Delhi District Court
Rishi Prakash vs Abu Talaha Choudhury on 10 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-04
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM)-446/2024
CNR NO. DLWT01-004448-2024
Rishi Parkash
Prop. M/s. Yugank Enterprises
O-29, Office Block, 1st Floor
Sector-3, DSIIDC
Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi-110039
Through Attorney Kapil Goel
Ph. 9818768444
...Plaintiff
Versus
Abu Talha Chodhury, Proprietor
M/s. Welcome Footwear Nisha Complex
Danish Road, Laktokia, Kamrup
Guwahati, Assam-781001
Ph. : 9101105933
9401168591
9401286746
...Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 20.05.2024
Date of reserving judgment : 07.11.2025
Date of pronouncement : 10.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4,31,766/- along with pendente-lite and future interest.
CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 1 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury
2. Brief facts as stated in the relevant para(s) of the plaint are that the plaintiff is a proprietor of Yugank Enterprises engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of footwear. The suit has been filed through his son Sh. Kapil Goel.
That the defendant during the course of the business came into contact with the plaintiff and represented that he is the proprietor of M/s. Welcome Footwear, Nisha Complex, Gauhati, Assam as mentioned in memo of parties and plaintiff could earn huge profit after dealing with the defendant. It was agreed that the defendant shall pay interest @ 24% p.a. if the invoice amount is not paid within the period of 60 days. Believing the said representation(s) of the defendant the plaintiff started dealing with him.
The defendant from time to time placed orders for supply of shoes which were supplied as per the detailed invoices mentioned in para 3 of the plaint. The last invoice being dated 02.05.2018 for Rs. 22,680/- bearing no. 18.
it is also claimed that the said goods were duly received by the defendant to his satisfaction and even part payment was made by the defendant from time to time and the last payment which was transferred by the defendant to the plaintiff was Rs. 20,000/- whereafter no payment was made.
It is stated that the plaintiff even tried settlement by instituting pre institution mediation as per Section 12A of the Commercial Courts, Act but in vain. The defendant lastly transferred the said amount of Rs. 20,000/ on 17.05.2021 therefore, the suit has been filed within limitation.
CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 2 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury It is also claimed that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit, as the plaintiff received orders for supply of footwear from the defendant at Narela office and the said goods were supplied from Narela office. The plaintiff has now shifted to Bawana Industrial area. It is also claimed that the invoice amount payable by the defendant was received / receivable by the plaintiff at its bank i.e Oriental Bank of Commerce, at Shubham Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, therefore, part of cause of action has also arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has claimed suit amount of Rs. 4,31,766/- against the defendant.
3. Written statement has been filed by the defendant, in which the defendant has taken the preliminary objection that the plaintiff has not placed on record any purchase order or Eway bill or delivery challans to show that the alleged goods were actually delivered to the defendant, therefore, the invoices filed by the plaintiff are false and fabricated.
The defendant had closed his business in March, 2019, after that no transaction had been carried out with the plaintiff. Further all the dues of the plaintiff were cleared way back in 2018-19, therefore, no amounts are due or payable towards the plaintiff.
On merits, it is claimed that there is no business relationship between the parties, the delivery of goods is also denied. It is reiterated that the plaintiff has not placed on record any document such as purchase order or Eway bill or delivery challans, which shows that the alleged CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 3 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury goods were delivered to the defendant, therefore, all the invoices filed by the plaintiff are false and fabricated.
It is further stated that the alleged allegations regarding transfer of Rs. 20,000/- are false as alleged to have been made by one Saharul Alom Choudhury. It is also stated that the said document is not related to the defendant.
It is also claimed that all the invoices are of the year 2017-2018, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2024, therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
In the entire written statement, the defence of the defendant is that nothing is due to the plaintiff, as there were not transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant at the relevant time, all the legitimate dues of the plaintiff have already been cleared prior to closing of the business by the defendant in the March - April 2019.
The service of the demand notice has also been denied. Therefore, it is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is nothing but is abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with cost(s).
4. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the above written statement of the defendant, in which the averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and those made in the written statement have been denied.
5. After admission / denial from the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 14.05.2025, the following issues were framed :
CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 4 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
2. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPP
4. Relief.
6. Thereafter, the plaintiff in support of his claim has examined his son Sh. Kapil Goel as PW1. He has relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/24 in support of his affidavit in evidence.
In defence, the defendant has appeared in the witness box as DW1. However, he has not relied upon any document except one statement of account Mark D-1.
7. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Garg, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, Sh. Shreyas Mehrotra, Ld Counsel for the defendant and perused the record.
8. My issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiff has relied upon the invoices which are Ex. PW1/3 to Ex.
PW1/17, as per which the payment was to be received by the plaintiff in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, account no. 51351131000822 with IFSC Code ORBC0105135, branch Shubham Enclave, which the Counsel for CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 5 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury the plaintiff states is situated in Paschim Vihar, within the jurisdiction of West District, Tis Hazari.
9. In the judgment cited as Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto Accessories (P) Limited(2014) SCC OnLine Del 998, it has been held "that where the place of payment has not been fixed, as appears to be the case here, payment was to be made at the place of the creditor i.e. at Delhi in the present case. Since Section 20 of the CPC states that a Court may have jurisdiction when the cause of action arises within its local limits "wholly or in part" the Trial Court, considering the aforementioned precedent as well as the overall factual scenario, has not made any error in assuming jurisdiction in the instant matter."
10. Since in the present case, the place of payment has been fixed to be made at the bank branch of the plaintiff at Oriental Bank of Commerce with particular account number, details already reproduced above, situated at Shubham Enclave, which is stated to be falling in Paschim Vihar area, therefore, the part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, as per Section 20 CPC. Therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Issue No. 3.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 6 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury along with interest, as prayed for? OPP.
Though the son of the plaintiff who has appeared as a witness has deposed as a power of attorney of his father, which power of attorney has been proved as Ex. PW1/2, he has also proved the invoices Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/18 with the starting date 17.09.2017 bearing invoice no. 19 and the last invoice dated 02.05.2018 bearing invoice no. 18. However, he in his cross-examination has admitted that the bills Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/18 were sent by courier, at times the same were handed over by him to the defendant personally. However, he does not remember which bills out of PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/18 were sent by courier and which were physically handed over, as he has not placed the courier receipts. He has also admitted that he has not placed on the record any document to show that the goods supplied by him to the defendant were delivered to him or received by him, which is a very telling piece of admission that PW1 admits that he has nothing to show by way of any document that the goods supplied by him to the defendant were indeed received by him.
12. The defence of the defendant is that no goods were supplied to him vide said invoices, which are forged and fabricated, as the plaintiff has not placed any document on the record such as purchase order(s), Eway bill(s) or delivery challans showing that goods were indeed received by the defendant, which defence the defendant has reiterated in his affidavit by way of evidence. However, in the same breath the CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 7 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury defendant in para 5 of his affidavit in evidence has stated all the dues of the plaintiff were cleared long back in the year 2018, no amounts were due now, which is contrary to the defence taken by the defendant that no goods were supplied by the plaintiff, if the goods were not supplied by the plaintiff, then what for the defendant had made the payments, which shows the defence of the defendant in the written statement was merely a moon shine.
13. Similarly in para 7 of affidavit in evidence, the defendant admitted that the plaintiff and his representative had approached him in Gauhati for sale of his products in the year 2017-18, which also is contrary to the above defence of the defendant that no goods were ever received by him form the plaintiff or that there was no privity of contract between them. Further in para 11, he has stated that he has already made full payment to the plaintiff through his power of attorney vide statement of account Mark D-1, which also is contrary to this defence that no goods were ever supplied by the plaintiff to him. If the goods were not supplied by the plaintiff to him, where was the occasion to make any payment by the defendant to the plaintiff.
14. In the cross-examination of defendant while appearing as DW1, the defendant has made the following categorical admission(s), which are reproduced as under :
It is correct that the goods through the invoices shown in my statement of account Mark-D1 and all the invoices CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 8 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury i.e. Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/18 filed by the plaintiff have been duly received by me. It is correct that in the invoices Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. WP1/18, it is mentioned that interest @ 24% p.a. will be charged if the amount is not paid within 60 days. (Vol. I never agreed to the same).
These admissions made by the DW1 clinches the issue in favour of the plaintiff that there was a privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and the goods as reflected in the said invoices Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/18 were duly received by the defendant.
15. Though the defendant has taken the defence that he has made the payment for all the purchases in his written statement, however, the plaintiff has denied the same. The defendant had to prove by showing the receipts for the payments so made to the plaintiff for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, but no such receipts have been placed on the record to show that the payments had indeed been made. The defendant had made a last minute attempt to show certain cash payments qua the said invoices by filing his statement of account mark D-1, but the same does not prove any thing, as the said statement of account is not backed by any cash receipts. The same could have only been used as a corroborative piece of evidence and not as a substantive evidence as per Section 34 of the Evidence Act.
Rather, in view of the above discussion, the defendant may be liable for perjury, as on the one hand, the defendant has taken the stands in the written statement that the said invoices are forged and CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 9 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury fabricated, as the plaintiff has not placed on the record purchase order, or E way bill to show that the goods were indeed delivered to the defendant, on the other hand, he is admitting himself in his cross-examination that the goods as reflected in the said invoices were duly received by him, however, this court does not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to initiate perjury proceedings against the defendant, as the defendant ultimately on oath in his cross-examination has admitted the truth. However, this conduct of the defendant is liable to deprecated.
16. Therefore, since the plaintiff has been able to prove that the goods as per said invoices had been delivered to the defendant and the said statement of PW1 is also corroborated by the statement of account Ex. PW1/20 (colly), therefore, the plaintiff is able to prove that the amount of the said invoices which the plaintiff has calculated to be Rs. 4,31,766/- is due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant along with the simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. This issue no. 3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
17. Issue No. 11. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. The defendant had to prove this issue. In any case, as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, every suit instituted shall be dismissed if it is not within limitation, even though the limitation has not been set up as a defence, as the Court is under a bounden duty to consider whether the CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 10 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury suit if barred by limitation or not, irrespective of the fact that the limitation has been set up as a defence or not.
18. In the present case, the plaintiff has proved the first invoice dated 17.09.2017 Ex. PW1/3, the last invoice Ex. PW1/18 dated 02.05.2018. Taking the period of three years from the last invoice dated 02.05.2018, the period of limitation normally would have expired on 30.06.2021. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 with Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 & Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 dated 10.01.2022 has held as under :
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 11 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury termination of proceedings.
19. The period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is liable to be excluded due to the Covid Pandemic. The plaintiff would be entitled to the balance period of limitation remaining as on 14.03.2020 of 473 days. Thereafter, the clock started tricking again w.e.f. 01.03.2022 and the period of three years thereafter expired on 17.06.2023. Even taking into account the fact that it is written in the plaintiff's invoices that interest will be charged if the payment is made not within 60 days, therefore the limitation period of 60 days will still be available to the plaintiff by virtue of Article 15 of the schedule of the Limitation Act, as a consequence, the limitation would have expired on 16.08.2023. Thereafter, the plaintiff would also be entitled for the exclusion of period for which he instituted and remained occupied with pre-institution mediation i.e. for the period of 03.04.2024 to 08.05.2024, which would be around 35 days, therefore, the period of limitation would have ultimately expired on 17.09.2023, whereas the present suit has been filed very belatedly on 18.05.2024.
20. To cover this, the plaintiff has also tried to built up a case u/S. 19 of the Limitation Act regarding the part payment, having been received from the defendant thereby extending the period of limitation for a period of further three years. In this regard, he has relied upon one whatsapp screen shot, whereby Rs. 20,000/- were allegedly received on behalf of the defendant from one Saharul Alom Choudhury in the account of the proprietorship of the plaintiff. However, the said alleged person CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 12 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury who made the said alleged payment on behalf of the defendant has not been produced in the witness box. The defendant has categorically denied the said payment had been made on his behalf.
21. PW1 in his cross-examination has claimed that the said screen shot Ex. PW1/19 had been sent from the mobile number of the defendant on asking as to why the said amount has not been paid from the account of his firm, he stated there was a technical issue in his account. This testimony of PW1 is a cock and bull story, which is not believable, as DW1 categorically stated in his testimony in cross-examination that the said account does not belong to him. No forensic report has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to show that the amount from the said account was made on behalf of the said defendant.
22. Therefore, the plaintiff's attempt to get the limitation extended by a further period of three years fails, as the author of the said payment has not been examined. From above discussion, it also appears that the plaintiff has also made up or dressed up the said evidence to somehow get a favorable decision in his favour. For doing this, the plaintiff can also be hauled up for perjury for concocting false evidence in the Court. However, as discussed above, both the parties have done so i.e. both the parties may have lied in order to get a favourable decision in their favour, fully knowing the consequences of doing so.
The Court of Law is the place where it is expected that parties will speak truth, as they are even administered oath. Inspite of CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 13 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury oath, more untruths are probably uttered in Court than anywhere else. Probably the incentive to do so is most at this forum, which is quite sad.
However, for the same reason(s), as elaborated for the defendant, it will not be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate perjury proceedings against the plaintiff as well. However, in view of the above discussion the suit of the plaintiff is found to be hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
23. Issue No. 4.
Relief.
In view of my findings on above issue no. 1, it is held that the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation, as a consequence, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost(s).
Decree be made.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court SANJEEV
Digitally signed by
SANJEEV
AGGARWAL
today on 10.11.2025. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.11.10 16:18:27 +0530 (Sanjeev Aggarwal) District Judge (Commercial)-04 West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 10.11.2025 CS (COMM) 446/2024 Page No. 14 of 14 Rishi Parkash Vs. Abu Talha Chodhury