Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: Suit No 292/25 Pg 1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF AYUSH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution of Suit: May 7th, 2025
Pronounced on: January 28th, 2026
SUIT NO: 292/25
IN THE MATTER OF: -
RAJSEE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. ANKIT BINDAL
HAVING OFFICE AT: D-335, GANESH NAGAR
COMPLEX, PANDEV NAGAR, EAST DELHI
DELHI-110092 ...PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. Shiv Dutt
Kaushik, Advocate.
VERSUS
JAVED CHAUDHARY
S/O MANSOOR CHAUDHARY
PROPRIETOR OF M/S J.M. PACKAGING
36A, DELHI PRESS COMPLEX
SITE IV, SAHIBABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201310
ALSO, AT: A-2/25, SITE 4
SAHIBABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA
SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD
UTTAR PRADESH-201310
ALSO, AT: SECOND FLOOR, GALI NO. 7
NEXT TO CHAND MASJID
SHAHEEN BAGH, DELHI-110025 ...DEFENDANT
Through: None
-- 1 of 6 --
Suit No 292/25 Pg 2 of 6
SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII CPC FOR RECOVERY OF RS.
2,09,337/- ALONGWITH INTEREST
JUDGMENT UNDER ORDER XXXVII RULE 2 (3) CPC
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit under Order
XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking
recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,09,337/- along with pendente lite and
future interest @ 24% per annum from 03.02.2025 till realization
and costs.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is outlined
below:
2.1 The plaintiff is a private limited company engaged in the
business of sale of paper and paper products under the name and
style of M/s Rajsee International Pvt. Ltd. The defendant is a
reseller of paper and paper products, operating under the name and
style of M/s J.M. Packaging with business establishments at
Ghaziabad and Okhla, New Delhi.
2.2 The defendant had long standing business relations with the
plaintiff and used to purchase the goods from the plaintiff on both
cash and credit basis. Orders were placed telephonically, pursuant
to which the plaintiff supplied goods along with corresponding
invoices. A running credit account of the defendant was maintained
by the plaintiff in the ordinary course of business.
2.3 During the period from July, 2023—October, 2023, the
defendant placed various purchase orders amounting to Rs.
1,87,762/-. The plaintiff against the purchase orders, raised the
following invoices:
-- 2 of 6 --
Suit No 292/25 Pg 3 of 6
SL. No. Invoice No./Bill No. Date Amount
(Rs.)
1. 2023-24/119 19.07.2023 55,832/-
2. 2023-24/214 19.10.2024 1,49,890/-
(wrongly
mentioned
as
1,31,930/- in
paragraph 8
of the plaint)
Total 1,87,762/-
2.4 The plaintiff asserts that the defendant neither raised any
complaint regarding the quality of goods supplied nor returned the
same. Despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to clear the
outstanding dues.
2.5 On 25.01.2025, the plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon
the defendant to pay the outstanding amount within seven days of
receipt of the notice. As the defendant failed to comply, the present
suit has been filed.
2.6 The plaintiff asserts that the suit is within limitation and this
court has territorial jurisdiction as the business dealings and supply
of goods took place from the plaintiff’s office situated at Pandav
Nagar, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. Summons of the suit were issued vide order dated
07.05.2025 but were received back unserved. Subsequently, the
plaintiff filed an affidavit of service on 12.12.2025, stating that the
defendant was duly served at both his addresses located in
Ghaziabad. Service was also effected on WhatsApp and Email on
-- 3 of 6 --
Suit No 292/25 Pg 4 of 6
30.07.2025 and 27.08.2025, respectively. As per the office report,
the defendant failed to enter appearance within the statutory period
prescribed under Order XXXVII CPC.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr. Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the
suit is founded on the invoices placed on record at pages 14 and 15
of the plaint, which bear the acknowledgment/signatures on behalf
of the defendant. He relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in Flick Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gravity Entertainment Pvt.
Ltd1. and Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Good Morning India
Media Pvt. Ltd2 to contend that a suit under Order XXXVII of the
CPC is maintainable on the basis of an invoice. He further submits
that since the defendant has failed to enter appearance within the
prescribed time, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Order
XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
5. I have heard the submissions and perused the material on
record. The plaintiff has placed on record the invoices bearing
acknowledgment of receipt of goods by the defendant, reflecting
amounts of Rs. 55,832/- and Rs. 1,49,890/-. The WhatsApp
communications filed on record further indicate the defendant’s
admission and assurance to clear the outstanding dues.
6. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in M/s S.S. Steel Industry
Vs M/s Shree Guru Hargobind Steels3, held that once summons
under Order XXXVII CPC have been directed to be issued and duly
served, the defendant is obliged to enter appearance within the
1 CM (M) 1185/2021.
2 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7894.
3 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9964.
-- 4 of 6 --
Suit No 292/25 Pg 5 of 6
statutory period, and on failure of the defendant to enter
appearance within the statutory period, the averments in the plaint
are deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree
forthwith. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein:
“10. Learned counsel further relies on the
judgment of the Division of this Court in Comba
Telecom Ltd. Vs. S. Tel Private Ltd. 2016 (228)
DLT 713 to which I was also a party.
11. The Division Bench in the said judgment
has held that in a Suit under summary procedure
under Order XXXVII, where summons are duly
served and the defendant has not entered
appearance, the defendant could not defend the
Suit, all allegations made in the plaint are
deemed to be admitted and the consequences
are that the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree
as indicated under Order XXXVII Rule 2
Sub Rule 3 CPC.
12. Order XXXVII Rule 2 Sub Rule 3
CPC specifically lays down that defendant shall
not defend the Suit unless he enters appearance
and in default of his entering appearance the
allegations made in the plaint shall be deemed to
be admitted and plaintiff would be entitled to a
decree for the sum not exceeding the sum
mentioned in the summons.
13. The learned Trial Court, though noticed the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Comba Telecom Ltd. (Supra), has held that the
same is not applicable on the ground that the Suit
is not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC.
14. The Trial Court has clearly committed an
error. In view of the specific provisions of Order
XXXVII Rule 2 Sub Rule 3 CPC, it is not within
the powers of the Trial Court at that stage, to
-- 5 of 6 --
Suit No 292/25 Pg 6 of 6
assess as to whether the Suit satisfies the
requirement of Order XXXVII CPC or not. Once
summons in the prescribed form have been
directed to be issued and duly served, the
defendant is obliged to enter appearance within
the statutory period, and on failure of the
defendant to enter appearance within the
statutory period, the averments in the plaint are
deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled
to a decree forthwith.”
(Underlining added)
7. Despite service, the defendants have failed to put up an
appearance within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the facts as
averred in the plaint, in view of Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC, are
deemed to have been admitted by the defendants and the plaintiff
is held entitled to a decree in terms of the said provisions. The suit
is accordingly decreed under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) CPC in favour
of the Plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 2,09,337/- along-with interest @
9% per annum from 03.02.2025 till the date of decree. Costs are
also awarded in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared. File
be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Pronounced in open court
On 28th January 2026 (AYUSH SHARMA)
CJ/EAST/KARKARDOOMA
DELHI/28.01.2026
This judgment contains 6 pages and each page has been
signed by me.
-- 6 of 6 --