Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.2. On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant purchased and received the goods and then transported the goods from the office of the plaintiff located at Rajouri Garden Delhi i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is so mentioned in para 10 of the plaint. 9.3. The plaintiff has proved 14 invoices Ext.PW1/5 (1 to 14) through which the goods were sent to the defendant. The defendant did not deny those invoices. Although in the written statement, the defendant tried to put a defence that the invoices do not bear signature of the representative of the defendant, but perusal of the affidavit of admission/denial filed by the defendant company along with written statement reveals that the defendant mischievously tried to not specifically admit or deny these invoices. Qua these invoices what is mentioned in the affidavit of admission/ denial is that because of illegible copies, the correctness of these invoices cannot be 'assumed' by the defendant or 'commented' by the defendant at that stage. 9.4. The WS was filed by the defendant along with affidavit of admission/ denial on 23.09.2023. Prior to it, the defendant was served with the summons for settlement of issues along with copies of plaint and documents on 18.07.2023 and also on 23.08.2023, through speed post and process server, respectively. The next date of hearing in the matter was 05.09.2023. On 05.09.2023, one counsel for the defendant appeared and filed vakalatnama and sought time to file WS. On Judgment dated 13.03.2024; CNR No. DLWT01-004797-2023; CS(COMM) No.436/2023; M/s Shriram Enterprises 05.09.2023 the defendant never pointed out to the Court that any document received from the plaintiff was illegible or deficient. No application for supply of any deficient or illegible copies was filed either. Thereafter the WS and affidavit of admission/ denial of documents was filed between the two dates of hearing. Thereafter, on 09.10.2023, again the counsel for defendant was present in the Court and on that day not only replication was filed by the plaintiff, but also issues were framed. Even on that day the defendant did not claim that there was any deficiency in the documents received by the defendant. 9.5. If there was any document illegible or deficient, more particularly invoices, the defendant ought to have informed the Court either orally or by way of an application seeking supply of those documents. On one hand, the defendant did not do it and on the other hand when the WS and affidavit of admission/ denial of documents was filed between the two dates of hearing, it was mentioned by the defendant in the affidavit that the documents were not legible and therefore, invoices cannot be commented upon. Perusal of the WS of the defendant company, holistically, does not indicate that the defendant was ever serious in denying these invoices.