Final Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: Suit No 619/24 Pg 1 of 4
IN THE COURT OF AYUSH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution of Suit: August 27th, 2024
Pronounced on: July 20th, 2026
SUIT NO: 619/24
IN THE MATTER OF: -
ISHAN JAIN
PROP. OF M/S MAGIK INC.
OFFICE AT: H. NO. 10, D—9
NAMBARDAR MARKET, VILLAGE
GHAZIPUR, DELHI—110096 ...PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. Suryansh Sharma,
Advocate.
VERSUS
SANJAY AGGARWAL
PROP. OF M/S SANJAY TRADERS
AT: SHOP NO. 3615, MAIN ROAD
BARA HINDU RAO, SWARN PARK
DELHI—110096
ALSO, AT: 211/11, FATHAPUR CHOWK
UPPER GROUND FLOOR, NEAR ICICI
BANK, DELHI—110006
ALSO, AT: 6164, PAKKI GALI, OPP.
MCD PRIMARY SCHOOL, BARA HINDU
RAO, AZAD MARKET, DELHI—11006 ...DEFENDANT
Through: None.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF SUM OF RS. 1,09,450/-
Ex- PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.
-- 1 of 4 --
Suit No 619/24 Pg 2 of 4
1,09,450/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of
the suit till realization and costs of the proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts, as pleaded in the plaint, are set out hereinbelow:
2.1 The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s Magik Inc. and is engaged
in the business of trading in vanaspati and refined oil. The defendant is the
sole proprietor of M/s Sanjay Traders. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendant approached him for the supply of vanaspati and refined oil and
assured that the invoices would be paid promptly upon supply of the goods.
2.2 Acting upon the said assurance, the plaintiff regularly supplied the
goods to the defendant on a credit basis. The defendant made payments
against certain invoices from time to time. However, it is alleged that the
defendant subsequently started defaulting in timely payment on one
pretext or another. According to the statement of account maintained by
the plaintiff in the ordinary course of business, a sum of Rs. 1,09,450/-
remained outstanding and payable by the defendant as on 25.11.2021.
2.3 On 22.04.2024, plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant
calling upon him to clear the dues. However, the defendant neither replied
nor complied. Consequently, the present suit was instituted.
RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant by way
of affixation at his addresses situated at Azad Market and Swarn Park on
06.05.2025 and at his address at Fatahpur Chowk on 02.06.2025.
4. On 18.08.2025, learned counsel for the defendant appeared through
video conferencing and requested that the matter be referred to the
Mediation Centre. However, the mediation proceedings did not culminate
in a settlement and thereafter the defendant stopped appearing before the
court.
-- 2 of 4 --
Suit No 619/24 Pg 3 of 4
5. Consequently, vide order dated 06.01.2026, the defendant’s right to
file the written statement was closed and he was proceeded against ex-
parte.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon the
following documents viz. Invoice dated 18.11.2021 and 11.11.2021 Ex.
PW1/A (colly); statement of account Ex. PW1/B; certificate under section
63 of BSA, 2023 Ex. PW1/C; legal notice Ex. PW1/D and original postal
receipt Ex. PW1/E (colly).
7. Vide order dated 11.05.2026, ex-parte PE was closed.
SUBMISSIONS
8. Mr. Suryansh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the
plaintiff regularly supplied goods to the defendant on a credit basis and
that the invoices placed on record bear the defendant’s acknowledgment
of receipt of the goods. He further contended that, as reflected in the
statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 1,09,450/-
remains outstanding against the defendant. It was further argued that
despite due service of summons, the defendant neither filed a written
statement nor cross-examined the plaintiff and has thus failed to dispute
the plaintiff's claim.
ANALYSIS & REASONS
9. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. PW1 has
deposed on oath in consonance with the averments made in the plaint. To
substantiate his claim, the plaintiff has placed on record invoices dated
11.11.2021 and 18.11.2021 [Ex. PW1/A (colly)], which bear the
acknowledgment of the defendant evidencing receipt of the goods. The
plaintiff has also produced the statement of account/ledger, duly supported
-- 3 of 4 --
Suit No 619/24 Pg 4 of 4
by a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023, [Ex. PW1/B & Ex. PW1/C] showing an outstanding balance of Rs.
1,09,450/- against the defendant. Despite due service of summons, the
defendant neither filed a written statement nor cross-examined PW1. In
the absence of cross examination or rebuttal by the defendant, there is no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff.
10. The suit has been instituted within the prescribed period of
limitation, calculated from the dates of the invoices. This court also has the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, as a part of the cause of
action arose within its territorial limits, as specifically pleaded in
paragraph 11 of the plaint.
RELIEF
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed for the sum of Rs. 1,09,450/-. The plaintiff has claimed interest @
18% per annum. However, in the opinion of this court, the said rate is
excessive and in the nature of a penal claim. It is neither supported by the
terms of the invoices nor consistent 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.
12. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree
sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due
compliance.
Pronounced in open court
on July 20th 2026 (AYUSH SHARMA)
CJ/EAST/KARKARDOOMA
DELHI/20.07.2026
This judgment contains 4 pages and each page has been signed by me.
-- 4 of 4 --