Delhi District Court
Sumit Bansal vs Praveen Chandra Pandey on 28 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL
SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.1227/2024
CNR No. DLNW03-001871-2024
In the matter of :
Sh. Sumit Bansal
Proprietor of Sumit Plastics
Office At :
Plot No. 95, First Floor, Block-A,
DSIIDC, Narela City,
New Delhi-110040
......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Praveen Chandra Pandey
Proprietor of Ganpati Traders
Office At :
734, SC Tiwari Road, Purani Tehsil,
Sahadatpura, Mau,
Uttar Pradesh-275101
......Defendant
Date of institution : 07.09.2024
Reserved for Judgment : 25.03.2026
Date of decision : 28.03.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,98,288/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) towards the outstanding dues qua the supply of goods and Rs. 2,37,810/- towards pre-lite interest calculated @ 18% p.a. CS SCJ No. 1227/2024 Sumit Bansal v. Praveen Chandra Pandey Page No. 1 of 6 from the date of default till the date of filing of present suit along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. on the outstanding amount from the date of filing of present suit till realization along with cost of the suit and litigation with reasonable pleader fees of the present suit.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the proprietor of proprietorship concern running under the name and style of 'Sumit Plastics' and is engaged in manufacturing and trading of variety of footwears (hereinafter referred to as goods.) The defendant is the proprietor of proprietorship concern running under the name and style of 'Ganpati Traders' and is engaged in retail and wholesale business of footwear, garments and electro-mechanical domestic appliances, etc. 2.1. It is stated that the defendant representing himself to be the proprietor of 'Ganpati Traders' approached the plaintiff during August, 2019 for purchase on credit variety of shoes and other footwear (hereinafter referred to as goods) and commenced placing verbal orders upon the plaintiff for the supply of goods. As such the plaintiff and the defendant entered into contractual relationship with each other and have been maintaining an account since then. The plaintiff duly supplied the goods to the defendant upon issuing invoices from time to time against the supply of goods.
CS SCJ No. 1227/2024 Sumit Bansal v. Praveen Chandra Pandey Page No. 2 of 6 2.2. It is averred that the defendant committed default in making payment against the invoices but assured the plaintiff that the payment shall be made and the dues shall be cleared at the earliest. It is stated that according to the terms agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was obligated to make payment for supply of goods within 30 days from the date of issuance of invoice. However, the defendant hasn't made any effort to perform his obligation and make good the aforesaid outstanding amount despite multiple telephonic and text reminders to the defendant. The plaintiff issued legal demand notice dated 18.06.2024 through Regd. Post to the defendant but the defendant neither made the payment nor replied to the said demand notice. Hence, the present suit.
3. The defendant was served with the summons of the suit on 19.04.2025. However, the defendant failed to appear despite service, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2026 and the plaintiff was directed to bring ex-parte evidence.
4. 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. GST Registration Certificate of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/1;
2. GST registration details of defendant is Ex.PW1/2;
3. Original invoices alongwith their respective original delivery challans and original transport receipts are Ex.PW1/3 (colly) CS SCJ No. 1227/2024 Sumit Bansal v. Praveen Chandra Pandey Page No. 3 of 6 (running into 49 pages);
4. Ledger account is Ex.PW1/4;
5. Legal demand notice dated 18.06.2024 is Ex.PW1/5;
6. Original postal receipt is Ex.PW1/6;
7. Tracking report is Ex.PW1/7;
8. Certificate under Section 63 BSA is Ex.PW1/8.
5. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.
6. Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff, it is important to note that in the present case, the defendant has never appeared and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2026. It is further noted that the Court is mindful of the fact that in cases where the defendant is 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 has observed that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is CS SCJ No. 1227/2024 Sumit Bansal v. Praveen Chandra Pandey Page No. 4 of 6 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.
7. PW-1 has proved on oath the allegations against the defendant and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on unchallenged and un-rebutted. GST Registration Certificate of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/1; GST registration details of defendant is Ex.PW1/2; Original invoices alongwith their respective original delivery challans and original transport receipts are Ex.PW1/3 (colly) ( running into 49 pages); Ledger account is Ex.PW1/4; Legal demand notice dated 18.06.2024 is Ex.PW1/5; Original postal receipt is Ex.PW1/6; Tracking report is Ex.PW1/7; Certificate under Section 63 BSA is Ex.PW1/8.
8. 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 07.09.2024, hence the present suit is within limitation. As defendant has not turned up despite service and accordingly was 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 CS SCJ No. 1227/2024 Sumit Bansal v. Praveen Chandra Pandey Page No. 5 of 6
9. 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 defendant:-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs. 2,98,288/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Eight 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 10.09.2021 (the date when the payment become due) till the realization of the amount.
iii. Cost of the suit.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
MAYANK
Announced in the Open Court MAYANK
MITTAL
MITTAL
Date:
2026.03.28
15:15:13
+0530
on 28.03.2026
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi CS SCJ No. 1227/2024 Sumit Bansal v. Praveen Chandra Pandey Page No. 6 of 6