Delhi District Court
Sachin Kuchhal vs Vijay Kapoor on 18 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT AGGARWAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
SUIT NO : CS SCJ 2631/2018
CNR NO.DLCT03-005938-2018
SACHIN KUCHHAL VS. VIJAY KAPOOR
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Sachin Kuchhal
Proprietor of
M/s. Balaji Fabric
4228, Gali Bahuji,
Pahari Dhiraj,
Delhi-110006.
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Vijay Kapoor
Proprietor of
M/s. Allvin International
4475, Gali Raja Patnamal,
Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006.
...DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 11.09.2018
Date of judgment : 18.01.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.58,500/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTE-LITE INTEREST @ 15% PER ANNUM
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of recovery of Rs.58,500/- (Rs.45,000/- as principal amount CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 1 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18 18:17:53 +0530 and Rs.13,500/- as interest amount) alongwith pendente-lite interest @ 15% p.a. alongwith costs of the suit.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT:
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is proprietor of one M/s. Balaji Fabrics who is the supplier of hosiery knitted fabric, cotton discharge, etc. and defendant is in the business of manufacturing hosiery undergarments. It is alleged that defendant approached plaintiff for supply of hosiery knitted fabrics and defendant started placing the orders upon the plaintiff as per his requirements and thereafter, plaintiff executed the orders and delivered the same to the defendant. It is stated that defendant issued a cheque bearing no.053386 dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.10,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pitampura, Delhi towards discharge of his part liability. However, such cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'Fund Insufficient'. Defendant thereafter requested for some more time for payment citing financial crunch and plaintiff agreed and granted some more time. It is stated that as per books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff, a total amount of Rs.58,500/- (Rs.45,000/- as principal amount and Rs.13,500/- as interest amount) is due from the defendant and despite issuance of legal notice dated 17.05.2018, neither any payment was made by the defendant, nor any reply was issued. Accordingly, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the recovery of the aforesaid amount.
CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 2 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.01.18 18:17:59 +0530 WRITTEN STATEMENT:
3. Summons of the suit were issued upon the defendant vide order dated 12.09.2018 and the written statement was filed by the defendant on 03.12.2018, thereby denying each and every allegation of the plaintiff. The defendant has inter-alia stated that the contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint are contrary to each other and such fact creates doubts about the genuineness of the case of the plaintiff. It is stated in the written statement that as per statement of accounts, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.45,630/-, however in the legal notice dated 17.05.2018, plaintiff has claimed a total sum of Rs.65,250/-, out of which Rs.45,000/- is shown towards principal and Rs.20,250/- is shown towards interest. It is stated that the interest calculation in such notice is bad and even though the notice has been sent for recovery of Rs.65,250/-, yet the suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.58,500/- showing that the plaintiff has received Rs.6,750/- but there is no mentioning of same either in the plaint or in the statement of account. It is further stated by the defendant as per the records of the defendant and as submitted with the concerned DVAT authorities, defendant made purchase of goods from the plaintiff vide the following invoices and their payments had been duly made by the defendant through cheques:-
CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 3 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18 18:18:04 +0530
4. It is further stated by the defendant that he has not made any purchase from the plaintiff of any other goods apart from those set out in the aforesaid table and there was no cash transaction between the parties. It is alleged that the bills relied upon by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint are forged and fabricated and the cheque bearing no. 053386 dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.10,000/- was given in advance for supply of goods but the plaintiff has not supplied the goods and therefore, the said cheque is not towards the discharge of any lawful debts or liability. It is further submitted by the defendant that all the payments were made by him in time and the statement of accounts placed and relied upon by the plaintiff alongwith plaint is a manipulated and forged document.
CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 4 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.01.18 18:18:19 +0530 ISSUES:
5. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed in the suit vide order dated 31.07.2019. The issues as framed in the present suit, are reproduced below :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.58,500/- alongwith pendente-lite interest @ 15% per annum, as prayed for? OPP. (2) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff only examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, whereby contents of the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. PW-1/plaintiff also relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW-1/1 being the statement of account of plaintiff firm for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2016;
(ii) Ex. PW-1/2 being the bill dated 11.04.2016 bearing invoice no. 81 for Rs.31,350/-;
(iii) Ex.PW-1/3 being the invoice bearing no. 387 dated 22.05.2016 for Rs. 25,507/-;
(iv) Ex.PW-1/4 being the cheque bearing no. 053386 dated 21.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, North CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 5 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18 18:18:24 +0530 Pitampura, Delhi;
(v) Ex. PW-1/5 being the return bank memo;
(vi) Ex. PW-1/6 being the legal notice dated 17.05.2018;
(vii) Ex. PW-1/7 being the postal receipt; and
(viii) Ex. PW-1/8 is the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
PW-1/plaintiff was cross-examined and discharged on 27.09.2024 and no other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and plaintiff's evidence was closed vide the aforesaid order itself.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:
7. In order to prove his case, defendant himself stepped in the witness box and relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.DW-1/A and he also relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Ex. DW-1/1 being the certificate of DVAT/ Form DVAT 06.
(ii) Ex. DW-1/2 being the statement of accounts/ledger account.
(iii) Ex. DW-1/3 (Colly.) being the
bills/invoices.
(iv) Ex. DW-1/4 being the DVAT returns/ DVAT
Form 2A.
CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 6 of 14
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18
18:18:29
+0530
DW-1/defendant was cross-examined and discharged on 09.12.2024 and no other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant and defendant's evidence was closed vide the aforesaid order itself.
FINDINGS WITH REASONS:
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was argued that despite supply of the material as reflected in the invoices Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, defendant did not make any payment. It was further argued that despite issuance of legal notice dated 17.05.2018 Ex.PW-1/6, neither the defendant issued any reply nor made any payment. It was further argued that defendant is liable to pay the principal amount of Rs.45,000/- to the plaintiff alongwith interest and therefore, the suit must be decreed.
9. Per-contra, it was vehemently argued on behalf of defendant that plaintiff has stated several different amounts at the different places in the plaint and documents which only shows that the case of the plaintiff is completely fabricated. It was further argued that defendant has successfully proved his defence by way of oral and documentary testimony of DW-1 led on record and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit of plaintiff must be dismissed.
10. Arguments were heard at length and record is perused. My issue-wise findings are as follows:CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 7 of 14
Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18 18:18:33 +0530 Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.58,500/- alongwith pendente-lite interest @ 15% per annum, as prayed for? OPP.
11. The plaintiff has filed a simple suit for recovery of Rs.58,500/- towards the supply of goods to the defendant. It is alleged that Rs.45,000/- is liable to be paid by the defendant towards the principal amount of supply of goods/hosiery knitted fabric and the balance amount is liable to be paid as interest, whereas on the other hand, defendant has simply alleged that no material for which the payment has been asked by the plaintiff was supplied to the defendant and all the money for the goods which were actually supplied has been paid by the defendant and details of such payment were reflected in the written statement.
12. A careful analysis of the case shows that in the entire plaint, the plaintiff has not specifically stated as to how he has arrived at the figure of Rs.45,000/- which was due and payable by the defendant as the principal amount. It is relevant to note that plaintiff has stated in Para 8 of the plaint that as per the books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff, a total amount of Rs.58,500/- is due and payable by the defendant. It is stated that Rs.45,000/- is payable as principal and the rest as interest. However, upon a careful look at the statement of account Ex.PW-1/1, relied upon by the plaintiff, it appears that the principal amount shown to have been due in such statement is Rs.45,630/-. The plaintiff has further relied upon two invoices i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 i.e. invoice dated 11.04.2016 for CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 8 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.01.18 18:18:38 +0530 Rs.31,350/- and Ex.PW-1/3 i.e. invoice dated 22.05.2016 for Rs.25,507/-. No other essential document apart from the statement of account and both the invoices have been filed on record by the plaintiff to prove the alleged legal liability of the defendant to the extent of Rs.45,000/-.
13. It is essential to note in the present case that transactions between the parties are as such not denied as the defendant has himself in the written statement as well as the evidence led as DW-1 i.e. Ex.DW-1/A has specifically pointed out the invoice numbers and the date alongwith amount and the details of payment were made by him to the plaintiff. However, perusal of such details set out by the defendant would show that the invoice bearing no. 81 i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and invoice bearing no. 387 i.e. Ex.PW-1/3 are not reflected in the details stated by the defendant in the written statement.
14. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, it was extremely essential for the plaintiff in order to succeed in the present case to prove the genuineness and veracity of invoices Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 during the trial and to establish supply of goods under these invoices to the defendant. This was even more essential as during his cross-examination on 27.09.2024, PW-1/plaintiff specifically deposed that the amount of Rs.31,350/- and for Rs.25,507/- is due and pending for which he has filed the present suit. Now, if we take these two amounts to be due towards the defendant, such amounts total to Rs.56,857/- whereas again, the CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 9 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18 18:18:42 +0530 present suit is only for Rs.45,000/- stated to be the principal amount which creates another doubt over the veracity of claims made by the plaintiff.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has not proved the genuineness and veracity of the invoices Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 as such invoices are completely denied by the defendant in the written statement and the plaintiff did not examine any person to prove the genuineness and authenticity of these invoices. At this juncture, it also becomes relevant to note that some authorized signatory has executed and signed on such invoices Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, however, the same does not appear to be the plaintiff himself as the signatures of such person is completely different from the signatures of the plaintiff on record. Even otherwise, plaintiff did not take any steps to prove the delivery of such goods to the defendant. It cannot be ignored that even though plaintiff has argued that one person namely 'Pooran' has signed on such invoices, however yet, the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence of such person or even otherwise, the plaintiff had failed to disclose the details of such person as to whether he was an employee or an agent of the defendant.
16. The other documents relied upon by the plaintiff are the cheque bearing no.053386 dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.10,000/- and the cheque return memo Ex.PW-1/5, postal receipt qua legal notice Ex.PW-1/7 which do not independently establish the case of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. Therefore, upon comprehensive CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 10 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.01.18 18:18:48 +0530 consideration of the evidence led by the plaintiff on record, it becomes evident that plaintiff has remained unsuccessful in proving the contentions and allegations against the defendant in the plaint itself. Further, the fact that plaintiff has stated different amounts at different places in the plaint, legal notice and during his cross-
examination adds to the mystery regarding the amounts allegedly due towards the defendant. Such confusing and different versions of the plaintiff at different places only shows that PW-1 is not a witness worthy of credit and his testimony raises serious doubt over the genuineness of his claims. It cannot be ignored that during his cross- examination, PW-1 specifically deposed that the suit is for recovery of Rs.31,350/- for the invoice dated 11.04.2016 and Rs.25,507/- for the invoice dated 22.05.2016, which does not tally with the principal amount of Rs.45,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the legal notice. Even the amount of Rs.45,000/- does not tally with the amount shown in the statement of account relied upon by the plaintiff himself i.e Ex.PW-1/1 which shows the principal amount of Rs.45,630/- due towards the defendant.
17. It is well settled that the burden to prove such essential and pivotal fact was only upon the plaintiff in terms of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and unless such burden is discharged by the plaintiff, the Court cannot proceed on the basis that the defendant did not contest the allegations. At this juncture, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami & Anr. [(2011) 12 SCC 220] are relevant to be noted and are extracted below:-
CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 11 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.01.18 18:18:53 +0530
21. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" which clearly lays down that:
"101.Burden of proof.--Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts it. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party.
31. Application of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 thus came up for discussion in Subhra Mukherjee case [(2000) 3 SCC 312 : AIR 2000 SC 1203] and while discussing the law on the burden of proof in the context of dealing with the allegation of sham and bogus transaction, it was held that the party which makes the allegation must prove it. But the Court was further pleased to hold, wherein the question before the Court was "whether the transaction in question was a bona fide and genuine one"
so that the party/plaintiff relying on the transaction had to first of all prove its genuineness and only thereafter would the defendant be required to discharge the burden in order to dislodge such proof and establish that the transaction was sham and fictitious. This ratio can aptly be relied upon in this matter as in this particular case, it is Respondent 1-plaintiff Kuppuswami who relied upon the alleged sale deed dated 24-2-1951 and included the subject-matter of the property which formed part of the sale deed and claimed partition. This sale deed was denied by the appellant-defendant on the ground that it was bogus and a sham transaction which was executed admittedly in 1951 when she was a minor.
36. The onus was clearly on the plaintiff to positively establish his case on the basis of material available and could not have been allowed by the High Court to rely on the weakness or absence of defence of the defendant-
CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 12 of 14
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18
18:18:58
+0530
appellant herein to discharge such onus. The courts below thus have illegally and erroneously failed not to cast this burden on Respondent 1-plaintiff by clearly misconstruing the whole case and thus resulted into recording of findings which are wholly perverse and even against the admitted case of the parties. (emphasis supplied).
18. Bare perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the court is not required to turn a blind eye towards the allegations in the plaint and the court must seek proof of the same by way of evidence. The plaintiff is required to prove his allegations in the plaint in terms of the process prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and he cannot contend that the defendant did not prove his defence.
19. Therefore, in view of the above detailed observations, this Court has reached the conclusion that the plaintiff has remained unsuccessful in establishing his claim against the defendant. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he has supplied the goods stated in the invoices Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 to the defendant or that an amount of Rs.45,630/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as reflected in Ex.PW-1/1. On the other hand, defendant has successfully raised serious doubt over the genuineness and veracity of the testimony led by PW-1 and the documents, more specifically Ex.DW-1/2 and Ex.DW-1/4 relied upon by the defendant have strengthened the defence of the defendant. Even otherwise, the case of the plaintiff is required to stand on its own legs and when the evidence led by the plaintiff is comprehensively considered, the same does not prove the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint, even on a scale of CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 13 of 14 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.01.18 18:19:03 +0530 preponderance of probabilities.
RELIEF:
20. In view of the observations herein above, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.Digitally signed
by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.18 18:19:09 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 18.01.2025 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Present judgment consists of 14 pages and each page bears my initials.
Digitally signed by BHARATBHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.18 18:19:13 +0530 (Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 18.01.2025 CS No.2631/18 Sachin Kuchhal Vs. Vijay Kapoor Page 14 of 14