Delhi District Court
M/S Excelsior Crafts vs M/S Jai Mata Di Enterprises on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 07/2024
CNR No: DLSW01-000230-2024
M/S EXCELSIOR CRAFTS
Through its Proprietor
Ms. Anjali Khullar
Address : 2267, Sector-28,
Faridabad, Haryana. ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S JAI MATA DI ENTERPRISES
Through its Proprietor, Sh. Sanjay Tripathi
Office at : 205, Gali No. 7, Kapashera Border
New Delhi - 110037
Also at: H. No. CN - 89, Village Rajokri,
New Delhi - 110038 ....RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.06.2024
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 04.03.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 28.03.2025
APPEAL UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2022 PASSED BY LD.
CIVIL JUDGE-03, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI IN CS SCJ NO. 27605/2016 TITLED "M/S JAI MATA DI
ENTERPRISES VS. M/S EXCELSIOR CRAFTS"
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 1 of 27
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2022 (hereinafter the "Impugned Judgment") rendered by the Ld. Civil Judge-03, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (hereinafter the "Ld. Trial Court") in Civil Suit No. CS SCJ 27605/2016. By the Impugned Judgment, the suit instituted by the Respondent (Plaintiff) seeking recovery of money was decreed against the Appellant (Defendant) for a sum of Rs. 1,36,634/- along with pendente lite and future interest calculated @ 8% per annum. Aggrieved thereof, the Appellant (Original Defendant) has preferred this appeal.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The factual matrix, as culled out from the pleadings and the Trial Court Record (TCR), is as follows:
a. Respondent/Plaintiff's Case: M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises, engaged in fabrication work, alleged that it performed work for the Appellant/Defendant, M/s Excelsior Crafts, on a credit basis. A sum of Rs. 1,36,634/- allegedly became due and payable, which the Appellant, despite acknowledging the liability after verifying bills/invoices (Ex. PW1/A Colly) and even after receiving a legal notice dated 04.08.2016 (Mark-A), failed to remit. The suit was filed seeking recovery of this principal amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 2 of 27 b. Appellant/Defendant's Defense: M/s Excelsior Crafts, through its proprietor Ms. Anjali Khullar, resisted the claim. The defense set up was that a specific verbal agreement was entered into at Faridabad for manufacturing 1250 leather wallets with specific "two-fold" design specifications, using raw materials supplied free of charge by the Appellant from its Faridabad office. It was contended that the Respondent breached the agreement by manufacturing wallets with an incorrect "three-fold" design and poor quality. Consequently, delivery was allegedly accepted under protest on revised terms (payment conditional upon resale). It was further pleaded that 445 defective wallets were returned to the Respondent on 18.10.2015, accompanied by a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- towards stitching charges. The Appellant denied any outstanding liability and fundamentally challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts.
c. Respondent/Plaintiff's Replication: The Respondent controverted the Appellant's defense, denying material collection from Faridabad (asserting collection from Pahladpur, Delhi), denying any breach of specifications or defective work (claiming 7-8 styles were approved), and denying acceptance under protest or any agreement for return linked to resale. An alternative narrative regarding the 445 wallets was presented (Respondent assisting Appellant in finding a buyer, which failed, leading to Respondent returning the wallets back to Appellant) and the Rs. 15,000/- cheque was asserted to be for a separate sampling order, unrelated to the main transaction or alleged returned goods.
TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND IMPUGNED FINDINGS RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 3 of 27
3. Upon completion of pleadings, the Ld. Trial Court framed issues concerning the Plaintiff's entitlement to the principal sum and interest (with the onus squarely on the Plaintiff - OPP).
4. The Respondent/Plaintiff led evidence by examining its proprietor, Sh. Sanjay Tripathi, as PW-1. He tendered his examination-in-chief vide affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon documents, notably the bills/invoices Ex. PW1/A (Colly), Photocopy of a legal notice marked as Mark - A and postal receipt Ex. PW1/C. PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by the Appellant's counsel.
5. Critically, the Appellant/Defendant failed to lead any evidence in support of its defense. Despite opportunities, no witness was examined nor was any documentary evidence tendered by the Appellant. Consequently, the Ld. Trial Court closed the Defendant's Evidence (DE) vide order dated 04.04.2022.
6. The Ld. Trial Court, in the Impugned Judgment, primarily reasoned as follows (Para 17):
"The testimony of PW1 has been duly corroborated from the documents placed on record. Documents Ex.PW-1/A which are the original bills prove the factum of business deal with the defendant and the amount due from the defendant. Defendant did not lead any evidence prove his defense despite various opportunities and hence it can be safely presumed that he had no defense to put forth."RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 4 of 27
7. Based on this reasoning - accepting PW-1's testimony as corroborated by Ex. PW1/A and drawing an adverse inference against the Appellant due to non-production of evidence - the Ld. Trial Court decreed the suit for the principal amount of Rs. 1,36,634/- with interest @ 8% p.a. SUBMISSIONS IN APPEAL
8. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the Impugned Judgment, reiterating the grounds mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal. The core arguments focus on:
a. Lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court; b. The suit being defective for non-joinder of necessary parties (Jalandhar Leather India Pvt. Ltd. and allegedly Ms. Anjali Khullar initially);
c. Failure of the Respondent to prove its case, emphasizing that Ex. PW1/A was addressed to Jalandhar Leather and mere exhibition doesn't constitute proof (relying on LIC of India & Anr. vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491);
d. Lack of credibility of PW-1 due to inconsistencies, particularly regarding the 445 wallets; and e. Suppression of material facts by the Respondent.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has vehemently defended the Impugned Judgment. It is argued that the closure of DE is fatal to the Appellant's case, leaving the Respondent's evidence unrebutted. Jurisdiction is asserted based on transactions occurring within Delhi. The RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 5 of 27 non-joinder argument is refuted. Regarding Ex. PW1/A (Colly), it is submitted that the copy addressed to Jalandhar Leather was merely marked 'CC' as per Appellant's request, and the primary liability rests with the Appellant. The Respondent also relies on the principle of deemed acceptance under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, given the lack of timely rejection.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN APPEAL
10. This Court frames the following issues for determination in this appeal:
(i) Whether the Ld. Trial Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?
(ii) Whether the suit suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties, rendering the decree liable to be set aside?
(iii) Whether the Ld. Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 and the documentary evidence Ex. PW1/A (Colly), and erred in holding that the Respondent/Plaintiff had successfully discharged the burden of proving its entitlement to the recovery of Rs. 1,36,634/-?
(iv) Whether the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2022 is liable to be set aside?RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 6 of 27
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ISSUE (I): WHETHER THE LD. TRIAL COURT HAD TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT?
11. The first substantial ground of challenge raised by the Appellant concerns the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court situated in South West District, Delhi. The Appellant vehemently contends that based on the location of its registered office in Faridabad, Haryana, and its assertion that the purported verbal agreement was entered into and the raw materials were collected by the Respondent from Faridabad, the Courts in South West District, Delhi lack the mandate to adjudicate this dispute. The Appellant, in its grounds of appeal, also seeks to draw inference from the bill allegedly addressed to Jalandhar to further argue against Delhi jurisdiction. Conversely, the Respondent maintains that the cause of action, at least in part, arose within Delhi, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Ld. Trial Court.
12. The determination of territorial jurisdiction in civil suits is primarily governed by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This provision stipulates that a suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:
a. the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 7 of 27 b. any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or c. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
13. In the present case, the Appellant's registered office is admittedly in Faridabad, Haryana. Therefore, jurisdiction under Section 20(a) or 20(b) CPC may not prima facie lie with the Delhi Courts based solely on the Defendant's location, although PW-1 did mention the Defendant carrying out business from Badarpur border, Delhi. However, the crucial aspect is Section 20(c) CPC - whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within Delhi. The term 'cause of action' comprises the bundle of essential facts which the plaintiff must prove to entitle him to a judgment. If any of these essential facts constituting the cause of action have occurred within the territorial limits of a court, that court would have jurisdiction.
14. To ascertain where the cause of action arose, partly or wholly, the Court must examine the pleadings and the evidence adduced.
15. The Respondent/Plaintiff pleaded and PW-1 testified that its business is situated in Kapashera, New Delhi. PW-1 further testified that the fabrication work (manufacturing of wallets) was carried out at his factory in Kapashera, Delhi. He also stated that the bills/invoices (Ex. PW1/A Colly), which bear his Kapashera address, were raised from Kapashera, Delhi. In his RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 8 of 27 cross-examination, PW-1 specifically denied collecting the raw materials from the Appellant's Faridabad address and asserted that materials were provided by the Defendant at their Badarpur border office in Delhi. While the Rejoinder mentioned collection from Pahladpur, Delhi, the consistent thread in the Respondent's pleadings and evidence is the denial of the Faridabad connection for material collection and the assertion of significant transactional elements occurring within Delhi specially in Kapashera.
16. Conversely, the Appellant, despite pleading that the agreement was made in Faridabad and materials collected therefrom, led absolutely no evidence to substantiate these assertions. The onus was on the Appellant to adduce evidence to prove the facts which, according to it, ousted the jurisdiction of the Ld. trial court, especially when the Respondent had made specific averments regarding the cause of action arising partly in Kapashera, Delhi. This failure to lead evidence critically undermines the Appellant's challenge to jurisdiction.
17. Evaluating the evidence on record, primarily the unrebutted testimony of PW-1, several integral parts of the transaction and therefore, parts of the cause of action, appear to have arisen within Delhi:
a. Performance of Contract: The fabrication work, which forms the core of the service provided, was testified to have been performed at the Respondent's factory in Kapashera, Delhi. Performance of the contract is widely recognized as giving rise to a part of the cause of action at the place of performance.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 9 of 27
b. Raising/Sending of Bills: The bills/invoices (Ex. PW1/A Colly) were raised from the Respondent's Kapashera address, constituting a demand for payment originating from Delhi.
c. Material Handling: PW-1's unrebutted testimony places the handling/provision of raw materials within Delhi (Badarpur), directly contradicting the Appellant's unproven Faridabad claim.
18. The Appellant's reference to a bill copy addressed to Jalandhar (Ground L) does not displace the jurisdiction established by other factors within Kapashera, Delhi. Firstly, the physical supply location wasn't testified to be Jalandhar. Secondly, even if one part of the transaction had a connection elsewhere, it does not negate the parts of the cause of action that arose within Kapashera, Delhi, which are sufficient under Section 20(c) CPC.
19. In light of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 indicating performance of work, raising of bills, and potentially the handling of materials within Delhi, coupled with the complete failure of the Appellant to lead any evidence substantiating its claim that the entire cause of action arose outside Kapashera, Delhi, this Court concludes that a significant part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court. The Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating the Ld. Trial Court's lack of jurisdiction.
20. Accordingly, Issue (i) is decided against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. The Ld. Trial Court correctly exercised territorial jurisdiction over the suit.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 10 of 27ISSUE (II): WHETHER THE SUIT WAS BAD FOR NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES, RENDERING THE DECREE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE?
21. The Appellant has vehemently urged that the suit filed by the Respondent was liable to be dismissed, and the ensuing decree is vitiated, due to the non-joinder of necessary parties. Specifically, the Appellant points towards (a) Jalandhar Leather India Pvt. Ltd. and (b) Ms. Anjali Khullar (alleging improper initial impleadment or confusion with Mr. Sandeep Khullar).
22. Before examining the specific contentions, it is pertinent to recall the relevant legal principles. Order 1 Rule 9 of the CPC mandates that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it, provided that the rule does not apply to the non-joinder of a necessary party.
23. A 'necessary party' is one whose presence is indispensable for the constitution of the suit, without whom no effective order can be passed, or whose presence is required for a complete and final adjudication of all questions involved in the suit. A 'proper party', on the other hand, is one whose presence is not essential but may be helpful for a complete adjudication.
24. Furthermore, Order 1 Rule 13 CPC requires objections regarding non-joinder or misjoinder to be taken at the earliest possible RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 11 of 27 opportunity, generally before the settlement of issues, failing which the objection is deemed waived, unless it pertains to the non-joinder of a necessary party which can be raised later.
Regarding Jalandhar Leather India Pvt. Ltd.:
25. The Appellant's argument rests primarily on the admission by PW-1 during cross-examination that a bill (forming part of Ex. PW1/A Colly) was addressed to Jalandhar Leather India Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar. The contention is that this makes Jalandhar Leather the principal debtor or, at minimum, a necessary party.
26. However, PW-1 immediately clarified in his testimony that this was done at the specific request of the Appellant/Defendant. Furthermore, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued before this Court that the document Ex. PW1/A (Colly) itself indicates that the copy sent to Jalandhar Leather was marked as 'CC' (Carbon Copy). This Court has verified this specific notation from the TCR and finds that the Jalandhar Leather has been marked as CC in the Bills/invoices Ex. PW1/A (Colly). If the primary invoice targeted the Appellant for services rendered, sending a 'CC' to another entity does not automatically shift the primary liability asserted by the Respondent against the Appellant. It is important to state here that Ex. PW1/A Colly consists of multiple bills. The one on the yellow colour page is a bill addressed to Jalandhar Leather whereas the bill on white colour page is clearly addressed to the Appellant with CC to Jalandhar Leather.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 12 of 2727. The fundamental dispute adjudicated by the Ld. Trial Court was whether the Appellant owed money to the Respondent for fabrication work performed. Could an effective decree determining this liability between the Appellant and Respondent be passed without Jalandhar Leather? The answer is clearly yes. Jalandhar Leather's presence was not indispensable for deciding if M/s Excelsior Crafts owed money to M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises for the work done. The bill, even if addressed partly or copied to Jalandhar Leather under specific circumstances explained by PW-1, serves as evidence supporting the quantum and factum of the transaction between the litigating parties. Therefore, Jalandhar Leather India Pvt. Ltd. cannot be classified as a 'necessary party' whose non-joinder would be fatal under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC.
Regarding Ms. Anjali Khullar / Mr. Sandeep Khullar:
28. The Appellant argues there was confusion regarding the proper defendant, suggesting Mr. Sandeep Khullar was wrongly targeted initially, or that Ms. Anjali Khullar, the actual proprietor, was not properly impleaded, and points to PW-1's uncertainty about the Defendant's constitution.
29. It is fundamental that a sole proprietorship concern like "M/s Excelsior Crafts" is not a distinct legal entity separate from its proprietor. A suit against the proprietorship concern is essentially a suit against the proprietor. The Trial Court Record reveals that the Written Statement was filed on behalf of "M/s Excelsior Crafts" by Ms. Anjali Khullar, who categorically stated therein that she is the sole proprietor. She actively defended the suit in that capacity, instructed counsel, and participated in the RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 13 of 27 proceedings until the stage of Defendant's Evidence. Therefore, the actual proprietor representing the Defendant firm was squarely before the Ld. Trial Court and had full opportunity to contest the claim.
30. PW-1's testimony mentioning dealings with both Mr. Sandeep Khullar (Appellant's husband) and Ms. Anjali Khullar, or his initial lack of clarity on the firm's constitution, does not negate the fact that the proprietorship concern was sued and defended by its admitted proprietor. Any initial ambiguity in describing the defendant entity or its representative, if any, is a procedural irregularity at best. Given that the admitted proprietor (Ms. Anjali Khullar) entered appearance, filed the defense, and contested the suit on behalf of the proprietorship concern, the entity was effectively represented before the Court. No prejudice appears to have been caused to the Appellant by any such alleged initial confusion. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the court has wide powers to correct misdescriptions. More importantly, the party defending the suit was the proprietorship acting through its owner.
Conclusion on Non-Joinder:
31. In view of the above, neither Jalandhar Leather India Pvt. Ltd. nor Ms. Anjali Khullar (whose participation cured any alleged initial defect regarding representation) can be deemed 'necessary parties' whose non-joinder renders the suit fatally defective under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. As held above, Ms. Anjali Khullar was before the Ld. Trial Court and has fully participated in the trial and has also put forward her defence. The Ld. Trial Court could effectively adjudicate the dispute regarding the liability of M/s RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 14 of 27 Excelsior Crafts towards M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises based on the parties before it.
32. Accordingly, Issue (ii) is decided against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. The suit is held not to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
ISSUE (III): WHETHER THE LD. TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, PARTICULARLY THE TESTIMONY OF PW-1 AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EX. PW1/A (COLLY), AND ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF HAD SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS ENTITLEMENT TO THE RECOVERY OF RS. 1,36,634/-?
33. This issue lies at the heart of the appeal and requires a meticulous examination of the evidence adduced before the Ld. Trial Court, weighed against the backdrop of established legal principles concerning burden of proof, standard of proof, and appreciation of evidence in civil trials. The Appellant contends that the Respondent/Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus placed upon it, primarily attacking the credibility of the sole witness PW-1 and the probative value of the documentary evidence, Ex. PW1/A (Colly).
Burden and Standard of Proof:
34. It is trite law that the initial burden of proof rests upon the party asserting a claim - in this instance, the Respondent/Plaintiff (as correctly RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 15 of 27 reflected by the 'OPP' notation on the issues framed by the Ld. Trial Court). The standard of proof required in civil proceedings is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but rather the preponderance of probabilities. The Court must determine whether, based on the evidence presented, the existence of the facts asserted by the Plaintiff is more probable than their non-existence. While the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case, the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Defendant is a significant factor in evaluating whether the Plaintiff has crossed the threshold of probability.
The Impact of Defendant's Failure to Lead Evidence:
35. The single most critical factor influencing the evidentiary landscape of this case is the Appellant/Defendant's complete failure to lead any evidence. As recorded by the Ld. Trial Court, DE was closed on 04.04.2022 due to non-appearance and non-production of evidence despite opportunities. The legal consequences are twofold:
a. Firstly, all factual assertions made by the Appellant in its Written Statement - concerning the specific terms of the verbal agreement, the alleged breach of specifications ("two-fold" vs "three-fold" design), the purported poor quality of goods, the alleged revised terms of acceptance, the return of 445 wallets for credit, and the Rs. 15,000/- cheque being for stitching charges - remain mere pleadings without any evidentiary support. They cannot be treated as proven facts. b. Secondly, the Court is entitled, under Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, to draw an adverse inference against the Appellant. The Court may presume that evidence which could be, but is not, RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 16 of 27 produced by a party, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the party who withholds it. In this context, the Appellant's failure to produce evidence regarding the alleged defects, return of goods, or the nature of the agreement strongly suggests that such evidence either did not exist or would not have supported its pleaded defense. This adverse inference substantially aids the Respondent's case, provided the Respondent established a prima facie case through its own evidence.
Evaluation of Plaintiff's Oral Evidence (PW-1 - Sh. Sanjay Tripathi):
36. PW-1, the proprietor of the Respondent firm, testified in line with the Plaint, asserting the performance of fabrication work (wallet manufacturing), the amount due (Rs. 1,36,634/-), non-payment despite demands, and the circumstances surrounding the legal notice. The Appellant vigorously attacks his credibility based on inconsistencies revealed during cross-examination.
37. This court recognizes the inconsistencies:
a. Regarding quantity (shifting from "no fixed quantity" to "1100-1200"
while denying "1250");
b. Regarding specifications (variance between Rejoinder and cross-examination on "two-fold/three-fold" terminology); c. Most notably, the narrative concerning the 445 wallets evolved across the Rejoinder, PW-1's cross-examination, and the Reply to this Appeal.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 17 of 27
38. While these inconsistencies reflect poorly on the witness's precision and perhaps consistency in recollection or presentation, the crucial question is whether they fatally undermine the core claim. The discrepancy in quantity does not negate the fact that substantial work (over 1100 wallets) was admittedly performed. The variance on specification terminology does not, by itself, prove the Appellant's specific claim of a breach leading to defects, especially when the Appellant offered no proof of such defects. The confusion surrounding the 445 wallets, while significant, ultimately does not support the Appellant's unproven defense that they were returned for credit. The Respondent's final consistent position across different narratives seems to be that it does not possess these wallets and they were eventually returned to the Appellant.
39. Therefore, despite the inconsistencies, PW-1's core testimony establishing the performance of substantial fabrication work, the raising of bills for a specific amount, and the non-receipt of payment stands largely unrebutted by any contrary evidence. The weaknesses identified, when viewed against the complete evidentiary vacuum from the Appellant, are not considered sufficient to discard his entire testimony regarding the existence of the debt on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Evaluation of Plaintiff's Documentary Evidence (Ex. PW1/A Colly - Bills/Invoices):
40. The Ld. Trial Court found that Ex. PW1/A (Colly) corroborates the testimony of PW-1 and therefore the business deal and the amount due is proved. The Appellant challenges this, citing the principle that mere RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 18 of 27 exhibition of documents is not proof of the same [LIC of India (supra)] and highlighting the Jalandhar Leather addressee on at least one bill copy discussed during cross-examination.
41. Ex. PW1/A (Colly) consists of the following:
a. Bill raised by the Respondent of Rs. 1,36,634/- on white paper addressed to the Appellant with CC to Jalandhar Leather. b. Bill raised by the Respondent of Rs. 1,36,634/- on yellow paper addressed to the Jalandhar Leather.
c. Material Issue Challans dated 12.09.2014, 16.09.2014, 01.10.2014 and 01.10.2014. The said challans are issued by the Appellant to the Respondent.
42. The Respondent sought to prove these documents through the testimony of PW-1, who identified them as the original bills raised by his firm for the work performed for the Appellant and the Challans issued by the Appellant to the Respondent for the supply of the raw material by the Appellant to the Respondent. This constitutes evidence under the Evidence Act linking the documents to the transaction and asserting their authenticity as business records generated by the Appellant and Respondent. Nothing has been brought on record by the Appellant to doubt the execution of Ex. PW-1/A(Colly). No question regarding the execution/authenticity of Ex. PW-1/A (Colly) was put to PW-1 in his cross examination. Moreover, no suggestion was given to PW-1 in his cross examination challenging the execution/authenticity of Ex. PW-1/A (Colly). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reliance placed by the Ld. RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 19 of 27 Trial Court on Ex. PW-1/A (Colly) for corroboration of the testimony of PW-1 is not improper.
43. The point of Jalandhar Addressee requires careful consideration. A bill primarily addressed to 'A' does not automatically fasten liability on 'B'. However, PW-1 provided an explanation under oath (Appellant's request), and the Respondent argued the document showed 'CC' notation. As Ex. PW1/A (Colly), when viewed as a whole (as exhibits often contain multiple related documents), contains the Bill which is directly addressed to the Appellant, and the 'CC' notation on the Jalandhar copy is evident, then the Trial Court's finding becomes significantly more robust.
44. Even if this specific copy containing Jalanadhar Leather as one of the addressee was ambiguous (which according to this Court, it is not ambiguous), the Ld. Trial Court, having the entire Ex. PW1/A (Colly) before it and hearing the unrebutted explanation from PW-1, was entitled to weigh this evidence. In the absence of any evidence from the Appellant disputing the quantum of work reflected in the bills or proving the transaction was exclusively with Jalandhar Leather, the Trial Court's reliance on Ex. PW1/A (Colly) as corroborative evidence of the amount due, despite the ambiguity highlighted on one part, cannot be termed perverse. It represents a plausible assessment of unrebutted evidence.
Conclusion on Ex. PW1/A (Colly):
45. While the documentary proof could have been clearer and the Trial Court's analysis more explicit on the Jalandhar addressee issue, RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 20 of 27 considering PW-1's testimony identifying and linking the bills to the Appellant and the complete lack of contradictory evidence, the finding that Ex. PW1/A (Colly) supports the Respondent's claim for the specified amount is upheld as a probable conclusion based on the record.
Addressing Specific Defenses vs. Evidence:
46. The Appellant pleaded specific defenses like defective goods, breach of specifications, return of 445 wallets for credit, and the Rs. 15k cheque being for stitching charges. The onus to prove these positive defenses, which could reduce or extinguish the Respondent's claim, lay squarely on the Appellant.
47. As established, the Appellant adduced zero evidence in support of any of these defenses. PW-1 denied the goods were defective and offered alternative explanations for the 445 wallets and the Rs. 15k cheque. In this scenario, the Ld. Trial Court had no evidentiary basis to accept the Appellant's defenses or grant any reduction/set-off from the amount claimed and reflected in Ex. PW1/A (Colly). The defenses failed entirely for want of proof.
Synthesis and Conclusion on Issue (iii):
48. Evaluating the evidence holistically, the Respondent/Plaintiff established a prima facie case through the testimony of PW-1 regarding work done and non-payment, corroborated by the bills/invoices Ex. PW1/A (Colly) reflecting the claimed amount. While PW-1's testimony exhibited certain inconsistencies and the documentary proof faced challenges RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 21 of 27 regarding one addressee, these weaknesses must be weighed against the Appellant's absolute failure to lead any rebuttal evidence or substantiate its own pleaded defense. The adverse inference drawn by the Ld. Trial Court against the Appellant is potent and justified.
49. On the standard of preponderance of probabilities, it is more probable than not that the Respondent performed the work claimed, raised bills for the amount of Rs. 1,36,634/-, and this amount remains outstanding without any proven justification for non-payment or reduction. The Appellant failed entirely to discharge the burden of proving its defenses.
50. Therefore, this Court finds that the Ld. Trial Court did not commit any material error in its appreciation of the evidence or application of the burden of proof that would vitiate its finding on the Respondent/Plaintiff's entitlement to the principal decreed sum.
51. Accordingly, Issue (iii) is decided against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
ISSUE (IV): WHETHER THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2022 IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE?
52. The final issue for determination is the ultimate question before this appellate court: whether the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2022, passed by the Ld. Trial Court, is sustainable in law and on facts, or whether it is liable to be set aside as prayed for by the Appellant. The answer to this question necessarily flows from the cumulative effect of the findings recorded on the preceding specific issues concerning territorial RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 22 of 27 jurisdiction, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the appreciation of evidence regarding the proof of the Respondent's claim.
53. As analyzed under Issue (i), this Court has found that the Ld. Trial Court possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit. The Appellant's objections in this regard were found to be unsubstantiated, particularly in light of their failure to lead any evidence contradicting the Respondent's assertions, supported by PW-1's testimony, that material parts of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in Kapashera, Delhi. Therefore, the Impugned Judgment cannot be set aside on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
54. Under Issue (ii), the contention that the suit was fatally defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties (Jalandhar Leather India Pvt. Ltd. or alleged defects in impleading the proprietor of M/s Excelsior Crafts) was examined and rejected. It was concluded that neither entity constituted a 'necessary party' in whose absence an effective decree could not be passed determining the liability between the Appellant and the Respondent. The proprietorship concern was effectively represented by its admitted proprietor, Ms. Anjali Khullar, who contested the suit. Hence, the Impugned Judgment cannot be faulted on account of non-joinder.
55. The crux of the appeal revolved around Issue (iii), concerning the appreciation of evidence and whether the Respondent successfully proved its entitlement to the decreed sum of Rs. 1,36,634/-. This Court undertook a detailed re-evaluation:
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 23 of 27a. It was acknowledged that the primary burden of proof lay on the Respondent/Plaintiff.
b. The profound impact of the Appellant/Defendant's complete failure to lead any evidence was highlighted. This failure not only left the Respondent's evidence largely unrebutted but also justified the Ld. Trial Court in drawing a strong adverse inference against the Appellant under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
c. While inconsistencies in PW-1's testimony and ambiguities surrounding the documentary evidence (Ex. PW1/A, particularly the Jalandhar addressee issue) were noted, they were carefully weighed against the absence of any counter-evidence from the Appellant. It was found that these weaknesses, though present, did not fundamentally destroy the Respondent's core case regarding work performed and non-payment, especially when assessed on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
d. The specific defenses pleaded by the Appellant regarding defective goods, breach of specifications, return of 445 wallets for credit, and the purpose of the Rs. 15,000/- cheque were found to be entirely unproven due to the lack of Defendant's Evidence. The Trial Court was therefore correct in disregarding these unproven assertions while decreeing the suit based on the Respondent's established prima facie case.
56. Consequently, it was concluded under Issue (iii) that the Ld. Trial Court's finding that the Respondent proved its entitlement to the principal sum of Rs. 1,36,634/- is sustainable based on the overall RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 24 of 27 assessment of the evidence on record (and the lack thereof from the Appellant).
57. The Appellant also raised several general grounds in the appeal memo (Grounds T to Z) alleging misappreciation of law and facts, material irregularity, decisions based on conjectures and surmises, and failure of justice. However, in light of the specific findings on issues (i), (ii), and (iii), these general grounds are found lacking in substance. The Ld. Trial Court's decision appears primarily based on the unrebutted evidence presented by the Respondent and the logical consequences of the Appellant's failure to lead any evidence, rather than on mere conjecture. While the reasoning in the Impugned Judgment was concise, the conclusion reached aligns with a plausible assessment of the probabilities based on the record.
58. Therefore, integrating the findings on all preceding issues, this Court concludes that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact in the Impugned Judgment that would warrant interference in appeal. The Ld. Trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction, the suit was not vitiated by non-joinder of necessary parties, and the finding regarding the Respondent's entitlement to the decreed amount is found to be sustainable based on the evidence adduced and the peculiar circumstance of the Appellant leading no evidence to rebut the claim or prove its own defenses. The interest awarded @ 8% p.a. is also reasonable and within the Court's discretion.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 25 of 2759. Accordingly, Issue (iv) is decided against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. The Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2022 is found to be sustainable and not liable to be set aside.
CONCLUSION AND FINAL ORDER
60. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The Ld. Trial Court's appreciation of the evidence, while concise, is justifiable given the complete absence of defense evidence. The Appellant failed to substantiate any of the grounds raised to warrant interference with the Impugned Judgment and Decree.
61. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-03, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ No. 27605/2016 is hereby affirmed.
62. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
63. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of this judgment. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the Trial Court Record.
64. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.03.2025 AND DIGITALLY SIGNED RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 26 of 27 AND UPLOADED ON 02.04.20251 SUMIT by Digitally signed SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.04.02 (SUMIT DALAL) 16:33:19 +0530 DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI. 1
The judgment could not be digitally signed and uploaded on 28.03.2025 (the day of the pronouncement of the judgment) due to an unusually heavy cause list comprising 71 matters. On 29.03.2025, the undersigned was deputed for training at the Delhi Judicial Academy. The subsequent days, i.e., 30.03.2025 and 31.03.2025, were court holidays, and on 01.04.2025, the undersigned was on sick leave. In view of the above, the judgment is digitally signed and uploaded at the earliest possible opportunity on 02.04.2025.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 7/24 Page 27 of 27