Delhi District Court
Diwakar Arya vs Sanjeev Goel on 21 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL
SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.412/2023
CNR No. DLNW03-000908-2023
In the matter of :
Sh. Diwakar Arya
Prop. Jai Rattan Plastics
Office at:
Ground Floor, Plot No.14,
Pocket-G, Sector-4,
Bawana Industrial Area,
North-West Delhi, Delhi-110039
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sanjeev Goel
Prop. Metro Udyog
2. Metro Udyog
Through its Proprietor,
Sh. Sanjeev Goel
Both at:
A-93, Mangolpuri Industrial Area,
Phase-2, Delhi-110083
....Defendants
Date of institution : 25.03.2023
Reserved for Judgment : 17.01.2026
Date of decision : 21.01.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees One CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 1 of 9 Lakh and Thirty Six Thousand Only) along with pendent elite interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of present suit till realization.
Plaintiff case
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff namely, Sh. Diwakar Arya, is the proprietor of the firm Jai Rattan Pipes and is a manufacturer of PVC pipes products. Defendant no. 1, Sh. Sanjeev Goel, is the proprietor of defendant no. 2, Metro Udyog, which is a proprietorship firm and defendant no. 1 is responsible for the day to day affairs of the defendant no. 2 and is liable for all the acts and omissions made by the defendant no. 1.
It is stated that defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff for dealership and plaintiff appointed the defendant no. 2 as its dealer for its products. Plaintiff agreed to supply its products to defendant no. 2 on credit as per terms agreed and allowed the defendant a credit facility of 30 days which the defendant availed during the supplies made to it. The goods were agreed to be delivered to defendant no. 2 free of any charges. It was also agreed between the parties that in case, the payment is delayed for more than the credit period interest @ 18% would be charged from the defendant from the date of supply upon the outstanding amount till the same is paid. Thereafter, defendant no.1 raised various orders for the supply of the products of plaintiff and plaintiff supplied goods as and when required by the defendants. On account of the said purchases by the defendants the plaintiff CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 2 of 9 raised various invoices at various point of time. There was liability of Rs.1,00,000/- against the defendants on 30.01.2021 and thereafter the defendants avoided to make the payment on one pretext or the other. Plaintiff sent a legal demand notice to the defendants through his counsel calling them to pay Rs.1 Lakh with interest @ 18% p.a. from 01.02.2021 (i.e. Rs. 1,500/- p.m.) within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The legal demand notice was served upon the defendants on 06.05.2021 despite service of the notice, the defendants did not paid the amount. A sum of Rs. 22,500/- as interest was due upon the defendants for 15 months @ Rs. 1,500/- per month for the delayed payment for more than the credit period upon the outstanding amount as the same is not paid by defendants. Hence, the present suit.
Defendant Case
3. Common written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants, contended that the present suit is not maintainable in its present form and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. The reasons for which the present suit is not maintainable are as under:
i) Plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and he has concealed some material facts.
ii) Plaintiff has impleaded defendant no.1 in a capacity of partner of defendant no.2 firm, however, neither the defendant no.2 is a partnership firm nor the defendant no.1 is its partner and thus, the CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 3 of 9 present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary and proper party.
iii) Plaintiff has paid deficient court fees.
iv) Plaintiff had never issued any legal notice and demanded any amount from the defendants. Further, the tracking report annexed with the plaint also show that no notice has ever been served upon the defendants.
v) The suit of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation.
Further, defendants have denied all the allegations levelled in the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the suit with cost.
Issues
4. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 26.03.2025, the following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor for trial :
(i) Whether the plaintiff was the proprietor of M/s Jai Rattan Pipes, as pleaded in the plaint? OPP
(ii) Whether the goods were supplied and delivered to the defendants, as per the invoices filed alongwith the plaint? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,36,000/-
with interest from the defendants, as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has not paid appropriate court fees on the suit? OPD
5. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2025 due to their non appearance and the plaintiff was CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 4 of 9 directed to bring ex-parte evidence.
6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents :
1. Computer originated copy of GST Registration from the website of GST portal as proprietorship proof is Ex.PW1/1;
2. Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/2;
3. Computer originated copy of GST Registration from the website of GST portal as proprietorship proof of defendant no. 1 and defendant no.2 and also certificate under Section 65B are Ex.PW1/3(colly);
4. Copies of computer generated invoices are Ex.PW1/4 (colly);
5. Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/5;
6. Xerox copy of registration document of vehicle DL1LAB9605 is Ex.PW1/6(OSR);
7. Driver Ravi's driving licence is Ex.PW1/6A (OSR);
8. Computer generated statement of account for the F.Y. 2019-20 and 2020-21 are Ex.PW1/7 (colly);
9. Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/8;
10. Snapshots/copies of GSTR-1 filed by plaintiff at website of GST portal is Ex.PW1/9;
11. Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/10;
12. Office copies of legal demand notices to defendants are Ex.PW1/11 (colly);
13. Original postal receipts are Ex.PW1/12 (colly);
14. Tracking reports are Ex.PW1/13 (colly);
CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 5 of 9
15. Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/14;
16. Computer originated amended GST registration certificate from website of GST portal is Ex.PW1/15;
17. Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/16.
7. The plaintiff examined Sh. Ravinder as PW2 who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A corroborated the contents of the plaintiff case. He relied upon the already relied documents by the plaintiff.
8. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.
9. Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff, it is important to note that the Court is mindful of the fact that in cases where the defendants are ex-parte, the Court needs to be extra cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence pointing out the defect in the case of plaintiff and before passing the judgment, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff should be weighed carefully before arriving at the finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. The initial burden to prove the averments of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff who has to discharge the said burden as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa (supra) has observed that:
CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 6 of 9 "It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely is upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
10. PW-1 has proved on oath the allegations against the defendant and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on unchallenged and un-rebutted. Computer originated copy of GST Registration from the website of GST portal as proprietorship proof is Ex.PW1/1; Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/2; Computer originated copy of GST Registration from the website of GST portal as proprietorship proof of defendant no. 1 and defendant no.2 and also certificate under Section 65B are Ex.PW1/3(colly); Copies of computer generated invoices are Ex.PW1/4 (colly); Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/5; Xerox copy of registration document of vehicle DL1LAB9605 is Ex.PW1/6(OSR); Driver Ravi's driving licence is Ex.PW1/6A (OSR); Computer generated statement of account for the F.Y. 2019-20 and 2020-21 are Ex.PW1/7 (colly); Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/8; Snapshots/copies of GSTR-1 filed by plaintiff at website of GST portal is Ex.PW1/9; Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/10; Office copies of legal demand notices to defendants are Ex.PW1/11 (colly); Original postal receipts are Ex.PW1/12 (colly); Tracking reports are Ex.PW1/13 (colly); Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/14; Computer originated amended GST registration certificate from website of CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 7 of 9 GST portal is Ex.PW1/15; Certificate under Section 65B is Ex.PW1/16.
11. The present suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation as per provisions of Limitation Act and the present suit has been instituted on 25.03.2023, hence the present suit is within limitation. As defendants failed to appear and accordingly were proceeded ex-parte, the averments made in the plaint and the testimony of the plaintiff during PE remained unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelief the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and the documents relied upon him. These documents coupled with testimony of the plaintiff prove the case of the plaintiff.
Relief
12. In view of the reasons given above and uncontroverted evidence brought on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and followings reliefs are granted in his favour and against the defendants:-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).
ii. Seeing the prevalent market conditions, pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff from 01.02.2021 (the date when the payment become due) till the realization of the amount.
iii. Cost of the suit.
CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 8 of 9
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally
signed by
MAYANK
MAYANK MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
on 21.01.2026
2026.01.22
16:36:56
+0530
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi CS SCJ No. 412/2023 Diwakar Arya v. Sanjeev Goel Page No. 9 of 9