Delhi District Court
Different Counts vs M/S Knitcraft Apparels International ... on 9 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. : 2871/2024
In the matter of :
DIFFERENT COUNTS
Regd Office:
Pocket A-8/58, Ground Floor,
Kalkaji Extension
New Delhi-110019
Through Its Proprietor:
Mrs. Anju Gaur
Mob. 9811083881
Email: [email protected]
Also At:
Ta-la, Tughlakabad Extension
Okhla Main Road,
New Delhi-110 019
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD
N-49, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
Also at:
490/491, Phase -III,
Udyog Vihar, Gurugram-122016
Through its Director
Mr. Sanjay Khurana
.....Defendant
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 1 of 26
DIFFERENT COUNTS vs
M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
Date of e-filing : 03.06.2024
Date of Institution : 12.07.2024
Date when final arguments concluded : 31.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 09.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit of the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 21,31,927.03 along with pendente-lite and future interest.
PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a sole proprietorship firm and Ms. Anju Gaur is its sole proprietor. Plaintiff is running its business from its offices at Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi (registered office) and Tughlakabad Extension. It is involved in the business of supply of cloth material, fabrics, textile products etc.
3. It is submitted that defendant no. 1 is a private limited company and defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its Directors. Defendants purchased fabric material from the plaintiff on credit basis. Against the said purchases, the plaintiff raised several invoices. The fabric products were delivered to the defendants as per their requirement against the due acknowledgment vide Delivery Notes. The purchases made by the defendants and the fabric material delivered to them was to their utmost satisfaction.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 2 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
4. Plaintiff has relied upon 23 invoices along with Delivery Notes for the period from 01.04.2019 to 07.03.2020. It is submitted that as per the ledger account maintained by it in respect of the transactions with the defendant company, a total amount of Rs. 11,62,168/- is due towards the defendants. Plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 24% per annum for the period from 01.12.2020 till the filing of the present suit. The total amount claimed by the plaintiff is Rs. 21,31,927/-. Further, pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum has also been claimed by the plaintiff.
5. It is noted that initially the present suit was filed against four defendants. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors of defendant no.1 company. Vide Order dated 04.04.2025, defendant nos. 2 to 4 were deleted from the array of parties.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
6. The contention of the defendant is that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It is submitted that the defendants' office cum factory is located in Gurugram. Transactions with the plaintiff were also being handled from Gurugram. Meetings with the plaintiff and defendants as also the delivery of goods also took place in Gurugram.
7. It is further submitted that there is no binding contract between the parties. Further, present suit is barred by limitation.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 3 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
It is also submitted that the affidavit in support of the plaint and statement of truth have not been sworn by a duly authorized person and the plaint has not been properly verified.
8. It is submitted that believing the representation of the plaintiff, defendants agreed to avail the services from the plaintiff and it was made clear that the quality of goods should be free from any defect and charges should be competitive. However, it turned out that plaintiff did not have proper infrastructure to provide the said services which resulted into very poor and defective goods. Because of repeated delays in supply by the plaintiff, shipments of the defendants got delayed and the defendants suffered losses. Plaintiff was also in the habit of raising inflated and exaggerated bills.
9. It is submitted that the purchases made by the defendants and the fabric material delivered to it by the plaintiff were not to the satisfaction of the defendants. Invoices raised by the plaintiff and the delivery notes have also been denied.
10. Contention of the defendants is that there is no outstanding amount against the defendants and all the due amount have been paid. The ledger account of the plaintiff has also been denied. The defendants have also denied that it received the fabrics and acknowledged the said invoices and delivery notes.
11. The defendants have denied all the averments of the plaintiff and has prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 4 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
REPLICATION
12. In the replication, the plaintiff has denied the contention of the defendants and has reiterated its stand in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff's registered office is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and contract between the parties was entered into within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that the invoices, delivery of goods and part performance of the contract constitutes a valid and binding contract between the parties. It is also submitted that the present suit is within the limitation period.
13. At this stage, I would also refer to rejoinder of the plaintiff to its application u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this rejoinder, it has been averred that the time spent in prosecuting the previous suit filed on 10.10.2022 and withdrawn on 06.01.2024 with permission of the Court must be excluded while computing the limitation period. Further, the period spent in pre- institution mediation proceedings from 19.01.2024 till 27.03.2024 is also liable to be excluded. Plaintiff has also relied upon Orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 wherein the period of limitation was suspended from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.
ISSUES
14. On completion of pleadings, vide Order dated 04.04.2025, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor :
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 5 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 21,31,927/- against the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Whether the present suit is filed within limitation or not? OPD
4. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
15. Plaintiff examined two witnesses in her favour. Sh. Anil Gaur (husband of the plaintiff) was examined as PW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon various documents. Invoices and Delivery Notes are Ex.PW1/1 (colly). The ledger Account Statement is Ex.PW1/2. Certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex.PW1/3.
16. Sh. Vijay Kumar Rana, Accountant for the plaintiff company was examined as PW2. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW2/A. He proved copy of legal demand notice dated 10.01.2022 along with courier receipts issued to defendant as Ex.PW2/1 (colly).
17. Plaintiff closed its PE on 05.06.2025.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 6 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
18. Defendant preferred not to lead any evidence in its favour.
DE was closed on 19.07.2025.
19. I have heard the detailed final arguments on behalf of both the parties and have perused the record carefully including the written submissions and as well as case laws relied upon by them.
DISCUSSION
20. During the course of arguments, plaintiff has relied upon the following case laws:
(i) Union of India & Ors Vs.West Coast Paper Mills Ltd (2004) 3 SCC 458;
(ii) Hema Khattar & Anr. Vs. Shiv Khera (2017) 7 SCC 716;
(iii) Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 169;
(iv) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd Vs. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr (2021) 6 SCC 366.
21. During the course of arguments, Defendant has relied upon the following case laws:
(i) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt Ltd (2021) 5 SCC 738;
(ii) State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC 1 which is a service matter and wherein it CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 7 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
has been held that section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit, appeal or application instituted after the prescribed "period of limitation" must subject to the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defense.
(iii) HT Media Limited Vs. Brainlink International, Inc. 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5398 wherein it was held that it is thus, more than apparent that the conditions that prevailed due to the pandemic did not actually impact the defendants to prevent them from interacting with their counsel and filing appropriate applications and replies before this court. To that extent, the orders of the Supreme Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
(iv) Brainlink International, Inc. Vs. HT Media Limited 2022 SCC OnLine SC 980 wherein the above judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
22. My issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE No.1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 21,31,927/- against the defendant? OPP
23. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
24. The plaintiff has placed on record 23 invoices. The respective delivery notes in support of 21 invoices have also been placed on record. These invoices with delivery notes are CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 8 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. The tax invoice bearing no. GST/0288/19-20 dated 08.06.2019 regarding goods worth Rs. 525/- and tax invoice bearing no. GST/0555/19-20 dated 20.11.2019 regarding goods worth Rs. 1,050/-have been filed without delivery notes. However, the delivery note number has been specifically mentioned on them. These two invoices also bear the stamp of the defendant along with quantity and date and initial of the Security Guard of the defendant. It is noted that on all the invoices, the purchase Order number under the column of 'Buyer's Order no.' has also been mentioned. In view of such invoices and delivery notes with receiving of the defendant no. 1 company, the Court is convinced that non filing of the purchase orders by the plaintiff is not fatal to her case.
25. All the delivery notes bear the stamp of the defendant with receiving, initials and date as well as quantity of the goods received by the defendant. The word 'OK' is also mentioned along with the endorsement on the delivery notes. The ledger (Ex.PW1/2) maintained by the plaintiff for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 reflects the 23 invoices and 7 credit notes. As per this ledger account, the last payment was made by the defendant on 24.12.2020 leaving a balance of Rs. 11,62,168/- outstanding against the defendant.
26. The contention of the defendant is that the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff was incorrect. Defendant, however, has not brought anything on record to show how the ledger CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 9 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
account of the plaintiff is erroneous. Defendant has also preferred not to lead any evidence or prove its own ledger account regarding transactions with the plaintiff. No doubt, PW2, Accountant in the plaintiff proprietorship concern has deposed that delivery note is also entered in the ledger account and that they are not so entered in Ex.PW1/2 but the defendant has failed to convince the Court as to how does non mentioning of delivery notes in the ledger maintained by the plaintiff affects the case of the plaintiff when original delivery notes have been produced and proved by the plaintiff.
27. It is noted that during the cross-examination of PW1, the complete ledger of the plaintiff for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2022 was put to him by Ld. Counsel for the defendants and attention of the witness was drawn to certain entries. This document should have been exhibited but it was not. It is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX1. Referring to this ledger, PW1 was shown following entries dated:
(i) 28.08.2018 (payment of Rs. 2,01,253/- received from defendant no.1),
(ii) 05.12.2018 (credit note worth Rs. 1,49,706/- shown under the column of credit by the plaintiff),
(iii) 07.12.2018 (payment in sum of Rs. 5,29,428/-
received from defendant no.1), CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 10 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
(iv) 19.06.2019 (sale of goods worth Rs. 98,897/-; the entry dated 17.06.2019 shows receipt of an amount of Rs. 5,02,080/- from the defendant no.1),
(v) 29.08.2019 (payment in sum of Rs. 2,73,462/- received from defendant no.1),
(vi) 14.01.2020 (payment in sum of Rs. 3,99,226/- received from defendant no. 1),
(vii) 23.01.2020 (payment in sum of Rs. 2,37,817/- received from defendant no.1),
(viii) 14.02.2020 (5 credit notes worth Rs. 41,934/-, Rs. 960/-, Rs. 1292/-, Rs. 3100/-, Rs. 6254/- shown under the credit column), and
(ix) 31.03.2020 (credit note entry in sum of Rs. 11,492/-).
Upon the specific query of Ld. counsel for defendants in respect of the above mentioned entries, PW1 explained that these payments were not made on bill to bill basis. Defendant did not point out or put any discrepancy in that ledger to the witness. Defendant, thus, failed to disprove this ledger.
28. During his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he had shared the ledger account with the defendant many times and he could produce the documentary evidence in support of the same, if required. Defendant preferred not to challenge PW2 to produce such documentary proof.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 11 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
29. PW2 also relied upon copy of Legal Demand Notice dated 10.01.2022. In his affidavit in evidence (Ex.PW2/A), he has asserted that as per the record of plaintiff firm, this Legal Notice was issued to the defendant. He has not been cross-examined on this point by the defendant. Defendant cannot now claim that no demand towards outstanding amount was ever raised by the plaintiff.
30. In the WS, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff did not have proper infrastructure to provide the requisite services. Its goods were of poor and defective and that there were repeated delays in supply by the plaintiff because of which the defendant suffered losses. No evidence at all has been produced by the defendant in support of these contentions. The defendant has not specified as to what steps were taken by it for redressal of its grievance against the plaintiff. It has also not been specified if the defendant ever raised this issue with the plaintiff and in what manner and whether the defendant ever returned the goods to the plaintiff because of the quality issues. Defendant has also not explained how the bills raised by the plaintiff were inflated and exaggerated. The defendants have also withheld their own ledger account maintained by them in respect of the transactions with the plaintiff even though they were in business from the year 2018.
31. It is interesting to note that while in the written statement, the defendant has baldly denied the invoices and the delivery CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 12 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
notes, in its affidavit of admission/denial filed on 09.10.2024, it has admitted the delivery notes but has denied their contents. While the final arguments in the present case were in progress, the defendant filed an application for withdrawal / rectification of its affidavit of admission/denial and for permission to file a fresh rectified affidavit claiming that admission of delivery notes was an inadvertent error. Vide Order dated 27.01.2026, the application of the defendant to carry out such modification in its affidavit in evidence was dismissed. Thus, as per the affidavit of admission/ denial on record, the existence of the delivery notes has not been denied but their contents have been denied.
32. It was upon the defendant to prove on what basis has it denied the contents of the delivery notes while admitting their existence. Defendant has also not shown as to if the Delivery Note in question were never issued, how did its stamp, receiving and endorsement came to be affixed on them. No evidence has been led to show that the stamp of the defendant company and its endorsements / receiving mentioned thereon are incorrect or fabricated. In these circumstances, the bald denial of invoices and delivery notes by the defendant in its written statement does not help its defence. The Court does not find any ground to doubt the Delivery Notes proved by the plaintiff.
33. Another contention of the defendant is regarding territorial jurisdiction. Various tax invoices bearing the receivings / CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 13 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
endorsements of the defendant categorically mention that it was subject to Delhi jurisdiction only.
34. In his affidavit in evidence, PW1 has specifically mentioned that the defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of goods at its Kalkaji Extension address. The proposal was also accepted there. The delivery notes show that the goods were supplied from Tughlakabad address of the plaintiff to Udyog Vihar, Gurugram address of the defendant. PW1 has not been cross examined on the above said assertions. There is not even a suggestion in the cross-examination of PW1 to the effect that the defendant did not approach the plaintiff at Kalkaji Extension or that its proposal was not accepted by the plaintiff there or that the goods were not supplied from Tughlakabad address of the plaintiff. Since part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has the jurisdiction to try the present case.
35. Next contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff herself has not entered into the witness box and her husband Sh. Anil Gaur has deposed on her behalf without any authority letter.
36. In his affidavit in evidence (Ex.PW1/A), PW1 has deposed that he was the husband of the sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm and was actively managing the day to day affairs and operations of the plaintiff firm. He has further deposed that he was fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 14 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
During his cross-examination, he has deposed about the business of the plaintiff firm as follows:
"The Plaintiff Firm is engaged in the business of Textile Trading. The business module of the firm is that we buy from the manufactures and sell it to the buyers. We keep stock of goods for further sale. We have our Quality Control Team who does inhouse quality checks before buying & before selling. We purchase goods from allover India. I have business dealings with the Defendant since 2017-2018. Yes its is correct that the Defendant Company used to issue purchase orders. I have not placed any purchase order on record but purchase order number has been mentioned on the invoices that are placed on record."
37. The above reproduced cross-examination as also the entire testimony of PW1 confirms that he has personal knowledge of the business between the plaintiff and the defendant company.
38. In Judgment dated 18.06.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP(C) No. 154 of 2024 titled as Smitha Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors., it has been held as follows:
"7. Sec.118 of the Evidence Act declares that all persons are competent witnesses, while Sec.120 deals with the spousal competency of one spouse to testify for a litigant spouse in civil and criminal proceedings. Section 120 reads thus:
"120. Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands - husband or wife of person under criminal trial In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 15 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
person, respectively, shall be a competent witness."
8. On a careful reading of the above provision, it is clear that a non-litigating spouse is a competent witness for the other spouse who litigates. The expression competency of witness refers to the capacity, ability or qualification to give evidence in the Court of Law. Section 120 permits the husband to give evidence in place and instead of his wife and vice versa even in the absence of a written authority or power of attorney. Such a witness is entitled to depose not only the facts within his/her knowledge but also within the knowledge of his/her spouse.
For the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the trial court in the impugned order that the husband cannot give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff/wife and that he can only be cited and examined as the plaintiff's witness cannot be justified. The trial court passed the impugned order without adverting to Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, it is set aside. Ext.P1 stands allowed. The original petition is disposed of."
39. I shall also refer to Judgment dated 26.08.2025 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. of 2025 titled as Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. Vs. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors., it has been reiterated that a proprietary concern is only a business name and that Order XXX Rule 10 CPC is merely enabling, the real party being the proprietor. The proprietor remains the real party in interest.
40. On reading both the above mentioned judgments together, PW1 being the husband of Ms. Anju Gaur (plaintiff) was competent to depose on her behalf specially when he has CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 16 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
categorically asserted that he had personal knowledge of the transactions with the defendants and this assertion could not be disproved during his cross-examination.
41. Now I shall consider the contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendants that the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of the plaintiff is deficient and, therefore, the electronic record/ print outs of invoices and ledger are not admissible.
42. Reliance has been placed upon Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908 wherein the law laid down in Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors (2014) 10 SCC 473 was re-affirmed. On the basis of these case laws, Ld. counsel for defendants has argued that in the present case, the plaintiff has not mentioned particulars / identification of device. It has not been signed by any authorized person. It has also not been described in what manner the electronic record was produced.
43. The perusal of the certificate u/s 65B in terms of Order 11 Rule 6(3) CPC shows that it has been filed by Sh. Anil Gaur (husband of proprietor of the plaintiff concern) who has deposed on behalf of the plaintiff as PW1 and is well conversant with the facts of the case. It has already been discussed above how this witness has personal knowledge of the facts pertaining to the transactions between the parties. The certificate has, therefore, been signed by a person occupying responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. The electronic CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 17 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
records in support of which this certificate has been filed has been specifically identified as Ex.PW1/1 (colly) (delivery notes and tax invoices) and Ex.PW1/2 (ledger of the relevant period). In clause 4 of the certificate, manner in which electronic record was produced has been mentioned. It is specifically affirmed that electronic records were opened and seen on the LG computer at the office of the Plaintiff which is the original source of the said records. It has also been affirmed in clause 6 that print out of the said records have been taken through a printer (HP LAZER JET M1136 MFP) kept in the office of the plaintiff. Further, PW1 has not been cross examined in respect of the assertions made by him in the certificate Ex.PW1/3. There are no grounds to reject this certificate.
44. In view of above discussion, the plaintiff has proved his case that he is entitled to recovery of the principal amount in sum of Rs. 11,62,168/- (as on 24.12.2020) against the defendant company.
45. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 33. Whether the present suit is filed within limitation or not? OPD
46. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 18 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
47. In the written statement, the defendant has not explained as to on what basis the ground of limitation has been taken.
48. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that vide Order dated 06.01.2024, even though the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw its previous suit bearing CS(COMM) No. 1004/2022 filed in the Court of Ld. DJ (COMM)-01, South-East District, Saket Courts on the same cause of action against the defendant with liberty to file afresh as per rules, benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be granted to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff himself had not shown any due diligence at the time of filing of the previous suit. It was also argued that section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 pertains only to jurisdictional issue or issue of similar nature.
49. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as follows:
"14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.--(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 19 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
--
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction."
50. Copy of the previous plaint filed in CS(COMM) 1004/2022 would show that it was erroneously averred that plaintiff was a private limited company duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and that the said civil suit had been filed through its Director Sh. Anil Gaur. Plaintiff is, in fact, a proprietorship concern of Ms. Anju Gaur. Vide Order dated 06.01.2024, plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the said suit on technical ground. Original documents along with plaint were also directed to be returned along with Court fee.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 20 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
51. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's case (supra) in which the issue of limitation in respect of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was considered. It was held that there is a distinction between jurisdictional and admissibility issues. An issue of "jurisdiction" pertains to the power and authority of the arbitrators to hear and decide a case. Jurisdictional issues include objections to the competence of the arbitrator or tribunal to hear a dispute, such as a lack of consent, or a dispute falling outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. In light of the subject matter of controversy before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India pertaining to appointment of Arbitrator, the facts of this judgment do not apply to the present case.
52. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd & Anr (III) (supra) relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:
"14. .
.
.
"6. (1) both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party; (2) the prior proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and a in good faith; (3) the failure of the prior proceedings was due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature; (4) both the proceedings are proceedings in a court."
In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, filing of civil writ petition claiming money relief cannot be said to be a proceeding instituted in good faith and secondly, dismissal of writ petition on the ground that it was not an appropriate CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 21 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
remedy for seeking money relief cannot be said to be "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature" within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the writ petition was not dismissed by the High Court on the ground of defect of jurisdiction. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. The expression "other cause of like nature" came up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberor and it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so d called but others more or less neighbours to such deficiencies. Any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the court of the dispute on the merits comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has a right."
53. In the above mentioned case law, it was the contention of the appellant that the period during which the civil writ petition remained pending for the identical relief based on the same cause of action but which came to be dismissed by Hon'ble High Court forming an opinion that civil suit was an appropriate remedy, was liable to be excluded from calculation u/s 14 of the Limitation Act.
54. In the present case, the cause of action between the parties was same. The copy of reply of the plaintiff to defendant's application u/O 7 R 11 CPC in the said previous suit would show that the plaintiff intended to amend the previous suit in light of the technical flaw related to the status of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit and file it afresh.
CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 22 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
There is nothing to suggest that the previous suit was not being pursued in good faith. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in West Coast Paper Mill's case, section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application and is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. It has also been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but others more or less neighbors to such deficiencies. A liberal interpretation of the Limitation Act has also been reiterated.
55. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. Still PW1 has not been cross-examined by the defendant on this issue, specifically, on the point of due diligence and good faith.
56. In view of above discussion and taking a liberal approach as mandated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in West Coast Paper Mills' case, the Court is convinced that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the present case.
57. As per the ledgers (Ex.PW1/DX1 and Ex.PW1/2), the last payment was made by the defendant on 24.12.2020. Even though the ledger maintained by the plaintiff is a running account, it is not a mutual account as envisaged in Article 1 of the Schedule of CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 23 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, Article 113 of the Schedule would apply in the present case which provides as follows:
PART X. -- SUITS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED PERIOD Description of suit Period of Time from which period limitation begins to run
113. Any suit for Three years. When the right to sue which no accrues.
period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule.
The period of limitation shall, thus, commence at least from 24.12.2020. The contention of the defendant that every bill/ invoice is a separate cause of action and limitation period for every invoice should be calculated from the date of invoice is without merits. There is nothing to show that payments were being made invoice wise.
58. In light of the last payment made on 24.12.2020 by the defendant, present suit should have been filed by 24.12.2023. It has been filed on 12.07.2024. In terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time spent by the plaintiff in pursuing the previous litigation from 10.10.2022 to 06.01.2024 shall be excluded. The time spent in pre-institution mediation proceedings from 19.01.2024 to 27.03.2024 would also be excluded. The CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 24 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
present suit has, therefore, been filed within the period of limitation.
59. The issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 2:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
60. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
61. Since issue nos. 1 and 3 have been decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to interest for the period from 24.12.2020 when the last payment was made by the defendant till the date of filing of the present suit and also pendente lite and future interest. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 11,62,168/-. This rate of interest is on a higher side. It would be suffice if interest @ 12% per annum is granted in favour of the plaintiff on the abovesaid amount. The plaintiff is, thus, entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 11,62,168/- for the period from 24.12.2020 till filing of the present suit and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realisation of the decretal amount.
62. The issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 25 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
63. In view of the above discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant in sum of Rs. 11,62,168/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty Eight Only) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. for the period from 24.12.2020 till filing of the present suit and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realisation of the decretal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
58. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
59. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 th DAY OF MARCH 2026. Digitally signed by VRINDA VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date:
2026.03.09 16:50:12 +0530 (VRINDA KUMARI) District Judge(Commercial Courts)-03, SED/Saket Courts/ New Delhi (bs) CS (COMM) 2871/2024 09.03.2026 Page no. 26 of 26 DIFFERENT COUNTS vs M/S KNITCRAFT APPARELS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.