Delhi District Court
M/S Nav Bharat Enterprises vs M/S L And G Engg. Co on 17 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01) NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM)/49/20
CNR No.DLNW010010512020
M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises
Through its partner Shri Anuj Mittal
A-30, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-110052
At Present:
185, Jagriti Enclave, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092
And also at:
190, Loha Mandi,
Ghaziabad-201009 (U.P.)
...........Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s L & G Engg. Co.
Through its Proprietor Shri Gaurav Malhotra
Near Peer Engg. Nau Gaza Peer, Dehradoon
Road, Saharanpur-247001 (UP)
2. Shri Gaurav Malhotra
Proprietor of M/s L & G Engg. Co.
Near Peer Engg. Nau Gaza Peer,
Dehradoon Road, Saharanpur-247001 (UP)
.......Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.62,60,608/- (SIXTY TWO LACS
SIXTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHT) ALONG
WITH THE INTEREST.
Date of institution : 29.01.2020
Date of final arguments heard : 07.04.2026
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company
Page 1 of 28
Date of judgment : 17.04.2026
JUDGEMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.62,60,608/- against the defendants. However, during the pendency of the suit on 01.04.2025, Ld.counsel for plaintiff made the statement that during the pendency of the suit a sum of Rs.60 lacs has been paid by the defendant with three tranches of Rs.20 lacs each paid on 18.08.2022, 06.09.2022 and lastly on 11.11.2022. In view of the receipt of payment, the plaintiff has pressed the present suit for outstanding amount of Rs.2,60,608/- only.
2.1 Brief facts: The brief facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a partnership firm. The present suit has been instituted by one of its partners Sh.Anuj Mittal, who is stated to be authorised by the other partners. It is stated that the plaintiff is a dealer of iron and steel items of all kinds and sizes and deals as a wholesale business.
2.2 It is stated that the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 is a customer of the plaintiff for quite sometime. That the defendants were purchasing the goods M. S. plates & Pipes from the plaintiff and the same were supplied time to time by the plaintiff in different sizes to the defendant as per the requirement of the defendants vide several bills. That as per the statement of account the goods were sent to the defendants from time to time and also the CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 2 of 28 part payment was made by the defendants time to time and ultimately, the amount of Rs. 62,60,608/- (Rupees sixty two lakhs sixty thousand six hundred and eight only) remained due against the defendants. It is stated that the defendants are well aware that the said goods had been received at their end in perfect and intact condition including of quality, weight and rate. That since the day of supply the plaintiff had demanded many times their payment of bills and/or telephonic calls but the defendants are avoiding to make the payment on one pretext or the other. That the defendants are also liable to pay interest accrued thereon @ 36% per annum as per terms of the bills.
2.3 It is stated that the plaintiff also issued a legal notice dated 16.04.2018 through his Counsel but despite the proper service of the said legal notice, the defendant no. 2 started giving assurances of making payments time and again but ultimately denied to make the entire payment.
2.4 It is stated that the cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff on different dates when the supply were made and bills were raised upon the defendants by the plaintiff and further the cause of action has arosed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the last payment was made by the defendants to the plaintiff on 01.02.2017, as per the statement of account. That the cause of action has also arosed on 16.04.2018 when the legal notice was got served upon the defendants by the plaintiff. That the cause CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 3 of 28 of action is still continuing and subsisting as the defendants had flatly refused to pay the amount of bills/goods.
2.5 It is stated that the office of the plaintiff is situated within the jurisdiction of this court. That the purchase order was placed, the supply of the goods were made, the bills were raised by the plaintiff upon the defendants from the office of the plaintiff at Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
2.6 With the aforesaid submissions the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 62,60,608/- (Rupees sixty two lakhs sixty thousand six hundred and eight only) along with the interest @ 36% per annum, against the defendants. The plaintiff has also prayed for cost of suit.
3. Here it is pertinent to mention that the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.62,60,608/- against the defendants. However, during the pendency of the suit on 01.04.2025, Ld.counsel for plaintiff made the statement that during the pendency of the suit a sum of Rs.60 lacs has been paid by the defendant in three installments of Rs.20 lacs paid on 18.08.2022, 06.09.2022 and lastly on 11.11.2022. In view of receipt of payment, the plaintiff has pressed the present suit for outstanding amount of Rs.2,60,608/- only.
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 4 of 28
4. Vide order dated 29.01.2020, the summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. The defendants on being served put the appearance and filed written statement. In their written statement the defendants alleged that the suit is not maintainable for want of pre institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. That the suit is also liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction since no part of cause of action has ever accrued within the jurisdiction of this court as the transaction between the parties had taken place at Ghaziabad and the defendant is having business at UP Saharanpur. That the defendant used to place oral orders to the plaintiff at its Ghaziabad office and the defendant also used to make payments at Ghaziabad Branch of the plaintiff bank. That the defendant never made any transaction in Delhi. That the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. That the plaintiff after taking payment turned dishonest. The averments on merits are denied. It is prayed that the suit may kindly be dismissed.
5. After completion of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 28.01.2025:-
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as per law?
Its effect (OPD).
2. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit? (OP Parties)
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of recovery, as prayed or any other amount in its favour and against the defendant? (OPP) CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 5 of 28
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? At what rate, upon what amount and for what period? (OPP)
5. Relief.
6. The perusal of record reveals that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had made part payment of Rs.60 lacs and on the statement of Ld.counsel for plaintiff, the present suit was pursued for recovery of Rs.2,60,608/-. Consequent upon subsequent transactions between the parties, issues were modified vide order dated 01.04.2025, which reads as under:-
1. Whether the Suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as per law?
Its effect (OPD).
2. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit? (OP Parties)
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery in the sum of Rs.2,60,608/-, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on Rs.2,60,608/- from the date of filing of the Suit till its realisation or for any other period? If yes, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
5. Relief.
7. In exercise of power envisaged under order XV A Rule 6 (o) and (p) CPC, the evidence was directed to be recorded on Commission basis by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. The perusal of the record reveals that several opportunities were granted to the defendant for getting recorded the evidence before the Ld. CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 6 of 28 Local Commissioner, but the defendant failed to appear before the Ld.Local Commissioner and vide order dated 04.11.2025 the defendants were proceeded exparte and the matter was fixed for exparte PE before the court.
8. In support of the case of the plaintiff Sh. Anuj Mittal, AR/partner of the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. The PW-1 adduced his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, reiterating therein the contents of plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of registered partnership deed Ex. PW1/1(colly, OSR).
2. Letter of authorization Ex. PW1/2
3. Invoices/bills Ex.PW1/3(colly 9 bills, OSR)
3. Statement of account Ex. PW1/4(colly).
4. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/5
5. True copy of Legal notice dated 16.04.2018 Ex. PW1/6.
6. Postal registry receipts Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8.
9. The testimony of the PW1/AR of the plaintiff remained unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendants remained exparte during the trial. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff and vide statement dated 09.03.2026, PE was closed.
10. I have already heard the arguments advanced by CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 7 of 28 Sh.Sushant Kumar, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. It is argued by Ld.counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants and the defendants made payment on running account basis. That the defendants have failed to make payment of remaining outstanding amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. That the testimony of PW1 Sh. Anuj Mittal has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. That in view of unrebutted testimony of PW1 and documents placed on record, the decree as prayed may kindly be passed.
11. I have perused the entire record including the pleadings, documents and oral testimony of PW1 Sh.Anuj Mittal on record. As the defendants remained ex-parte, and have not cross- examined the sole plaintiff witness PW-1, the Court shall consider the testimony of witness and the documents, as they exist being un- rebutted and un-challenged.
12. It is well settled law that even in the exparte suit or where the defence of defendant is struck off, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. The weakness of the defendant does not give ipso facto right to the plaintiff to get the relief from the court of law. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain reported as 2009(109) DRJ (DB) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the plaintiff has to prove his own case in accordance with the law and has to stand on his own legs. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another judgment titled as Sunil Dang vs. RL Gupta reported as CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 8 of 28 CS(OS) 1617/2007 decided on 13.01.2009 has held that on the contrary if the defendant is ex parte, the onus is high on the plaintiff to prove its case and when the defendant is contesting the matter, the fact, which are not disputed are deemed to be proved and need not to be proved. Further when the defendant fails to appear, there can be no admission and the plaintiff has to prove the entire case in accordance with law.
13. It may be relevant now to consider the law pertaining to discharge of burden of proof of the issues as relevant and applicable to the Civil Jurisdiction. In the binding authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another v. Rattan Lal@ Rattan Singh: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 601; it has been laid down:-
1.3. It is well settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. The burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it but the said principle may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto.
14. The various aspects of proving the facts of a case and exceptions, if any, have been duly considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh in Appeal (civil) 2413 of 2006 on 2 May, 2006, wherein the binding legal position has been reinforced as under :-
"Pleading is not evidence, far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. Indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 9 of 28 adduce any evidence, in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side."
It has been further laid down (supra) :-
"A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.".
15. As per law of the land, the onus to prove is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case to entitle him to the relief asserted, in these circumstance, the onus shifts upon the defendant to prove such circumstances which may disentitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed.
16. I have considered the submissions made by Ld.counsel for plaintiff and the material on record. My issuewise findings are as under:-
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 10 of 28 ISSUE NO.1.
1. Whether the Suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as per law?
Its effect (OPD).
17. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants in their written statement have taken preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable for want of pre- institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and also on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. However, the perusal of record reveals that though such objections were raised, the defendants failed to lead any evidence in support of these averments. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.11.2025 and despite sufficient opportunities, they did not appear to substantiate their defence. However, since the compliance of Section 12A of CPC is mandatory as per provisions of Commercial Courts Act, I proceed to examine this mandatory provision in the absence of the defendants.
18. The perusal of the record reveals that a Non-Starter Report dated 12.04.2019 issued by the concerned authority under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is already placed on record. Thus, the requirement of pre-institution mediation stands duly complied with by the plaintiff.
19. It is a settled proposition of law that mere pleadings CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 11 of 28 without any evidence cannot be read in favour of the party. In the present case, no material has been placed on record by the defendants to show as to how the plaintiff has concealed any material fact. On the contrary, the plaintiff has duly led ex-parte evidence and placed on record the relevant documents including invoices, statement of account and legal notice. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff on the aspect of maintainability.
20. Accordingly, in the absence of any cogent evidence led by the defendants, this Court finds no merit in the objections raised by them. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit? (OP Parties)
21. The onus to prove this issue was upon both the parties. The plaintiff in the plaint has specifically averred that its office is situated at Ashok Vihar, Delhi and that the purchase orders were placed, goods were supplied and invoices were raised from the said office. It is further pleaded that the transactions between the parties were carried out from the said place and, therefore, part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
22. Per contra, the defendants in their written statement CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 12 of 28 have taken an objection that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the transactions took place at Ghaziabad and payments were also made there.
23. The perusal of record shows that the plaintiff has placed on record invoices/bills and statement of account, which reflect the address of the plaintiff at Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The case of the plaintiff is that the goods were supplied and bills were raised from Delhi. These pleadings and documents indicate that at least a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that if even a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a Court, that Court is competent to entertain the suit. In the present case, the testimony of PW-1 along with the documentary evidence has remained unrebutted and unchallenged, as the defendants chose not to contest the matter and were proceeded ex-parte. The defendants, despite raising objections, have failed to lead any evidence to substantiate that no part of cause of action arose within Delhi. Mere bald averments in the written statement, without any supporting evidence, cannot be relied upon.
24. In view of the pleadings of the parties and material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 13 of 28 ISSUE NO.3
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery in the sum of Rs.2,60,608/-, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? (OPP)
25. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Before proceeding further on the issue of recovery, I shall first examine the limitation aspect of the present suit, which is a legal issue and can be determined by the court in the absence of defendants.
26. The plaintiff initially instituted the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,60,608/- against the defendants on the basis of supply of iron and steel goods made during the year 2015- 2016. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants were maintaining a running account and had made part payments from time to time, with the last payment prior to institution of the suit having been made on 01.02.2017, leaving the aforesaid amount outstanding.
27. During the pendency of the suit, it has come on record that the defendants made substantial part payments to the plaintiff. As per the statement made by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff on 01.04.2025, a total sum of Rs.60,00,000/- was paid by the defendants in three installments, i.e., Rs.20,00,000/- on 18.08.2022, Rs.20,00,000/- on 06.09.2022 and Rs.20,00,000/- on 11.11.2022. In view of the aforesaid payments received during the pendency of the CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 14 of 28 suit, the plaintiff restricted its claim and pressed the present suit only for the remaining outstanding amount of Rs.2,60,608/-. Thus, the scope of adjudication in the present suit stood confined to the recovery of the reduced amount of Rs.2,60,608/- along with applicable interest, if any.
28. As per the bills/invoices placed on record the plaintiff is seeking recovery of money for the goods supplied during the year 2015-16. The plaintiff has claimed that the last payment prior to institution of the suit was made on 01.02.2017. The plaintiff has further relied upon legal notice dated 16.04.2018.
29. The perusal of the record shows that the present suit has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years from the alleged delivery of goods. The plaintiff in order to cover the limitation has relied upon the factum of part payment made on 01.02.2017, as shown in the statement of account Ex. PW1/4(colly). It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that the statement of account Ex.PW1/4(colly) is a unilateral document of the plaintiff.
30. At first, it is first necessary to discuss Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Section 34 reads as under:
"34. Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, when relevant.--
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 15 of 28 1[Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
31. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that entries in books of account regularly maintained by the plaintiff is not a conclusive piece of evidence and is to be corroborated with independent documentary evidence. In the absence of such documents, an adverse inference must be drawn in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBI v. VC Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731 while reiterating the settled position of law as laid down in V.C. Shukla (supra) held as under:
"279. It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla as to the value of entries in the books of account, that such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. It has been held that even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability."
32. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd., decided on 02.02.2022, reported as 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 18 discusses Section 34 IEA while taking help from landmark judgments. The relevant portion of Jay Ambe (supra) is reproduced below for easy reference:
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 16 of 28 "15) In Chandi Ram vs. Jamind Kanta Deka, reported in AIR 1952 Assam 92, the Assam High Court held that if a ledger is not supported by any Day-book or Roznama, it would not fulfill the requirement of Section 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot be regarded relevant under that section. In the opinion of the Assam High Court there is no daily opening or closing balance in the ledger accounts which is maintained in some other books and ledger can be prepared at any time.
Therefore, it cannot be regarded as relevant
16) In Hira Meher vs. Birbal Prasad Agarwal, reported in AIR 1958 Orissa 4, the Orissa High Court held that if the plaintiff relies on the entries in his credit ledger which he himself has scribed out, the plaintiff does not assert that the transaction on credit took place actually the credit register cannot be relied upon because there will be no corroboration of the entries made therein.
17) In Sohan Lal vs. Gulab Chand, reported in AIR 1966 Raj. 229, the Rajasthan High Court held that Bahi Khata is an account book if maintained in regular course of business and entries therein are not admissible if not supported by corresponding entries on Rokam or Nagal Behi.
18) In Zehna Sorabji vs. Mirabella Hoter Col. (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in AIR 1981 Bom 446, the Bombay High Court held that a ledger by itself cannot be a book of account of the character contemplated by Section 34 of the Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by the entries in the cash-book.
19) In Beni vs. Bisan Dayal, reported in AIR 1925 Nag. 445, the Nagpur High Court held that, the entries in the books of account by itself are not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless there is independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate.
20) The proposition laid down in the above referred CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 17 of 28 authorities about the admissibility of ledger without the corroborative evidence being led in support of the entries in the ledger cannot be disputed. It is well settled that a ledger, though an account book, has no evidentiary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence which, in other words, would mean that there must be corroboration of entries which corroboration can be supplied by proving the transaction or by proving the entries in the Daily cash book or Roznama. Without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, it is, therefore, to be seen, whether apart from the entries in the ledger, there was corroborative evidence in support of the entries in the ledger. This matter would largely depend on the facts of each case."
33. Applying the settled position of law to the facts of the present case, the ledger account Ex. PW1/4(colly) reflecting the business transactions between the parties is a unilateral document created and maintained by the plaintiff. Mere invocation of entries in the ledger account statement without any bank account statement or any independent bank witness as per Section 34 IEA does not create any entitlement in favour of the Plaintiff. (See VC Shukla (Supra); Gopal Krishna Ketkar v Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413; Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs. Praveen Kumar, 2025:DHC:8843-DB).
34. The plaintiff has also pleaded that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant made the part payment in three installments. In the aforesaid backdrop, it becomes necessary to examine whether the present suit is saved by any of the exceptions to the prescribed period of limitation, particularly under Sections 18 CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 18 of 28 and 19 of the LA, 1963, which provide for extension of limitation in cases of acknowledgment or part payment. Section 18 of the LA, 1963 provides for extension of limitation by way of written acknowledgement. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Technical Construction Company v. Engineering Project (India) Limited, decided on 15th March, 2024, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1924 discussed in detail on aspect of written acknowledgement vis- a-vis Section 18 of the LA, 1963 while relying upon the celebrated decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd, decided on 26.10.2004, reported as (2004) 12 SCC 360. The relevant paragraphs of the Technical Construction (supra) are extracted hereinbelow:
"22. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, reads:
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,--
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right, CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 19 of 28
(b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.
23. The above-mentioned provision clearly provides that if there is an express acknowledgement of liability in writing by the opposite party, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when acknowledgement was signed. The same has also been laid down by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India (supra), wherein it was held that that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are set out below:
"14. According to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of liability made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom such right is claimed made before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of such right has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement was so signed. It is well settled that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication.
15. The statement providing foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the acknowledgement must indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor. The intention to attempt such jural relationship must be apparent. However, such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words. A clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability can imply the intention to admit jural relationship of debtor and creditor. Though oral evidence in lieu of or making a departure from the statement sought to be relied on as acknowledgement is excluded but surrounding circumstances can always be considered. Courts generally lean in favour of a liberal construction of such statements though an acknowledgement shall not be inferred where there is no admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. So long as the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 20 of 28 relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from the person making the admission or that on an account being taken something may be found due and payable to the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom the statement is made."
35. Thus, it can be said that if there is an express written acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, a fresh period of limitation shall start from the time when such acknowledgment was signed. While strongly relying upon Food Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Technical Construction (supra) said that within the meaning of Section 18 of the LA, 1963, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by neccessary implication. The statement which provides foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the liability may not be indicated in words. The words as used in the acknowledgment must show that there is an existing jural relationship between the parties which can be implied by a clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability. Courts generally apply a liberal construction method of statutory interpretation in ascertaining whether an acknowledgement of debt results in extension of limitation under Section 18 of the LA, 1963.
36. The Court shall also discuss current judicial position with respect to part payment and its effect on limitation expressly provided under Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, decided CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 21 of 28 on 18.12.2019, reported as (2020) 2 SCC 677 discussed in detail while excerpting Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The relevant portion is provided as follows:
"12. Section 19 of the Limitation Act is as follows:
"19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.--Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made:
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section--
(a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;
(b) "debt" does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court."
15. Order 7 Rule 6 uses the words "the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed". The exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are based on certain facts and events. Section 19, with which we are concerned, provides for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain facts i.e. (i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, ( ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 22 of 28
16. We may notice the judgment of this Court dealing with Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was akin to present Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477, this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p. 479) "9. It would be clear, we think, from the language of Section 20, Limitation Act, that to attract its operations two conditions are essential : first, the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that it is the payment which really extends the period of limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act; but the payment has got to be proved in a particular way and for reason of policy the legislature insists on a written or signed acknowledgment as the only proof of payment and excludes oral testimony. Unless, therefore, there is acknowledgment in the required form, the payment by itself is of no avail. The Subordinate Judge, however, is right in holding that while the section requires that the payment should be made within the period of limitation, it does not require that the acknowledgment should also be made within that period. To interpret the proviso in that way would be to import into it certain words which do not occur there. This is the view taken by almost all the High Courts in India and to us it seems to be a proper view to take. (See Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi [Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi, 1937 SCC OnLine Cal 20 : AIR 1937 Cal 284 : ILR (1937) 2 Cal 137] ; Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai [Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai, 1932 SCC OnLine All 265 : ILR (1933) 55 All 280] , Venkata Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram [Venkata Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram, ILR (1894) 17 Mad 92] , Ram Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu [Ram CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 23 of 28 Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu, 1922 SCC OnLine MP 10 :
AIR 1923 Nag 117] and Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram Saraf [Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram Saraf, 1933 SCC OnLine Bom 3 :
ILR (1933) 57 Bom 453] .)
10. ... If the plaintiff's right of action is apparently barred under the statute of limitation, Order 7 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code makes it his duty to state specifically in the plaint the grounds of exemption allowed by the Limitation Act, upon which he relies to exclude its operation; and if the plaintiff has got to allege in his plaint the facts which entitle him to exemption, obviously these facts must be in existence at or before the time when the plaint is filed; facts which come into existence after the filing of the plaint cannot be called in aid to revive a right of action which was dead at the date of the suit. To claim exemption under Section 20, Limitation Act the plaintiff must be in a position to allege and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a debt or part-payment of the principal, but that such payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner contemplated by that section."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, decided on 17.10.1951, reported as AIR 1951 SC 477, gave two essentials for a part payment to come under Section 19 of the LA, 1963 which are as follows:
(i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 24 of 28
(ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
38. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal (supra) held that the part payment for extension of limitation is to be proved in only by a written or signed acknowledgment and not by oral testimony. Unless there is a written acknowledgment in the required form, the payment by itself is of no avail.
39. Hence, in view of Section 19 of LA, 1963, the new limitation period begins from the time of payment for a debt or interest on a legacy only if the payment is made before the original period expired. The payment is required to be made by the person liable to pay or duly authorised agent. A plaintiff can claim exemption only when there was a payment of interest on a debt or part-payment of the principle along with an acknowledgment in writing by the person making the payment.
40. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has failed to place on record any written acknowledgment of debt/liability under Section 18 of the LA, 1963 or any proof of part-payment made within three years period of limitation under Section. Though it is noted that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants have made payments amounting to Rs.60 lacs in the year 2022, however, such payments were made after the expiry of the limitation period and cannot revive a time-barred debt for the CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 25 of 28 purpose of filing a suit. The said payments also do not constitute a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, as the same were not made within the subsisting period of limitation.
41. Thus, even though the testimony of PW-1 has remained unrebutted and the documents have been placed on record, the claim of the plaintiff is hit by bar of limitation. It is a settled principle of law that limitation goes to the root of the matter and even an unrebutted claim cannot be decreed if it is barred by limitation.
42. The PW1/plaintiff has relied upon Nine invoices/bills Ex. PW1/3 colly, showing the delivery of goods to the defendant. The perusal of Ex. PW1/3 also shows that the said bills are also unilateral documents of the plaintiff and does not bear any receipt/seal/signature or not countersigned, by the defendants. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/5 is merely a supportive document of the electronic record i.e. statement of account Ex. PW1/4. The legal notice Ex.PW1/5, only show that a demand was raised by the plaintiff and do not constitute any proof of liability of the defendant.
43. There is no delivery challan, receipt, acknowledgment, or any document establishing the delivery of goods by the plaintiff to the defendants. Moreover, no acknowledgment of liability by the defendants has been proved on record at any point of time. The bills E.x PW1/3(colly) and statement of account Ex. PW1/4 are the CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 26 of 28 unilateral document of the plaintiff.
44. It is a settled legal principle that a party relying solely on unilateral documents must demonstrate their credibility and relevance beyond personal assertion and reliance on self-serving entries without third-party or independent evidence is not sufficient to establish a claim.
45. In the present case, the plaintiff's ledger entries Ex. PW1/4 and bills Ex. PW1/3(colly) are self-generated and are not coupled with the documents proving the delivery of goods. The plaintiff's testimony, though unchallenged due to absence of the defendants, does not by itself elevate the unilateral documents to the level of evidence required to establish the entire cause of action beyond doubt. In the absence of independent corroboration, this Court cannot safely rely on the plaintiff's lone assertions to decree a substantive recovery of money. The reliance on unilateral entries Ex. PW1/4 in the absence of any other supporting documents/bank statements does not form a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
46. In view of the above, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case strictly on the basis of credible, independent, and corroborated evidence. The plaintiff has failed to establish the delivery of goods. The unilateral nature of the documents Ex. PW1/3(colly) and statement of account Ex. PW1/4 relied upon by the plaintiff, without supporting documents, proved as per law, renders the evidence insufficient. The plaintiff has failed to prove CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company Page 27 of 28 his case by way of by preponderance of probabilities. Resultantly, the plaintiff has failed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the delivery of goods to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any recovery against the defendant. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.4
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the decretal amount ? If Yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
47. The entitlement to interest is consequential to the principal claim. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the principal liability, the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest, pendente lite or future. Accordingly, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5 Relief:
48. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prove its claim by cogent evidence. Plaintiff is left to bear the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
49. File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today on this 17th day of April, 2026 ( Devender Kumar Jangala ) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 Digitally signed by DEVENDER DEVENDER North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
KUMAR KUMAR JANGALA
Date: 2026.04.24
17.04.2026
JANGALA 15:30:59 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.49/20 M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Vs. M/s L and G Engineering Company
Page 28 of 28