Final Order 23

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU SEHLOTH: CIVIL JUDGE-02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 2387/2023
In the matter of :-
M/s Emarsons Couriers
Through its proprietor Karan Prakash,
Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-10006
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s. Vortex Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Through it’s director Mr. H.S Chaddha
1557-1556, Mazenine Floor, Church Road, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006.
2. Mr. H.S. Chadha
Director of M/s Vortex Rubber Industries
Pvt. Ltd.
Both at 1557-1558, Mazenine floor, Church Road,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110003.
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 8.12.2023
Date of reserving the judgment : 13.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.07.2026
Decision : Suit Dismissed
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,1/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 1 of 10 --
JUDGMENT
1. BRIEF FACTS & PLAINTIFF’S CASE
1.1 The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of a
sum of 35,328/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum	₹
against the defendants.
1.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the proprietor of M/s Emarsons
Couriers and is engaged in the business of providing courier services. Defendant
No.1 is stated to be a private limited company, while Defendant No.2 is stated
to be one of its Directors, who allegedly approached the plaintiff on behalf of
Defendant No.1 for availing courier services on credit. It is averred that the
parties had agreed that payment towards the courier charges would be made
after dispatch of three to four consignments.
1.3. The plaintiff has pleaded that pursuant to the said arrangement, courier
services were rendered to the defendants from time to time and various invoices
were raised against the services so provided. It is further pleaded that despite
repeated requests and demands, the defendants failed to clear the outstanding
dues. According to the plaintiff, after adjustment of all transactions, a sum of
35,328/- remained due and payable by the defendants.	₹
1.4. It is further averred that the plaintiff served a legal demand notice dated
23.05.2023 upon the defendants calling upon them to clear the outstanding
amount. However, despite service of the said notice, the defendants neither
made payment nor complied with the demand, compelling the plaintiff to
institute the present suit.
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,2/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 2 of 10 --
1.5. On these averments, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for recovery of
35,328/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum and	₹
costs of the suit.
2. DEFENCE’S VERSION
2.1. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement on
06.04.2024, wherein preliminary objections were taken that the suit was without
any cause of action, based on false and fabricated documents, barred by
limitation and not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that the ledger account and invoices relied
upon by the plaintiff were unsigned and had no acknowledgment.
2.2. On merits, while admitting that Defendant No.1 is a private limited
company and Defendant No.2 is one of its Directors, the defendants denied
having any liability towards the plaintiff. It was pleaded that no amount was due
and payable by the defendants. The defendants accordingly prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
3. ISSUES
The plaintiff did not file any replication.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed vide order dated 23.09.2024:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of 35,328/- along with	₹
pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
3. Whether the suit is undervalued and under-stamped? OPD
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,3/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 3 of 10 --
4. Relief.
4. EVIDENCE & ARGUMENTS
4.1 In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. In his examination-in-chief, PW-1
relied upon the ledger account (Ex. PW-1/1), invoices (Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly).),
legal demand notice dated 23.05.2023 (Ex. PW-1/3), postal and courier receipts
(Ex. PW-1/4 colly.) and the corresponding tracking reports (Ex. PW-1/5). PW-1
was duly cross-examined by the ld. counsel for the defendants.
4.2 Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17
read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to lead additional evidence for
placing on record the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 in respect of the computer-generated ledger account. The said
application was allowed. Pursuant thereto, PW-1 tendered an additional
affidavit and proved the certificate as Ex. PW-1/6. Despite opportunity, the
defendants chose not to cross-examine PW-1 on the additional affidavit.
4.3 No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Accordingly,
the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
4.4 Despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the defendants did not lead any
evidence in support of their defence. Consequently, the defendants' evidence
was closed.
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,4/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 4 of 10 --
5. ANALYSIS
I have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties and have carefully
perused the pleadings, evidence and material available on record. I would
therefore begin with Issue No. 2, as limitation is a threshold issue. My issue-
wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 2
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
(i) The defendants have taken a plea that the present suit is barred by
limitation. It is settled that though limitation is a mixed question of law and fact,
the party raising such plea must lay the necessary factual foundation and
substantiate the same by cogent evidence. In the present case, except for a bald
averment in the written statement, the defendants have neither pleaded the
material particulars nor led any evidence to demonstrate as to how the present
suit is barred by limitation. No suggestion was put to PW-1 in his cross-
examination disputing the continuity of transactions between the parties or the
dates of the transactions reflected in the plaintiff's documents. The defendants
also chose not to enter the witness box. Consequently, the plea of limitation
remained wholly unsubstantiated.
(ii) The plaintiff has relied upon the ledger account (Ex. PW-1/1), which
reflects transactions between the parties up to 23.10.2021. The defendants
neither disputed the last transaction reflected therein during the cross-
examination of PW-1 nor produced any material to show that limitation had
expired before the institution of the present suit. The present suit was instituted
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,5/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 5 of 10 --
on 18.12.2023, i.e., within three years from the last transaction relied upon by
the plaintiff. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the suit is
barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
It is well settled that while the plaintiff must establish his cause of action,
the burden of proving a specific plea that the suit is barred by limitation lies
upon the party asserting the same when such issue has been specifically framed
and the onus has been cast upon it. In the present case, the defendants have
failed to discharge the burden cast upon them.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiff.
Issue No. 3
Whether the suit is undervalued and under-stamped? OPD
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
(i) The defendants have pleaded that the present suit is undervalued and that
insufficient court fee has been affixed thereon. However, except for the said
plea in the written statement, no material has been placed on record to
substantiate the same. No suggestion was put to PW-1 in his cross-examination
disputing the valuation of the suit or the court fee paid thereon. Further, the
defendants did not lead any evidence to establish the valuation at which,
according to them, the suit ought to have been instituted or the deficiency, if
any, in the court fee affixed.
(ii) The plaintiff has valued the suit for recovery at 35,328/- and has affixed	₹
court fee thereon in accordance with the valuation disclosed in the plaint.
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,6/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 6 of 10 --
Nothing has been brought on record to show that the valuation is arbitrary,
incorrect or contrary to law.
(iii) In view of the above, the defendants have failed to discharge the burden
of proof cast upon them. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the
defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 1
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of 35,328/- along with	₹
pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum, as prayed for? OPP
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
(i) The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon the ledger
account (Ex. PW-1/1), invoices (Ex. PW-1/2 colly.), legal notice (Ex. PW-1/3),
postal receipts and tracking reports (Ex. PW-1/4 colly. and Ex. PW-1/5) as well
as the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
(Ex. PW-1/6).
(ii) At the outset, there is no impediment in reading the ledger account (Ex.
PW-1/1) in evidence in view of the certificate under Section 63 of the BSA
placed on record by the plaintiff. However, the admissibility of the ledger does
not by itself establish the liability of the defendants. It is well settled that entries
in books of account, though relevant, are by themselves insufficient to charge
any person with liability and require independent corroboration.
(iii) The plaintiff seeks to corroborate the ledger through the invoices
exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2 (colly.). A careful scrutiny of the said invoices,
however, reveals significant infirmities. The invoices are photocopies, though
signed by the authorised signatory of the plaintiff, and do not bear any
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,7/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 7 of 10 --
acknowledgment or endorsement of receipt by the defendants. More
importantly, each invoice expressly refers to transactions "as per annexure", yet
none of the annexures forming the basis of the invoices has been produced
before the Court. In the absence of the annexures, the Court is unable to
ascertain the individual consignments, their dates, destinations, charges or the
basis on which the amounts reflected in the invoices were computed.
(iv) The cross-examination of PW-1 further assumes significance. PW-1
admitted that at the time of booking of each consignment, only one receipt was
issued to the customer and that carbon copies thereof were retained by the
plaintiff. He further admitted that the said carbon copies have not been filed and
only the invoices have been placed on record. The booking receipts constituted
the primary contemporaneous record of the consignments allegedly booked
through the plaintiff. No explanation has been furnished as to why such
documents, admittedly maintained by the plaintiff, were withheld. The non-
production of the best available evidence materially weakens the plaintiff's case.
(v) The Court also finds that Invoice No. 912 dated 16.03.2021 itself purports
to be a consolidated invoice covering transactions spread over several preceding
months. However, in the absence of the annexures referred to therein, the Court
is unable to correlate the consolidated amount with the individual transactions
allegedly undertaken during the said period. Similar deficiencies are noticed in
the remaining invoices. Even the ledger entry corresponding to Invoice No. 912
reflects an amount of 27,032/-, whereas the invoice records the total amount as	₹
27,034/-. Though the discrepancy is only of 2/-, it assumes relevance in the	₹ ₹
facts of the present case where the plaintiff seeks to establish liability solely on
the basis of self-generated business records.
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,8/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 8 of 10 --
(vi) It is true that during cross-examination, the defendants suggested on one
hand that the invoices had been falsely prepared and, on the other hand,
suggested that payment had already been made in cash. The said suggestions are
not entirely consistent. Nevertheless, the inconsistencies in the defence cannot
relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving his own case. It is a settled
principle that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own evidence and
not on the weakness of the defence.
(vii) Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to produce satisfactory and
reliable documentary evidence establishing that the courier services
corresponding to the amount claimed were actually rendered to the defendants.
The ledger account, though admissible, remains substantially unsupported by
the best available contemporaneous evidence, namely the booking receipts and
the annexures forming the basis of the invoices. The evidentiary deficiencies are
not merely technical but go to the root of the plaintiff's claim. Consequently, the
plaintiff has failed to establish the alleged outstanding liability of 35,328/- on	₹
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the
defendants.
6. Relief
In view of the findings returned on Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and
on Issues No. 2 and 3, the present suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff is
dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,9/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 9 of 10 --
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
7. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the
open court today on 20.07.2026
(Himanshu Sehloth)
Civil Judge-02, (Central),THC
Delhi/20.07.2026
CS SCJ No.2387/23
	M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs.
	Page No,10/10
M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
-- 10 of 10 --