Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (Comm.) No. 873/2025
Aarya Lighting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chishti Light & Electricals & Ors.
31.07.2025
Fresh suit received by way e-filing portal. Same is already checked and registered. In
terms of e-Filing Rules of High Court of Delhi, 2021, no hard copy has been
submitted/accepted. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is directed to preserve them as per Rule 10 of
e-filing rules.
Present: Sh. Sarvajeet Kumar Thakur, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff through VC.
In this suit, the plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.8,48,246/- alongwith
interest. Upon perusal of the plaint, following observations are made:
(i) Court fees is not locked.
(ii) Check list not filed.
(iii) Plaintiff claims to be a duly incorporated private limited company but no
Certificate of Incorporation is filed.
(iv) Plaintiff has sued three defendants. Defendant No. 1 being a proprietorship
firm of defendant No. 2. In so far as proprietor and proprietorship firm are one and
the same thing, the memo is defective. Plaintiff has sued defendant No. 3 simply
because he is husband of defendant No. 2. There is nothing on record to show that
plaintiff has any cause of action agaisnt defendant No. 3. Accordingly, defendant
No. 3 is dropped from array of defendants.
(v) Para 5 of the plaint refers to sales carried out without issuance of invoice
which is prohibited and ex-facie illegal.
(vi) Plaintiff has described Commercial Court, 2015 wrongly.
(vii) Plaintiff has not complied with Order 7 Rule 2A CPC applicable to
commercial suits.
(viii) Plaintiff has neither capitalized nor paid any court fees on pre-suit interest
on the suit amount.
(ix) Plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence alongwith the plaint which is legally
unacceptable and accordingly, rejected.
-- 1 of 2 --
(x) No Affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC is filed.
(xi) No document filed to discharge onus under Section 31, 33 and 39 of Sale
of Goods Act to prove actual delivery of goods.
(xii) All the invoices filed are original copies instead of sellers copies.
(xiii) All the digital documents filed are tampered and accordingly rejected.
(xiv) Vakalatnama is defective as it does not carry any endorsement as to for
which Court or jurisdiction the same is executed.
Plaintiff is directed to do the needful.
Put up for further proceedings on 08.08.2025.
Next date of hearing is given as per convenience of plaintiff.
(SURINDER S. RATHI)
District Judge
Commercial-11
Central District, THC,
Delhi/31.07.2025(P)
-- 2 of 2 --