges in each item. He admitted that no receiving of the plaintiff is mentioned in Ex.PW1/50 and that the items mentioned in the debit note Ex.PW1/50 were not returned/refunded by him to the plaintiff. He further admitted that he had not filed any document with regard to intimation dated 18.07.2014 allegedly given by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding return of goods.
17. Thus, all these admissions on the part of the defendant during his cross examination prove the case of the plaintiff and raise a doubt on the genuineness and authenticity of the debit note dated 27.02.2016 issued by the defendant unilaterally to the plaintiff after filing of the present suit. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is revealed that the defendant fabricated the said debit note which is Ex.PW1/50 on court record in order to avoid his liability towards the plaintiff. But in actual, since 30.06.2014 till 26.02.2016, the defendant never complained about any defected goods or materials to the plaintiff and never returned the same to the plaintiff as admitted by the defendant in his cross examination and for this reason, the said debit note Ex.PW1/50 cannot be relied upon by this court in support of the case of the defendant and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected being unilateral and issued after filing of the present case by the plaintiff. Consequently, on the basis of the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/44, Ex.PW1/45, Ex.PW1/46, Ex.PW1/47, Ex.PW1/48 and Ex.PW1/49, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and Ex.PW1/45 clearly shows that a balance of Rs. 72,036/- was due and payable by the defendant as on 30.06.2014. Despite issuance of the legal notice dated 18.12.2015, the CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 17 of 19 defendant failed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 15% per annum as stipulated in the invoices Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/44 calculated from 01.07.2014 till the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 14.01.2016 amounting to Rs. 16,208/- and further, defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards professional legal fees and charges as shown in Ex.PW1/49 placed on record by the plaintiff.
18. With these observations, both issue no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief:
19. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the defendant is held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,03,244/- to the plaintiff as prayed for in the prayer clause of the plaint.
20. Further, the plaintiff has prayed for awarding of future and pendente lite interest @ 15% per annum from 01.07.2015 till realization. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding of interest at such a huge rate seems to be unreasonable and the defendant is directed to pay interest over and above the amount of Rs. 1,03,244/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of decree and to pay future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization of payment to the plaintiff.
21. In the interest of justice, plaintiff is also held entitled to the cost of the suit against the defendant as per rules.
CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 18 of 1922. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open court Digitally signed on 27th August, 2022 by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN (This judgment contains 19 pages) UDDIN Date: 2022.09.02 13:23:47 +0530 (Fahad Uddin) Commercial Civil Judge, West District, THC/Delhi. CS SCJ 611674/2016 Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Manoj Sobti Page 19 of 19