Delhi District Court
Sh. Javed Abbas vs M/S B.B. Exports on 23 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Ms. POOJA GUPTA : CIVIL JUDGE03:
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
Suit no.548/10
Unique ID no.02406C0475252010
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Javed Abbas,
Sole Proprietor of
M/s Sultanji & Sons,
1726, Hauz Suiwalan,
Daryanganj, Delhi. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s B.B. Exports,
Through its Managing Director,
348, Sultanpur,
Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,
New Delhi.
2. Mr. H.K. Rastogi,
Representative of Mr. Prabhat Jain,
5292, Peregrine Crest Cir,
Roanoke, VA 24018 USA
And also at:
C1/15, Prashant Vihar,
New Delhi. .....Defendant
Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 1 of 23
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.11.2010
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 21.09.2013
DATE OF DECISION : 23.09.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.2,90,498.72 (Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Eight Rupees and Seventy Two Paise) along with pendente lite and future interest and cost of the suit. Facts as per plaint
2. The plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Sultanji & Sons dealing in business of supply of POP. The defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 purchased POP for Mr. Prabhat Jain against invoice dated 09.09.2009 for Rs.5,93,896/ and part payment of Rs.3,68,474/ was made by the defendant no.1 in cash with promise to pay the balance amount shortly. After adjusting the same an amount of Rs.2,20,872/ is still due against the defendants.
3. An architect i.e. Sh. Neeraj of Dhingra Associates engaged by the defendant no.1 had verified, certified and confirmed the work done and goods supplied in terms of order dated 08.09.2010 and confirmed the Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 2 of 23 outstanding amount of Rs.2,20,872/ on 20.09.2010 under his signature. Despite repeated requests the balance payment was not made. A legal notice dated 25.09.2010 was sent to the defendants for outstanding dues with interest but to no avail. Hence the present suit for Rs.2,78,298.72 with Rs.2,20,872/ as principal amount; Rs.57,427.72 as interest and Rs. 2,200/ as notice charges.
Facts as per written statement of the defendant no.1.
4. Preliminary objections have been taken that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and that defendant no.2 and Mr. Neeraj Dhingra of Dhingra Associates approached the defendant no.1 in May 2008 for supply of POP to Sh. Prabhat Jain in US as the plaintiff did not have importer/ exporter code required for the transaction. The defendant no.1 agreed to facilitate the supply and entered into back to back agreement with M/s Dhingra Associates and plaintiff on 14.05.2008 and 15.05.2008 respectively and also issued an account payee cheque to the plaintiff for Rs.1,48,474/ as advance to the plaintiff alongwith the purchase order dated 15.05.2008. The plaintiff insisted for further payment as the work advanced and accordingly additional running advances were paid by the defendant no.1 Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 3 of 23 to the plaintiff amounting to Rs.2,20,000/. However, the plaintiff delayed the work and failed to deliver the POP material to the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff to refund the amount of Rs. 3,68,474/ but to no avail. The receipt of the bill dated 09.09.2009 and 18.09.2010 or any bill qua transaction in question or otherwise denied by defendant no.1.
5. Preliminary objection of misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties as neither a consignee nor M/s Dhingra Associates have been impleaded has also been raised. The suit is also stated to be without any cause of action. On merits the averments of the plaintiff have been denied and receipt of the legal notice dated 25.09.2010 has also been denied. Facts as per written statement of defendant no.2
6. Preliminary objection has been taken in respect of the lack of locus of the plaintiff to file the suit against the defendant no.2 as there is no privity of contract between them. The defendant no.2 is stated to be not involved in the supply of material to Sh. Prabhat Jain and the defendant no.2 is neither legally or otherwise duly appointed representative of the Sh. Prabhat Jain and hence has no liability towards the plaintiff. It is averred that as the defendant no.2 was known to both Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 4 of 23 the parties i.e. Sh. Prabhat Jain and Sh. Neeraj Dhingra of Dhingra Associates he had only referred the name of the architect to Sh. Prabhat Jain for hiring of services if found competent. The plea that the suit is without any cause of action has also been taken. Preliminary objections have also been raised that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed and concealed the material facts from the court intentionally and deliberately. Preliminary objection has also been taken in respect of the jurisdiction of this court.
7. On merits the defendant no.2 has denied even meeting the plaintiff or having any dealing with him. It has been denied that the defendant no.2 is either the agent or middleman of Prabhat Jain. Rest of the averments have been denied on merits.
Facts as per replication.
8. In replication to the written statement of the defendant no.1 it has been stated that defendant no.1 has admitted the transaction as well as part payment. Rest of the averments of the defendant no.1 have been denied and the contents of the plaint reiterated.
9. In the replication to the written statement of defendant no.2 it has been reiterated that the contract for purchase of POP was Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 5 of 23 implemented and executed through the defendant no.2 and defendant no.2 was involved in the transaction. It has been averred that it was only upon the clearance issued by Neeraj Dhingra and the defendant no.2 that the defendant no.1 used to release the payment to the plaintiff against goods purchased. It has been further averred that both Neeraj Dhingra and defendant no.2 used to check the quality of the goods supplied by the plaintiff and the bills used to be passed by the architect only upon recommendation of the defendant no.2. The jurisdiction of the court has been reiterated on the ground that the transactions were completed in Mehrauli. Rest of the averments of the written statement have been denied and contents of the plaintiff have been reiterated. Issues
10. From the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed by the Ld. predecessor of this Court on 02.01.2012:
(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts?OPD1 (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non joinder for necessary parties as the consignee as well as M/s Dhingra Associates are necessary and proper party to the present suit? OPD1 Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 6 of 23 (3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against defendant no.2?OPD2 (4) Whether there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2?OPD2.
(5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant no.
2 ? OPD2 (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery for a sum of Rs. 2,90,498?OPP (7) Relief, if any.
Evidence
11. To prove his case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 on similar lines as the plaint. The PW1 was duly crossexamined by the defendant. PW1 also relied upon the following documents:
● Copy of the purchase order dated 15.05.2008 (Ex.PW1/A), ● Confirmation by architect Sh. Neeraj Dhingra upon the bill dated 18.09.2010 (Ex.PW1/B), ● Legal notice dated 25.09.2010 (Ex.DW1/C) with AD card Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 7 of 23 (Ex.PW1/D) and Receipts (Ex.PW1/E1 and PW1/E2)
12. To prove its defence the defendant no.1 examined Sh. Santosh Mishra, Liaison Officer as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.DW1/1) on the lines of the written statement and was duly crossexamined. DW1 also relied upon following documents :
● Icard issued by defendant no.1 (Ex.DW1/A), ● Export import certificate (Ex.DW1/B), ● Purchase order dated 14.05.2008 (Mark DW1/C).
13. The defendant no.2 examined himself as DW2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A on the lines of his written statement. The witness was duly cross examined by the plaintiff.
14. No rebuttal evidence was led by the plaintiff. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties.
15. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the evidence on record. From the evidence on record my issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts?
16. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.1 as the Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 8 of 23 defendant no.1 has alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and not approached the court with clean hands. To prove the same DW1 Sh. Santosh Mishra, Liaison Officer of the defendant no.1 deposed on similar lines as the written statement in respect of the importer exporter code, the defendant no.2 and Sh Neeraj of Dhingra Associates approaching the defendant no.1, the agreements dated 14.05.2008 and 15.05.2008 being entered into, the payment of advance amount and running advances, the failure of the plaintiff to supply POP and non receipt of any bill from the plaintiff.
17. The oral testimony of DW1 in respect of the importer and exporter court as well as the defendant no.2 and Sh. Neeraj approaching the defendant no.1 has gone unrebutted as no questions were put to the witness in respect of the same during cross examination.
18. In his evidence, DW1 has also relied upon Mark DW1/C to prove that the defendant no.1 had entered into an agreement with the architect Dhingra Associates on 14.05.2008. The original agreement has not been placed on record. No circumstances for leading secondary evidence in the form of photocopy of the agreement Mark DW1/C have either been pleaded or proved by the defendant no.1. The testimony of Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 9 of 23 DW1 is also conspicuously silent in respect of any signatures on Mark DW1/C on behalf of the defendant no.1. Further for reasons best known to the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 also did not examine any concerned person from M/s Dhingra Associates who had signed Mark DW1/C and hence Mark DW1/C remains unproved and cannot be looked into.
19. Though during cross examination plaintiff has elicited from DW1 that DW1 had no personal knowledge of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 the same is of little consequence as the defendant no.1 in its written statement has admitted that an agreement dated 15.05.2008 was entered into by the defendant no.1 with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also relied upon the agreement dated 15.05.2008 (Ex. PW1/A) between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. Hence the agreement dated 15.05.2008 is not in dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and hence it cannot be said that there was suppression of any fact in respect of the same.
20. DW1 has further deposed that the defendant no.1 gave a cheque in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,48,474/ as advance also paid additional running advances amounting to Rs.2,20,000/ to the plaintiff. Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 10 of 23 The receipt of the payment of Rs. 3,68,474/ from the defendant no.1 has not been denied by the plaintiff who has himself admitted receiving the same in the plaint and hence the question of concealment of the same does not arise.
21. To prove concealment, DW1 has also deposed that inspite of having taken about 62% of the total agreed payment, the plaintiff not only delayed the entire work but also failed to deliver the POP material to the defendant no.1 and further deposed that despite repeated requests to the plaintiff for refund of the amount paid as advance i.e. Rs.3,68,474/ towards the delivery of POP material the plaintiff has avoided the refund. DW1 has also denied receipt of any bill or the bill dated 09.09.2009/18.09.2010 from the plaintiff in respect of the transaction in question. During his cross examination, DW1 gave an evasive answer when asked why the payments were made in installments when the goods were never received by the defendant no. 1 and has not been able to explain as to why the defendant no.1 had continued to make payments to the plaintiff by way of cheques and cash even when the plaintiff did not supply the material. DW1 has further admitted that there was no complaint regarding delay in supply of material or in respect of inferior Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 11 of 23 quality of goods. DW1 has further admitted during his crossexamination that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 for supply of POP has not been canceled till date. DW1 has also admitted that the defendant no.1 has not filed any complaint or started any proceedings before any authority in respect of recovery of Rs. 3,68,474/ given by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff.
22. Thus, in the totality of the evidence on record and especially as the defendant no.1 has not been explain the fact of payment despite nonsupply of the material, thus the defendant no.1 has not been able to prove concealment of material facts. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant no.1 and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non joinder for necessary parties as the consignee as well as M/s Dhingra Associates are necessary & proper parties to the present suit?
23. The onus to proof this issue was on the defendant no.1. In the written statement though an objection has been taken in respect of misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties i.e. the consignees as well M/s Dhingra Associates, no evidence has been led by the defendant Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 12 of 23 no.1 to show how the said parties are necessary and proper parties. It is a settled proposition of law that while a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. It is equally well established that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question as to who is a necessary party i.e, there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings and no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.
24. In the case at hand, as per testimony of the plaintiff in Ex. PW1/1 it was the defendant no.1 who purchased the POP through the defendant no.2 for Prabhat Jain. As per Ex. PW1/1 it was the defendant no.1 who had engaged the services of the architect i.e Neeraj of M/s Dhingra Associates. The testimony of PW1 is silent in respect of any agreement having been entered into between the plaintiff and either Sh. Neeraj of M/s Dhingra Associates or Sh. Prabhat Jain in respect of any liability to make the payment. Even as per testimony of DW1, it was the defendant no.1 who had entered into an agreement with M/s Dhingra Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 13 of 23 Associates. Thus, as no right to relief has been shown against either Sh Prabhat Jain or Sh Neeraj of M/s Dhingra Associates, the defendant no.1 has not been able to prove that there has been nonjoinder of M/s Dhingra Associates within the ambit of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. It has also not been proved as to how the presence of either Sh Prabhat Jain or Sh Neeraj of M/s Dhingra Associates is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. Thus as the defendant no. 1 has not been able to discharge his onus, this issue is decided against the defendant no.1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against defendant no.2?
Issue no. 4: Whether there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2?
Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant no.2?
25. These issues are being decided together as common questions of law and fact arise for adjudication. The onus to prove these issues was on the defendant no.2 as preliminary objections have been raised by defendant no.2 in his written statement in respect of the same. Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 14 of 23
26. The defendant no.2 as DW2 has deposed that there was no privity of contract of the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit against the defendant no.2. DW2 has also deposed that the complete order in mechanism for supplies for Sh. Prabhat Jain went through his appointed architect namely Sh. Neeraj of Dhingra Associates and the defendant no.2 was not involved in the same. DW2 also deposed that he is not the duly appointed representative of Sh. Prabhat Jain and as such he has no liability whatsoever. DW2 has further deposed that he is closely known to both Sh. Prabhat Jain and Sh. Neeraj and had only referred the name of the architect to Sh. Prabhat Jain for hiring of his services if found competent. DW2 has also deposed that no specific claim has been lodged in the entire plaint against the defendant no.2 for recovery of the money.
27. On the other hand, PW1 has deposed in his examination in chief Ex. PW1/1 that defendant no.1 has purchased the POP through the defendant no.2 against the bill dated 09.09.2009 for Rs.6,39,346/. PW1 has further deposed that the payments had been made by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff towards advance at the instance of the architect Sh Neeraj Dhingra and at the instance of the consignee Sh Prabhat Jain Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 15 of 23 through his representative i.e. the defendant no.2. The plaintiff has also relied upon Ex. PW1/B to prove that the defendant no.2 was the representative of Sh Prabhat Jain. However, during his cross examination, PW1 has admitted that Ex. PW1/B does not bear his signatures. For reasons best known to the plaintiff, he chose not to examine Sh Neeraj Dhingra who signed Ex. PW1/B to prove the same. Hence Ex. PW1/B remains unproved and cannot be looked into.
28. During his cross examination the plaintiff as PW1 has further admitted that Ex.PW1/A i.e. the purchase order dated 15.05.2013 does not bear the signatures of defendant no.2. PW1 also admitted that it is not written on Ex.PW1/A that defendant no.2 was the representative of the defendant no.1. PW1 also admitted that even Ex.PW1/D2 does not mention that defendant no.2 is the representative of the defendant no.1.
29. On the other hand, during the crossexamination of the defendant no.2, the plaintiff has not been able to elicit any admissions in respect of any agreement having been entered into between the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff or in respect of the liability of the defendant no.2 to pay the suit amount. Though in the cross examination, DW2 admitted that till date he had not raised any written objection with M/s Dhingra Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 16 of 23 Associates in respect of representing the defendant no.2 as the representative of the Sh Prabhat Jain, however the same cannot be construed to be an acceptance of liability in respect of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 even more so in the absence of any other evidence being produced on the record to prove the liability of the defendant no.2 qua the plaintiff.
30. Thus, from the evidence on record, it has not been proved that there was any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 even more so as Ex. PW1/1 had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and Ex. PW1/B remains unproved. Further even though the defendant no.2 as DW2 has admitted to receiving the legal notice Ex. PW1/C, which is contrary to the plea set up by the defendant no.2 in his written statement, however, that in itself is also not sufficient to saddle the defendant no.2 with any liability in respect of the Ex. PW1/A or Ex. PW1/B. The entire deposition of the plaintiff as well as the documents proved on record are silent as to the liability of the defendant no.2 qua the plaintiff even more so when the own case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 has purchased the POP through the defendant no.2 and not vice versa i.e. the defendant no.2 having Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 17 of 23 purchased the POP through the defendant no.1.
31. Accordingly, from the appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the defendant no.2 has been able to discharge his onus and thus these issues are decided in favour of the defendant no.2 and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery for a sum of Rs.2,90,498/?
32. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. In view of my findings on issue no.3, 4 and 5, this issue will be decided only qua defendant no.1. At the very outset it is noted that the defendant no.1 has not denied the purchase order dated 15.05.2008 which has been Ex. PW1/A. It is also not in dispute that the defendant no.1 has paid a sum of Rs. 3,68,474/ as advance payment or part payment to the plaintiff. However the defendant no.1 has denied that any bill dated 09.09.2009 or dated 18.09.2010 or any other bill has been raised upon the defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff.
33. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1, PW1 has deposed for the first time that it had been agreed upon between the Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 18 of 23 plaintiff and the defendant no.1 that the office of Architect Sh Neeraj of Dhingra Associates would be supervising the whole transactions and would be clearing the payments against the bills to be prepared by the plaintiff and accordingly on 20.09.2010 Sh. Neeraj Dhingra under his own signatures confirmed and certified the amount of Rs.2,20,872/ as payable and recoverable from the defendant having adjusted the advance amount. The plaintiff has also relied upon the bill dated 18.09.2010 (Ex. PW1/B) to prove his claim. PW1 has further deposed that the plaintiff had delivered the goods under the bills to the Godown of the defendant No.1. PW1 has also deposed that apart from the advance of Rs.3,68,474/, a sum of Rs.50,000/ has also been paid towards packing and a sum of Rs.2,20,872/ remains payable by the defendant.
34. During his crossexamination by the defendant no.1, PW1 accepted that POP was to be supplied within 3 ½ months and further accepted that the balance was to be paid after delivery of the goods. PW1 also admitted that Ex.PW1/B was not placed in the name of defendant no. 1 nor did it bear the signatures of the plaintiff. PW1 also admitted that he did not have any document to show that he had sent Ex.PW1/B to the defendant no.1. PW1 further admitted that in Ex.PW1/B it was not Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 19 of 23 written that the amount was due from the defendant no.1. PW1 has also admitted that there was no written agreement with M/s Dhingra Associates. PW1 has also admitted that no legal notice was sent to the defendant no.1 and has further admitted that he was deposing falsely. However, the defendant no.1 was unable to elicit any admission in respect of nondelivery of POP material to the defendant no.1.
35. It has already been held that Ex.PW1/B remains unproved as though it is on the letter head of the plaintiff, it has not been signed by the plaintiff. Further, even the architect who has signed the bill has not been examined. Ex.PW1/B has also not been raised in the name of the defendant no.1 but has been raised in the name of the consignee. Though from the crossexamination of DW1, the plaintiff has been able to prove the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and from the testimony of DW1, the defence of the defendant no.1 in respect of non supply of materials remains unproved, however, the plaintiff has not been able to elicit any admission of liability of the defendant no.1 to the tune of the claimed amount.
36. Further though the plaintiff has been able to elicit from DW1 that a cheque for Rs.95,000/ must have been given by the defendant no.1 Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 20 of 23 to the plaintiff and that a cheque of Rs.25,000/ might also have been given by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff and that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ was given by the defendant to the plaintiff in cash, and even though there is merit in the contention of the plaintiff that in case no material had been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant as has been alleged by the defendant in his written statement, no occasion would have arisen for payment of the various installments as no material would have been supplied and the terms and conditions as laid down in Ex.PW1/A would not have been adhered to, however, it is to be borne in mind that the bill Ex. PW1/B has not been proved as per law. There is no admission by the defendant no.1 of its liability to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 2,20,872/ or interest thereon. No evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove the liability of the defendant no.1 to pay the legal notice charges or the liability of the defendant no.1 to pay the same to the tune of Rs. 2,200/.
37. It is also pertinent to note that the testimony of the plaintiff as PW1 has not been consistent. For instance, during his cross examination, PW1 has deposed that he had not raised any other bill against the defendant no.2 prior Ex.PW1/B. However PW1 went on Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 21 of 23 further to depose that he had raised another bill Ex.PW1/D1 the original of which is Ex.PW1/D2. Also, as per the Ex. PW1/1, PW1 has deposed that the defendant no.1 had issued a number of cheques in favour of the plaintiff out of his own account towards acknowledgment of transactions and towards advance. Ex. PW1/1 is silent as to any payment having been made in cash even though as per the plaint, the amount of Rs.3,68,474/ was paid in cash. During his crossexamination, the PW1 denied that payment was received in cash. However, during the crossexamination of DW1 the plaintiff elicited an admission that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ may have been given to the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 in cash. Thus, the contrary stands taken by the plaintiff make the oral uncorroborated testimony of PW1 unreliable.
38. Thus, in view of the bill Ex. PW1/B remaining unproved and in view of the uncorroborated oral testimony of PW1, the case of the plaintiff has not been able to stand on its own legs and plaintiff has not been able to discharge the onus cast upon it. Thus from the evidence on record, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no.1.
Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 22 of 23 Relief:
39. In view of my findings on issue no.2,3,4,5,6 and 7, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed against both the defendants. Parties to bear their own costs.
40. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
41. File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open court
today i.e. 23.09.2013 (POOJA GUPTA)
Civil Judge03(South District)
New Delhi
Civil Suit no.548/10 Sh. Javed Abbas Vs B.B Exports Page 23 of 23