Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Suit No 338/25 Pg 1 of 4
IN THE COURT OF AYUSH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution of Suit: May 13th, 2025
Pronounced on: April 7th, 2026
SUIT NO: 338/25
IN THE MATTER OF: -
M/S MAHAJAN ENTERPRISES
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SH. MUKUL MAHAJAN R/O: A-23
INDRA PARK, CHANDER NAGAR
DELHI-110051
ALSO, AT: HOUSE NO. 400
GAGAN VIHAR, DELHI-110051 ...PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. Mukul Mahajan,
AR/Proprietor of
plaintiff.
VERSUS
M/S SIDH GORIA TRADERS
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SH. ANIL KUMAR, R/O: H. NO. 875
SECTOR-5, NEAR SHIV TEMPLE
NANAK NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR
JAMMU, JAMMU & KASHMIR-180004 ...DEFENDANT
Through: None.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF SUM OF RS. 35, 918.57/-
Ex- PARTE JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 35,918.57/- along
with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till
-- 1 of 4 --
Suit No 338/25 Pg 2 of 4
realization.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are as follows:
2.1 The plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Mahajan Enterprises, while the
defendant is the proprietor of M/s Sidh Goria Traders. The plaintiff is
engaged in the business of trading of cosmetic products and had been
supplying such products to the defendant on credit basis in the ordinary
course of business.
2.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that all transactions between the parties
were duly recorded in the books of account, and a mutual, open and current
account was maintained in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff
supplied goods to the defendant vide tax invoices bearing nos. 386 and 410
dated 08.11.2023 and 18.11.2023 respectively, for a total sum of Rs.
55,290/-. It is further stated that the defendant made part payments, leaving
an outstanding balance of Rs. 35,918.57/-.
2.3 The plaintiff further states that the last payment of Rs. 27,999/- was
received in February, 2024 thereafter, on 29.04.2024, the plaintiff
approached the defendant for clearing the outstanding dues; however, the
defendant continued to seek time on one pretext or other and failed to
discharge his liability. Hence, the present suit.
RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant through
the office of the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jammu on
07.09.2025. Service was also effected through e-mail and WhatsApp.
Despite service, the defendant neither entered appearance nor filed a
written statement within the time prescribed under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). Consequently, the defendant’s right to file the
written statement was closed and the defendant was proceeded ex-parte
-- 2 of 4 --
Suit No 338/25 Pg 3 of 4
vide order dated 01.12.2025.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
4. In order to substantiate the case, plaintiff examined Mr. Mukul
Mahajan as PW1. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
PW1/A and relied upon the following documents viz. GST registration
certificate of the plaintiff PW1/1, copy of invoices Ex. PW1/2 (colly),
ledger account Ex. PW1/3, Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/4, court fees receipt
Ex. PW1/5 and certificate under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 in support of the invoices and ledger Ex. PW1/6.
5. Vide separate statement of AR of plaintiff, plaintiff’s evidence was
closed on 12.02.2026.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. Mukul Mahajan, AR of the plaintiff, submits that the defendant
had been purchasing goods on a credit basis and that a mutual, open and
current account was maintained in the defendant’s name. He contends that,
as per the ledger account, a sum of Rs. 35,918.57/- remains outstanding
against the defendant. It is further argued that the plaintiff has duly proved
all relevant documents on record and is, therefore, entitled to a decree in
his favour.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
7. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. PW1 has
affirmed the contents of plaint in his evidence on oath. He has placed on
record the relevant invoices [Ex. PW1/2 (colly)] and the ledger account,
duly supported by a certificate under Section 63 of the BSA, 2023, which
reflects an outstanding amount of Rs. 35,918.57/- against the defendant.
The entries in the ledger account have not been denied by the defendant as
the defendant has neither appeared nor contested the proceedings, despite
due service of summons. It is well settled that if the entries in the ledger
-- 3 of 4 --
Suit No 338/25 Pg 4 of 4
are not denied, it may not require any corroboration1. In the absence of any
rebuttal or contrary evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony
of the plaintiff.
8. The suit has been filed within the period of limitation, reckoned
from the date of last payment made on 21.02.2024. This court also has the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, as part of the cause of
action has arisen within its jurisdiction, as is evident from the averments
in paragraph 7 of the plaint. Moreover, the invoices relied upon by the
plaintiff specifically stipulate that dispute shall be subject to the
jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi.
RELIEF
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed for an amount of Rs. 35,918.57/-. The plaintiff has claimed interest
@ 18% per annum; however, the same is found to be excessive and not in
consonance with the prevailing market rate of interest. Accordingly,
interest @ 9% per annum is awarded from the date of filing of the suit till
realization of the decretal amount.
10. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree
sheet be drawn forthwith. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Pronounced in open court
On April 7th 2026 (AYUSH SHARMA)
CJ/EAST/KARKARDOOMA
DELHI/07.04.2026
This judgment contains 4 pages and each page has been signed by me.
1 Jay Ambe Industries v. Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 2258, para 24
-- 4 of 4 --