Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 627/2025
In the Matter of: -
M/s. Ferns Cargo Express Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office at 86/C, Khasra No.845/4,
Defence Enclave, Block-K, Part-II,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.
Through its Director and Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma.
…Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Arrow Xpress Solution Pvt. Ltd.
Office at: - 12 FF, GD-Block,
Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi-110058.
Through its Director/Authorized Representative.
…Defendant No.1
2. Mr. Ravi Chandok
S/o. Sh. Vishawambar Jha,
Office at: - 12 FF, GD-Block,
Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi-110058.
Through its Director/Authorized Representative.
…Defendant No.2
Date of pronouncement of the order : 06.02.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall examine whether the present suit is
maintainable for issuance of summons, on the basis of the
averments made in the plaint.
2. Brief background necessitating this order is that present suit has
been filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,37,817/- along with
interest @ 18% per annum, from defendants. This suit has been
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 1 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 1 of 8 --
filed as a “Commercial Suit”. During first hearing on receipt of
this suit, on 11.08.2025 this court pointed out to ld. counsel for
plaintiff that plaint did not explain legal status of defendant. The
exact place in Delhi was not pleaded so as to invoke territorial
jurisdiction of this court. There was no paragraph at all to explain
the limitation. It was also pointed out that the due amount also
needed to be explained as to against which particular bill, the
alleged amount became due. Time was given for rectification of
the plaint. On next date, an application for amendment of the
plaint with proposed amended plaint, was filed. Thereafter, in
two attempts fresh Statement of Truth was filed in support of
amended plaint.
3. On 24.12.2025 after hearing the submissions on the application
for amendment of plaint on the basis of amended plaint, this
court had raised certain queries in respect of limitation while
observing that the amended plaint failed to disclose the relevant
facts, so as to explain how the limitation has been counted in the
present case. On that day, this court had also directed that the
relevant facts along with particulars of the relevant bill with date,
should be mentioned in the pleadings so that the court might be
in a position to apply its mind over such facts in order to count
the limitation. Thereafter, matter was fixed for 02.02.2026 for
filing of amended plaint in accordance with afore-said directions.
However, on 02.02.2026, ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that
he did not find any need to file any further amended plaint and
hence, he did not want to file fresh amended plaint. He submitted
that notice should be issued on the basis of amended plaint,
which was already filed.
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 2 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 2 of 8 --
4. I heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record.
5. Briefly stated, in the amended plaint it is pleaded that plaintiff is
a private limited company, which is incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff is a courier and cargo company in
India and Overseas as well. Defendant no.1 is also a private
limited company. Plaintiff had business relation with defendant
from the year 2022, wherein defendant had provided the
consignments of courier and cargo to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had
been raising invoices, but defendant had never been regular with
the payment and never cleared dues/balance to the plaintiff
properly. On 05.07.2023, defendant had made a payment of
Rs.12,946/- and he had not made any further payment to the
plaintiff. As per amended plaint, the final dues pending against
defendant was Rs.10,37,817/- along with 18% interest per annum
on the same amount.
6. At this stage, while considering the question of maintainability,
the Court is required to examine whether the averments made in
the plaint, if taken to be correct on their face value, are sufficient
to issue summons in the present matter.
7. First of all, I shall refer to the averments made in the amended
plaint related to limitation, which is as under: -
“15. That the present suit is well within the time and not
barred by limitation as the last part payment of Rs. 12,946/-
(Rupees Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Six only) was
made by the Defendant on 05.07.2023. Hence the present suit
is under the limitation and technically the present suit is not
barred by law of limitation.”
8. I shall also refer to other relevant averments made in the
amended plaint, which are as under: -
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 3 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 3 of 8 --
“3. That the Plaintiff had business relation with the defendant
from year 2022 where the Defendant had provided the
consignments of courier and cargo to the plaintiff for which
the plaintiff has maintained proper bills for each assignments.
………..
5. That on 05.07.2023, the Defendant had made a payment of
12,946/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Six
only) and he has not made any further payment to the
Plaintiff.
6. That the Ledger Account of the Defendant maintained by
the Plaintiff, it reflects that the last transaction took place on
05.07.2023 for Business activity of the Plaintiff and since
then till date no business has been carried out between the
Defendant and the Plaintiff. As per the Ledger account of the
Defendant, the opening balance of the Defendant was Rs.
10,50,763/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Thousand Seven
Hundred And Sixty Three Only) as on 01.04.2023 and the
closing balance of the Defendant was 10,37,817/- (Rupees
Ten Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and
Seventeen Only). The final dues pending against the
Defendant were Rs.10,37,817/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty
Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventeen Only) along
with 18% interest per annum of the same amount. However,
the Plaintiff had closed its Statement of Account at its end on
05.07.2023. The copy of ledger account is annexed herewith
as ANNEXURE-B.
7. That the Plaintiff's executive was regularly meeting/calling
to the Defendant's officials but they were not willing to repay
the balance amount @ Rs.10,37,817/- (Rupees Ten Lakh
Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventeen Only).
…………………..
9. That the Plaintiff maintains proper invoices/bills in respect
of business with the defendant from 01.07.2021 to
01.06.2022. …….
…………..
11. That the Plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of
the Invoices, statement of account and ledger account
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 4 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 4 of 8 --
mentioned in the preceding paras against the Defendant and
the same are also already annexed herewith.”
9. In the case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank
of India & Another (2020) 17 SCC 260, Hon’ble Supreme Court
referred to the judgment passed in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo
Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137, wherein the court
had made following observations: -
“For our purpose, clause (d) is relevant. It makes it clear that
if the plaint does not contain necessary averments relating to
limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. For the said
purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an
application to satisfy the court that the plaint does not
disclose how the same is in time.”
10. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable
Society v. P. Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706, Hon’ble
Supreme Court had reiterated that power under Order 7 Rule 11
of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before
registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the
defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial.
11. In the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC
467, Hon’ble Supreme Court advised the trial courts in the
following terms: -
“5. ... The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful— not formal — reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at
the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist
imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 5 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 5 of 8 --
that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.
The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men,
(Chapter XI) and must be triggered against them.”
12. Coming back to the averments made in the amended plaint of the
plaintiff, I find that though the plaintiff has pleaded that this suit
is filed on the basis of invoices, statement of account and ledger
account, but the overall reading of the facts pleaded in the
amended plaint do not show as if there was a mutual, open &
current account between the parties, as contemplated in Article-I
of Schedule to the Limitation Act. So, the claim of plaintiff is
found to be based on various invoices, which have been referred
to in para-9 of the plaint. The court has to look into the relevant
facts for the purpose of counting the limitation and that was the
observation given by the court in order dated 24.12.2025. The
court cannot be guided by the cleverly drafted pleadings in the
present case, which only refers to some outstanding balance
appearing in the ledger account being unilaterally maintained by
plaintiff, as on 01.04.2023. The total period of the due amounts
against a particular invoice is to be looked into.
13. Plaintiff has though pleaded that on 05.07.2023 defendant had
made a payment. However, plaintiff has not pleaded about any
written instrument, if any, through which such payment was
made. The statement of account/copy of ledger account as placed
on the record, shows five (5) credit entries on 05.07.2023 without
much details. It only refers to “freight receipt”. Therefore, even it
cannot be presumed that such payments were received through
online transfer from bank account of defendant to the bank
account of plaintiff. If plaintiff intended to seek extension of
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 6 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 6 of 8 --
limitation period by virtue of any payment made by defendant,
then as per provision under Order VII Rule 6 CPC the plaint
should show the ground to seek exemption from such law of
limitation as claimed.
14. The purpose is very apparent that the plaintiff has to come clean
with all facts in the plaint, to make the court understand as to
how to calculate limitation. If extension of limitation by virtue of
S.19 of Limitation Act is being sought, then such fact has to be
pleaded along with necessary fact on the basis of which such
benefit is claimed.
15. In M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity
Board & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 677, Hon’ble Supreme Court had
held that
“to claim exemption under Section 19 of Limitation
Act, the payment must be made within the prescribed period of
limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing
either in hand writing of payer himself or signed by him. Unless
there is acknowledgment in the required form, payment by itself
is of no avail.”
16. Thus, it is necessary to have such pleading in the plaint to show
if there was any written acknowledgment along with part
payment made by defendant, for the purpose of extension of
limitation under Section 19 of the Act. However, the amended
plaint in hand does not disclose any such fact and with the kind
of stand taken by ld. counsel for plaintiff, so as to refuse to
amend the plaint despite given directions of the court, the only
inference can be raised that plaintiff deliberately wants to
suppress such facts. On the basis of half-hearted and vague
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 7 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 7 of 8 --
pleading of facts, this court cannot treat this suit to be within
limitation. The averment made in para-13 that the cause of action
arose firstly on 05.07.2023 when the alleged last payment was
received by plaintiff, is factually incorrect on the face of other
averments made in the plaint. It is borne out from the averments
made in the plaint that invoices were raised in respect of each
transaction since 01.07.2021, but probably defendant allegedly
did not make payment of all the invoices, due to which there was
outstanding in the sum of Rs.10,50,763/- as on 01.04.2023. Thus,
the cause of action had taken place way back when the plaintiff
had performed service for the defendant and had raised demand
of payment by issuing invoices to the defendant. Hence, I cannot
be guided by such incorrect pleadings/conclusions given in the
amended plaint.
DECISION
17. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I
find that this suit cannot be maintained in its present form,
because the plaint fails to disclose all relevant facts so as to show
that this suit is within limitation period. Hence, plaint is rejected.
Pronounced in the (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
Open Court on this District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
06th Day of February, 2026 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CS (COMM) No.627/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Page No. 8 of 8 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 8 of 8 --