Final Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. MILAN GOEL:
CIVIL JUDGE – 08 (CENTRAL), ROOM NO.283, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO: 2371/2023
CNR NO. DLCT030072012023
In the matter of: -
Kavita Agarwal
Proprietor of
M/s Stuti Pipes Fitting co.
3349, Gali Peepal Mahadev,
Hauz Qazi, Chawri Bazaar, Delhi-110006
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/s Deepak Steel India
Through Its Proprietor
Sh. Krishan Lal,
Dariyal Bus Stand Road,
Near Sahara Hospital, Kashipur,
Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand-244713
...DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 15.12.2023
Date of judgment : 24.12.2025
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 1 of 14
-- 1 of 14 --
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.63,585/-
J U D G M E N T
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit of the plaintiff for recovery
of Rs.63,585/-.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT
2. The brief facts of the plaint as alleged by the plaintiff, which are
necessary for the disposal of the present case, are that the Plaintiff firm
namely M/s Stuti Pipe Fitting Co. is a proprietorship firm engaged in the
business of supplying Mild Steel Flanges, Bends and Fittings (Hardware
Articles). The present petition has been filed through Mrs. Kavita
Agarwal, who is the Proprietor of the plaintiff firm.
3. The defendant firm namely M/s Deepak Steel India is a proprietorship
firm of Sh. Krishan Lal, engaged in dealing in Mild Steel Flanges, Bends
and Fittings (hardware articles), having its registered office situated at
Dariyal Bus Stand Road, Near Sahara Hospital, Kashipur,
Uttarakhand-244713, District Udham Singh Nagar.
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 2 of 14
-- 2 of 14 --
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of August 2020, the
defendant approached the plaintiff and showed his interest in purchasing
hardware items from the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to sell the
same to him on a credit basis, which was agreed to by the plaintiff.
5. It is further stated that the transactions between the plaintiff and the
defendant took place from 07.08.2020 to 20.09.2022, and during the said
period the plaintiff sold hardware articles to the defendant through
various invoices for a total amount of Rs.6,64,305/-, out of which
Rs.6,11,755/- were paid by the defendant and a balance amount of
Rs.52,550/- remained payable to the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff has stated that despite repeated requests and demands, the
defendant has deliberately failed to pay the outstanding amount of
Rs.52,550/-.
7. It is further pleaded that the defendant had been making payments in the
account of the plaintiff on a regular basis till 13.09.2022. The plaintiff
maintained a running account pertaining to each and every transaction in
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 3 of 14
-- 3 of 14 --
the ordinary course of business, and as per the said running account, an
amount of Rs.52,550/- was lying outstanding against the defendant. The
last payment received by the plaintiff was on 13.09.2022 for an amount
of Rs.15,000/-.
8. The plaintiff thereafter issued a legal notice dated 24.11.2022 through
her counsel Shri Harshil Gupta, which was duly served upon the
defendant, however, despite service of the legal notice, the defendant
failed to make payment.
9. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff received the purchase orders at its
shop situated at Chawri Bazaar, Delhi, and the materials were supplied
from the said place. The plaintiff booked the consignments to the carrier
from the aforesaid shop premises in Delhi for unconditional delivery to
the defendant, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction upon this
Court.
10.Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.63,585/- along
with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 4 of 14
-- 4 of 14 --
of institution of the suit till its actual realization.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
11.The defendant filed the written statement stating that the plaintiff has
filed the present suit based on incorrect and false facts and has concealed
material facts from the Court. It is further stated that the plaintiff has
failed to correctly determine the value of the subject matter of the suit
and that the suit is not in consonance with the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
12.It is submitted that the plaintiff, through her husband Sh. Vivek
Agarwal, approached the defendant and that the defendant from time to
time purchased goods from the husband of the plaintiff under the name
of M/s Stuti Pipe Fitting Co., and regularly made payments towards the
said purchases.
13.It is further stated that the business relations between the parties became
strained when the husband of the plaintiff supplied goods of inferior
quality to the defendant.
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 5 of 14
-- 5 of 14 --
14.The defendant alleged that though he made full payments for the goods
supplied, the plaintiff failed to adjust the amounts relating to inferior
quality goods and even refused to take the goods back, due to which an
amount of Rs.53,022/- was reflected as outstanding in the defendant’s
books of accounts.
15.It is further alleged that the plaintiff is relying upon forged and fabricated
bills and ledger entries in order to illegally claim money for goods which
were never ordered by the defendant.
16.On merits, the defendant admitted that transactions between the parties
took place from 07.08.2020 to 20.09.2022, and that payments were made
from time to time.
17.The defendant also admitted that the last payment of Rs.15,000/- was
made on 13.09.2022.
18.All other averments of the plaint were denied by the defendant.
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 6 of 14
-- 6 of 14 --
REPLICATION
19.The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant
denying all allegations and reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the
plaint.
ISSUES
20.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed
vide order dated 25.04.2024:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.63,585/- as
prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of pendente-lite
interest on the suit amount @ 18% per annum? OPP
(iii) Whether the defendant is not liable to make any payment to
the plaintiff on account of supply of defective / inferior goods?
OPD
(iv)Relief.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
21.In support of her case, Plaintiff examined its Proprietor, Ms. Kavita
Aggarwal who examined herself as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit in
evidence Ex. PW-1/A. PW-1 relied on the following documents:
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 7 of 14
-- 7 of 14 --
S No. Document Description Exhibit
1. Registration certificate of GST of plaintiff Ex.PW-1/1
2. Photocopies of invoices and GR Receipts (OSR) Ex.PW1/2 (colly)
3. Account ledger Ex.PW1/3 (colly)
4. Legal notice dated 24.11.2022 Ex.PW1/4 (colly)
5. Postal receipts Ex.PW1/5
6. Certificate u/S. 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/6
PW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
22.The defendant examined himself as DW-1, who tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following
documents:
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 8 of 14
-- 8 of 14 --
S
No.
Document Description Exhibit/Mark
1. Photocopy of Registration
Certificate of Deepak Steel
India
Mark-A
2. Photocopy of Ledger account of
the duration between 01.04.2017
and 19.07.2023
Mark- B
DW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff.
23. Thereafter, vide separate statement, defendant evidence was closed on
24.09.2025, and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
24.I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully perused the
record.
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 9 of 14
-- 9 of 14 --
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS AND REASONS
ISSUE No.1
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.63,585/- as prayed
for? OPP
25.The onus to prove this issue squarely lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff
has approached the Court claiming recovery of Rs.63,585/-, which
includes the principal outstanding amount arising out of commercial
transactions between the parties along with interest. From the pleadings
and evidence on record, it is an admitted position that the plaintiff and
the defendant were engaged in business dealings from 07.08.2020 till
20.09.2022. It is further undisputed that the plaintiff supplied hardware
articles to the defendant through various invoices during the said period.
The defendant has categorically admitted in his written statement as well
as during his evidence that transactions did take place between the parties
and that payments were regularly made till 13.09.2022, when the last
payment of Rs.15,000/- was made. The plaintiff has placed on record
invoices, GR receipts, and ledger accounts, which clearly reflect that
goods were supplied and that a sum of Rs.52,550/- remained outstanding
after adjustment of all payments made by the defendant. The ledger
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 10 of 14
-- 10 of 14 --
account maintained by the plaintiff has not been effectively disputed on
the aspect of correctness of entries. Rather, the defendant has admitted
the existence of an outstanding amount, though disputing liability on the
ground of alleged defective goods. Such admission of outstanding
liability is a significant factor which strengthens the case of the plaintiff.
Once the supply of goods, the course of business, and the outstanding
balance are admitted, the burden shifts upon the defendant to justify non-
payment. In the absence of any credible evidence rebutting the plaintiff’s
documentary record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully
discharged the burden placed upon her. Accordingly, the plaintiff is
entitled to recovery of the suit amount, subject to findings on other
issues.
ISSUE NO. 3
Whether the defendant is not liable to make any payment to the
plaintiff on account of supply of defective / inferior goods? OPD
26.The burden of proving this issue rests upon the defendant. The sole
defence raised by the defendant to avoid payment of the outstanding
amount is that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective or of
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 11 of 14
-- 11 of 14 --
inferior quality. However, a careful perusal of the pleadings, evidence,
and cross-examination reveals that this defence is merely bald and
unsupported by any documentary or substantive evidence. The defendant
has failed to produce even a single document such as complaint letters,
rejection notes, quality inspection reports, correspondence, or any
acknowledgment showing that defective goods were ever raised as an
issue at the relevant time. Significantly, the written statement does not
contain any specific details regarding the alleged defective goods, such
as invoice numbers, dates, description of goods, or nature of defect.
Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the defendant did not return the
allegedly defective goods to the plaintiff. The explanation offered by the
defendant that he had telephonically informed the husband of the
plaintiff and was assured that the goods would be taken back later is not
supported by any evidence and remains a self-serving statement. In
commercial transactions, particularly between parties dealing regularly
in hardware goods, the conduct of the buyer is of paramount importance.
If the goods were truly defective, the normal business practice would
have been either to reject the goods, return them, or formally raise
objections in writing. The defendant, however, chose to retain the goods
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 12 of 14
-- 12 of 14 --
and simultaneously withhold payment, which is contrary to settled
principles of commercial fairness. The defendant cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate, i.e., to retain the benefit of goods and at the
same time deny the corresponding liability to pay. The absence of any
proof regarding defective goods, coupled with the admission of
outstanding balance, clearly shows that the defence raised is an
afterthought and lacks merit. Therefore, this issue is decided against the
defendant, holding that the defendant remains liable to make payment to
the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of pendente-lite interest on
the suit amount @ 18% per annum? OPP
27. Every invoice produced by the plaintiff contains a printed contractual
term stipulating that interest @ 24% per annum shall be chargeable .
While commercial interest clauses are valid and enforceable in standard
business practices, the interest @ 24% or 18 % per annum as claimed for
the purposes of pendente-lite and future interest appears excessive in
light of facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 13 of 14
-- 13 of 14 --
plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable pendente-lite and future interest @9%
per annum on the outstanding sum.
RELIEF
28.In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, particularly the clear
admission of business transactions, outstanding liability, failure of the
defendant to prove the defence of defective goods, and unjustified
withholding of payment, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.
Consequently, the plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of Rs.63,585/-
along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of institution of the suit till its actual realization.
29.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
30.File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
(This judgment contains 14 pages and
each page has been signed by me)
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Milan Goel)
Today i.e. 24.12.2025. Civil Judge-08 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
CS No. 2371/2023
Kavita Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Pg 14 of 14
-- 14 of 14 --