Interim Order 28

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 14 CS SCJ 1482/23
RAKESH ADESH ENTERPRISES Vs. WASIM ALI
10.06.2026
Present : None.
ORDER
1). Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application
filed on behalf of the defendant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC r/w
section 151 CPC.
2). By way of the present application, the defendant
claims that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed based on the
categorical admissions made by the plaintiff (PW1) in his cross
examination.
3). The brief facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding
the present application are as under:-
“The plaintiff firm is a wholesaler of suiting and
shirting material and the defendant had purchased the
material which was sold and delivered to the defendant
by the plaintiff through packing slip with delivery
receipts and tax invoices were raised in the name of the
defendant firm namely M/s Ali Cloth. That as per the
books of accounts maintained during the course of the
business of the plaintiff firm, there is a balance of
₹1,00,432/- due against the defendant along with the
interest amount of ₹ 38,158/-’’.
CS SCJ 1482/23
Rakesh Adesh Enterprises Vs. Wasim Ali Page no. 1 / 4
-- 1 of 4 --
4). The defendant in his written statement submitted
that the entire payment against the bills as per the invoices /
challans of respective dates raised in the name of defendant firm
namely Saabri Cloth Centre, have been received by his
employee/agent Mr. Kamal and he signed all the bills on the
backside as an acknowledgement of payment received. The
details of the payments are as follows -
(a) Against challan / bill no. 328 dt. 31.10.20, ₹27,216/-
was paid on 04.03.22.
(b) Against challan / bill no. 335 dt. 10.11.20, ₹15,000/-
was paid on 11.03.22 and ₹13,764/- on 26.08.22.
(c) Against challan / bill no. 340 dt. 17.11.20, ₹15,000/-
was paid on 04.04.22 and ₹12,167/- on 11.04.22.
(d) Against challan / bill no. 351 dt. 07.12.20, ₹40,091/-
was paid on 11.04.22.
5). In the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the
defendant has relied upon the cross examination of PW1 dated
24.09.24 in which the witness admitted that “the credit amount
used to collect by my employee from the defendant. Again said
that sometimes, I or my brother, who is also a partner, personally
collect the same from the defendant.” and further admitted that
"it is correct that Kamal used to collect the same from the
defendant”. The defendant also relied upon the cross-
examination of PW1 dated 25.01.25, where the defendant was
shown the invoices / challans and the witness admitted that “it is
correct that the backside of the documents Ex. PW1/DX1 are
challan not be the signature of my employee, acknowledging the
amount received against the challan”.
CS SCJ 1482/23
Rakesh Adesh Enterprises Vs. Wasim Ali Page no. 2 / 4
-- 2 of 4 --
6). The plaintiff did not file any reply, but orally argued
and submitted that the present suit has been filed against 18
challans and the complete payment has not been received from
the defendant.
7). Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of
the case record in entirety, this court is of the considered opinion
that the defendant is not entitled to a relief prayed in the
application based on purported admissions by the plaintiff in its
cross-examination. The reasons for arriving at the said
conclusion are that the plaintiff has categorically denied, in his
cross-examination dated 25.01.25, that the complete payment has
not been received. When PW-1 was confronted with the
documents Ex. PW1/DX1 (Colly-14 pages) i.e. 14 challans on
the back of which Mr. Kamal has given acknowledgment
regarding the amount received, PW1 replied that some payment
is due against the aforementioned challans. Further, PW-1
clarified that the suit has been filed against 18 challans placed on
record and not 14 challans.
8). The underlying rationale of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
to get rid of so much of the suit as to which there is no
controversy. Object of this rule is to enable a party to obtain a
speedy judgment at least to the extent that the admission of the
one party entitles that relief to the other party. But such
admissions ought to be clear, unambiguous, definite and
unequivocal. Court is not bound to pass a Judgment and in fact it
is the court's discretion to act upon such admissions. Where
CS SCJ 1482/23
Rakesh Adesh Enterprises Vs. Wasim Ali Page no. 3 / 4
-- 3 of 4 --
complicated questions of law and fact arise and triable issues
between the parties emerge, the passing of a summary judgment
under this rule may not be in the interest of justice.
9). Based on the aforesaid appreciation and reasons
enumerated above, the present application is disposed of as
disallowed.
10). Now put up the matter for further proceedings on
30.07.2026.
11). File the be sent back to the Court of Ld. Civil Judge-
07, Central, THC, Delhi for further proceedings.
(Sahil Gupta)
JMFC-7(N)/Rohini Courts
Delhi/10.06.2026
None :- This order is being passed in compliance of transfer and
posting order No. 14/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/ VI.E.2(a)/2026 dated
29.04.26 earlier posted as Civil Judge-7, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS SCJ 1482/23
Rakesh Adesh Enterprises Vs. Wasim Ali Page no. 4 / 4
-- 4 of 4 --