Delhi District Court
Mr. Prateek Singh vs M/S 6 Sense Mep Service Pvt. Ltd on 26 March, 2024
In the Court of Sh. Deepanker Mohan
Additional District Judge-04, Shahdara District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No. 2802/2016
In the matter of :-
Sh. Prateek Singhal
M/s Ravi Steel
Having its head office at
D-29, Anand Vihar,
Delhi-110095. ...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s 6 Sense MEP Services Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at
G-32/1, Shaheen Bagh, Sarita Vihar,
Kalindi Kunj Road, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Zafar Azam
S/o Sh. Shafi Ahmed
R/o Mehendi Hasan Road, Braham Pura,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar ...Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. CS No. : 2802/2016
2. Under Section : Suit for recovery of
Rs.11,75,000/- along with
interest, pendent-lite and
future interest.
3. Date of Institution : 17/12/2015
4. Reserved for Judgment : 26/03/2024
5. Judgment : 26/03/2024
CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 1 of 8
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose off the present suit for recovery of Rs.11,75,000/- along with interest, pendent-lite and future interest, filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal off present case are as follows :-
(I) It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff is a dealer of Black Galvanised Steel Tubes and PVC pipes and fitting etc. and running his business under the name of M/s Ravi Steel having and being the partner of the aforesaid firm and being the partner of the said firm, Sh. Prateek Singhal is duly authorized and responsible for day to day affairs and management of the said firm.
(II) It is stated in the plaint that defendant issued the plaintiff a purchased order for purchasing the sanitary fitting goods for execution of her project/contract at New Delhi and Noida(UP) and the plaintiff delivered the same at the office of defendant through following bills.
S.No. Bill no. Dated Rs.
1. 003 22.04.2014 4,60,592/-
2. 004 22.04.2014 4,50,092/-
3. 015 09.06.2014 5,95,160/-
(III) It is stated that defendant in discharge of its liability, made the part payment of Rs.1,30,844/- dated 02.09.2014 and further made part payment of Rs.2 lakhs on 28.11.2014 in the running account and the same has been credited to defendant's ledger account maintained by plaintiff.CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 2 of 8
(IV) It is stated in the plaint that defendant issued one cheque bearing no.581123 dated 24.08.2015 of Rs.11,75,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank from his proprietorship firm on the pretext that his private Ltd. company cheque book has been finished and has no cheque. Defendant also assured that at the time of presentation, the said cheque would be honoured. It is stated that plaintiff presented the said cheque in his bank account for encashment but the same has been dishonoured on 26.08.2015, due to "Insufficient Fund". It is further stated that plaintiff apprised the defendant about the same and further apprised him that non- payment of cheque amount within a week, plaintiff will charge interest @ 24% per month as per the terms of settled between them. It is further stated that despite many requests, defendant did not pay even a single penny.
(V) It is stated that on 18.09.2015, plaintiff sent the demand notice through speed post and registered post to the defendant but notice sent at Bihar address was returned undelivered. It is further stated that the Plaintiff having no other efficacious remedy available to him but to file the present suit against the defendants.
3. On 13.07.2016, the present suit was dismissed as none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.
4. On 26.08.2016, the Plaintiff has filed an application for restoration of the present case which was allowed vide Order dated 08.09.2016. On 08.09.2016, the present suit was also converted CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 3 of 8 into an ordinary suit for recovery, on the statement of the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
5. Summons in the present suit were issued against the defendants vide order dated 08.09.2016. On 06.12.2016, summons of defendant received back with the report that defendant has left the given address. Summons were issued upon the defendant vide orders dated 22.07.2017, 11.05.2017 and 28.08.2017. Defendants through their counsel put their appearance in the present matter on 07.12.2017 and subsequently, on 12.03.2018 the defendants filed their written statement.
6. The defendants state in their written statement is as under:-
I. The defendants stated in their written statement that the present suit had been filed only to harass the defendant no.2. It is stated that defendant no.2 has no concerned with the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff. It is stated that defendants never given any purchased order to the plaintiff neither received any material from the plaintiff. It is denied that Sh. Prateek Singhal is duly authorized person of M/s Ravi Steel. It is stated that the bills are false, fabricated and manufactured and planted. It is also stated that the alleged bills do not bear the stamp and signature of the plaintiff or of the defendants.
7. On 16.08.2018, pleadings in the present matter was completed and following issues were framed in the present case which are as under:-
CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 4 of 8i. Whether the defendants neither gave any purchase order nor received any material from the plaintiff, if so its effect? OPD ii. Whether the plaintiff entitled to recovery of Rs.11,75,000/- ? OPD iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so and at what rate and for what period? OPP iv. Relief.
8. Plaintiff to prove his case examined only witness i.e. PW-1.
I. PW-1 deposed as follows which is as under:-
i. PW-1 plaintiff namely Sh. Prateek Singhal filed his evidence affidavit on the line of averments mentioned in the plaint. On 21.05.2019, PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 and also relied on following documents i.e. (1) Ex.PW1/A- Original bill no.003 dated 22.04.2014, (2) Ex.PW1/B- Original bill no.004 dated 22.04.2014, (3) Ex.PW1/C- Original bill no.015 dated 09.06.2014, (4) Ex.PW1/D- Original cheque bearing no.581123 dated 24.08.2015, (5) Ex.PW1/E- Return memo dated 26.08.2015, (6) Ex.PW1/F- Legal notice dated 18.09.2015 & (7) Ex.PW1/G- postal receipt. PW-1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for defendants on 21.05.2019.
ii. PW-1 was partly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the defendants wherein he deposed that M/s Ravi Steel is a partnership firm.
CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 5 of 89. Since 21.05.2019, numerous opportunities were given to the plaintiff to lead his evidence and cost was also imposed, however, neither the cost has been furnished nor did PW-1 stepped into the witness box to conclude his cross-examination and therefore, the right of the plaintiff to lead PE was closed vide order dated 07.01.2023.
10. On 07.01.2023, plaintiffs' evidence was closed and the matter was listed for defendants' evidence.
11. The defendants no. 2 examined only one witness i.e. D2W1.
I. D2W1 deposed as follows which is as under:-
i. On 04.03.2024, D2W1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as exhibited as Ex.D2W1/A and also relied on document i.e. (1) Ex.DW2W1(OSR)- Copy of Aadhar Card. None has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff to cross examine D2W1, therefore the right of the plaintiff to cross examine D2W1 was closed.
12. Defendants' evidence were closed on 04.03.2024. Matter was listed for final arguments.
13. That on 22/03/2024 none has appeared on behalf of the parties to addressed the final arguments in the present matter and the right of the plaintiff to address the final arguments is closed. Arguments on behalf of the defendants heard.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION OF THE PRESENT CASE ISSUE-WISE CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 6 of 8
14. Issue No. 1:- Whether the defendants neither gave any purchase order nor received any material from the plaintiff, if so its effect? OPD
i) The onus to proof is upon the defendants. The Defendant No. 2 was examined as D2W-1 on 04/03/2024 and tendered his evidence as Ex.D2W1/A. D2W1 in his evidence affidavit has specifically deposed that he has not issued any purchase orders to the Plaintiff. The said witness was not cross-examined by the Plaintiff and therefore, the stand of the defendants went unrebutted and unchallenged. Moreover, the Plaintiff has also not filed any document or material on record which shows that the Defendants have issued any purchase order to the Plaintiff.
ii) In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the material on record, the Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
15. Issue No. 2:- Whether the plaintiff entitled to recovery of Rs.11,75,000/-? OPD
i) The onus of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the present issue. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence affidavit as PW-1/1. PW-1 was partly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants on 21/05/2019 and thereafter, the cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred for want of document i.e. authority Letter. Thereafter, PW-1 never stepped into the witness box nor filed the authority Letter despite directions and numerous opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to conclude cross examination of PW-1 and subsequently, Plaintiff evidence was closed on 07/01/2023. In the present circumstances, the statement of PW-1 cannot be considered to be concluded and therefore, the statement of PW-1 cannot be read as evidence in the present case.
CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 7 of 8ii) The Plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus and also to prove his case by adducing cogent and probable evidence, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of suit amount against the defendants. The Issue No. 2 is decided against the Plaintiff.
16. Issue No. 3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so and at what rate and for what period? OPP
i) In view of the above-observation that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case and is not found entitled for recovery of the suit amount and also considering that the Issue No. 2 is decided against the Plaintiff, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled for any interest amount as claimed. The Issue No. 3 is also decided against the Plaintiff.
17. In view of the facts and circumstance and above-observations, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed on merits.
18. The present suit is accordingly disposed of. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
19.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 26th March, 2024 (Deepanker Mohan) Additional District Judge-04 Shahdara District/KKD Courts/Delhi 26.03.2024 CS NO. 2802/2016 Page 8 of 8