Delhi District Court
Sukhvender Singh Saini vs Neeraj Narula on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RENU : CIVIL JUDGE : NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS SCJ 703/2023
CNR No. DLNT030013602023
In reference:
SUKHVENDER SINGH SAINI
Proprietor of M/s Sunshine Plastic
J-4, Sector-2 DSIIDC, Industrial Area,
Bawana, Delhi-110039. ............Plaintiff
VERSUS
NEERAJ NARULA
Proprietor of M/s Master Packaging
Khasra no. 29/1, Street No. 17,
Near Sharma Ji AC Factory,
Village Libaspur, Delhi-110042 ........... Defendant
Date of Institution : 06.07.2023
Date of reservation of Judgment : 15.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 23.01.2026
Decision : Decreed
EX-PARTE J U D G M E N T
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant
for recovery of Rs. 59,211/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest.
CS SCJ 703/2023 Sukhvender Singh Saini Vs. Neeraj Narula Page 1 of 7
FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT :-
2. (i) The case of the plaintiff as per plaint in brief are that the plaintiff is a leading manufacturer, trader and supplier of Plastic goods and doing the said business in the name & style of M/s Sunshine Plastic. The defendant is also dealing in plastic goods and doing the business in the name & style of M/s Master Packaging. The defendant had approached the plaintiff at the office of the plaintiff at Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi for purchasing plastic goods and the plaintiff had agreed to supply the goods on credit basis on certain terms and conditions which are duly mentioned on the invoice/bill through which goods were supplied to the defendant. It is further averred that the defendant had agreed to such terms and conditions and on such acceptances of terms and conditions, the plaintiff had developed business relationship with the defendant.
(ii) It is further averred that vide invoice no. 2020-21/471 dated 03.02.2021, the defendant had purchased a consignment of plastic goods worth Rs. 59,211/- from the plaintiff on credit basis with mode/terms of payment of 30 days. However, despite the specific terms of payment of 30 days (which expired on 05.03.2021), the defendant had failed to make the payment of aforesaid consignment of goods. It is further averred that in the second week of March, 2021, the plaintiff had requested the defendant to make the payment of aforesaid consignment of goods but the defendant had requested for some more time to clear the said bill amount. Thereafter, despite the repeated requests of plaintiff, the defendant had failed to make the payment of aforesaid consignment of goods.
(iii) It is further averred that the plaintiff got served a legal notice CS SCJ 703/2023 Sukhvender Singh Saini Vs. Neeraj Narula Page 2 of 7 dated 25.08.2021 upon the defendant through speed post & whatsapp and called upon the defendant to clear the aforesaid liability, but despite service of said legal notice, the defendant has neither complied the said notice nor replied the same. Hence, the present suit.
RELIEF:
3. Following reliefs have been sought on behalf of the plaintiff in the plaint:
(A) Pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 59,211/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
(B) Award interest to the plaintiff on the aforesaid principal amount payable by the defendant w.e.f. 06.03.2021 as per the provisions of MSME Act or at any other rate.
(C) Award pendent-lite and future interest to the plaintiff. (D) Award the cost of the suit to the plaintiff.
(E) Any other relief(s). DEFENCE:
4. In the present case, despite service by way of publication on 20.02.2025, none has appeared nor filed WS on behalf of defendant, right to file WS of defendant was closed and suit was proceeded ex parte qua the defendant on 17.04.2025.
ISSUES:
5. Since, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte, no issues have been framed in the present matter.
EVIDENCE:
CS SCJ 703/2023 Sukhvender Singh Saini Vs. Neeraj Narula Page 3 of 76. To substantiate its case, Sh. Sukhvender Singh Saini (proprietor of M/s Sunshine Plastic) was examined himself by way of evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon following documents:
(a) The copy of Udyam Registration Certificate is Ex. PW-1/A (OSR).
(b) The copy of invoice no. 2020-21/471 is Ex. PW-1/B.
(c) The office copy of legal notice dated 25.08.2021 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C.
(d) The original postal receipts and online tracking report evidencing service are Ex. PW-1/D (Colly.).
(e) The whatsapp screenshots of service is Ex. PW-1/E.
(f) A certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.
PW-1/F.
7. Vide separate statement of Sh. Sukhvender Singh Saini, proprietor of M/s Sunshine Plastic, PE stood closed. Thereafter, matter was listed for ex parte final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
8. Ex-parte final arguments have been heard at length on behalf of the plaintiff.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
9. It is settled principle of law that the burden to proof lies on the person who asserts the said fact. Section 104 Bhartiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 defines "burden of proof" and lays down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts the facts. Therefore, the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff initially to CS SCJ 703/2023 Sukhvender Singh Saini Vs. Neeraj Narula Page 4 of 7 prove the facts alleged by him. This principle of law remains the same even in cases where the suit has been proceeded ex-parte qua the defendant. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maya Devi V/s Lalta Prasad, (2015) 5 SCC 588, that the absence of defendant to contest the suit does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree. Therefore, it is required that the case of plaintiff must stands on its own legs. Plaintiff cannot take the advantage of the absence of defendant and cannot get a decree in his favour which otherwise he could not get, has the case been decided on merits.
10. The law with regard to burden of proof of plaintiff in case of ex- parte proceeding has been well settled in a plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though, the burden of proof on the plaintiff in ex-parte proceeding is not very heavy, but the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350 explained the law with regard to burden of proof of plaintiff in an ex-parte suit. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex court may be reproduced herewith as follows:-
"Even if the suit proceeds ex parte and in the absence of a written statement, unless the applicability of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC is attracted and the court acts thereunder, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff company of his case to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with. In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of proof on the plaintiff company is not very heavy. A prima facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of action would suffice and the court would grant the plaintiff company such relief as to which he may in law be found entitled. In a case which has proceeded ex parte the court is not bound to frame issues under Order 14 and deliver the judgment on every issue as required by Order 20 CS SCJ 703/2023 Sukhvender Singh Saini Vs. Neeraj Narula Page 5 of 7 Rule 5. Yet the trial court should scrutinize the available pleadings and documents, consider the evidence adduced, and would do well to frame the "points for determination" and proceed to construct the ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one. Merely because the defendant is absent the court shall not admit evidence the admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence."
11. In order to prove its case, Sh. Sukhvender Singh Saini (proprietor of M/s Sunshine Plastic) has examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon the documents i.e. the copy of Udyam Registration Certificate, the copy of invoice no. 2020-21/471, the office copy of legal notice dated 25.08.2021, the original postal receipts and online tracking report evidencing service, the whatsapp screenshots of service and a certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
12. As the defendant was proceeded ex-parte, the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Sukhvender Singh Saini, proprietor of M/s Sunshine Plastic, remained unconverted, unchallenged and unrebutted. Further, the same is duly corroborated by relevant documents. Thus, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of plaintiff's witness or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved on record.
13. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Plaintiff has been able to discharge his burden qua the entire claim of Rs. 59,211/- on the precipice of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 59,211/- from the defendant.
CS SCJ 703/2023 Sukhvender Singh Saini Vs. Neeraj Narula Page 6 of 714. The plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest. This Court is of the considered view that if interest @ 9% p.a. is granted to the plaintiff, it would meet the ends of the justice. Therefore, interest is granted to the plaintiff @ 9% p.a. on the principal amount i.e. Rs. 59,211/- w.e.f. 06.03.2021 till its realization.
Relief:
15. In the light of the above discussion and reasons therein, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 59,211/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 06.03.2021 till its realization.
16. Costs of the suit are also decreed in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
RENU
Announced in the open RENU Date:
2026.01.23
16:51:37
Court on 23.01.2023 +0530
(RENU)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/23.01.2026
CS SCJ 703/2023 Sukhvender Singh Saini Vs. Neeraj Narula Page 7 of 7