Delhi District Court
M/S Shirdi Sales Corporation vs M/S 123 Ply on 24 April, 2014
In the court of Ms. Ina Malhotra, District & Sessions Judge
South East : Saket Courts, New Delhi
RCA No. 19/14
M/s Shirdi Sales Corporation
Through its Proprietor Sh. Ghanshyam Rathore
B55A, Main Mangal Bazar Road
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 110062.
.... Appellant
V E R S U S
M/s 123 Ply
Through its Proprietor Mr. Vijay Garg
Having its office at :
Z42, Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseII
New Delhi - 110020.
....... Respondent
Appeal presented on : 10.03.2014
Arguments concluded on : 24.04.2014
Judgment on : 24.04.2014
J U D G M E N T
This appeal impugns the order and judgment of the Ld. Trial Court whereby the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,89,665/ was decreed in their favour against the appellant. The respondent has filed a summary suit under Order 37 CPC for recovering the aforesaid amount on the basis of having supplied wooden raw material to the defendant. It is stated that the RCA No. 19/14 M/s Shirdi Sales V. M/s 123 Ply Page...1 of 4 appellant made payments through cheque as well as vide cash from time to time. In the year 2012, the appellant issued four cheques against invoice/bills raised by the respondent. It is stated that after having made the payment in cash, the appellant requested the respondent to return the four cheques but the respondent failed to do so and filed the suit for recovery.
2. On issuance of summons for judgment, the appellant herein filed his application seeking leave to defend the suit. An appraisal of the same reflects that no triable issue had been raised by the appellant. In the leave to defend application, the appellant has stated that the goods supplied were not genuine and the respondent/plaintiff failed to replace the same.
3. Given the facts of the case, I find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court in declining the appellant's prayer for leave to defend. It has been correctly opined that the defence raised was a sham one and did not raise any real issue. Though the defendant had issued cheques for higher amount, the plaintiff/respondent limited his claim only to Rs. 1,18,605/ on the basis of the statement of account maintained by them. It is also noticed that the grounds taken by the appellant in the appeal are RCA No. 19/14 M/s Shirdi Sales V. M/s 123 Ply Page...2 of 4 completely divergent to the grounds taken in the leave to defend application. While in the leave to defend application the defendant has taken the plea that the goods were defective, in the appeal, the appellant submits that the entire payment has been made and the respondent/plaintiff has merely failed to return the cheques. There is nothing on record to substantiate either of the grounds raised. In any event, based on the acknowledgment of liability by way of issuance of cheques, the material supplied by the plaintiff, if defective, would give rise to his filing a separate suit. There is no document to substantiate that the material was defective, neither can any reliance being made on the appellant's ledger maintained by themselves to show that the payment had been made by them to the respondent.
4. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court. Appeal is being dismissed inlimini.
5. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced.
(Ina Malhotra) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi 24.04.2014 RCA No. 19/14 M/s Shirdi Sales V. M/s 123 Ply Page...3 of 4 RCA No. 19/14 Present : Counsel for the appellant Vide my separate Judgment, the appeal is dismissed in terms thereof. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court.
Appeal be consigned to Record Room.
(Ina Malhotra) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi 24.04.2014 RCA No. 19/14 M/s Shirdi Sales V. M/s 123 Ply Page...4 of 4