Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (Comm) 71/2024
IA No.3/2024
Mohd. Amir vs. Diwan Singh Yadav
08.01.2025
ORDER
1. By way of present order, I shall decide an
application dated 14.11.2024 under Order XI Rule 1, 2, 13
and 14 r/w section 151 CPC (IA No.3/2024) as filed on
behalf of the plaintiff.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Mohd. Sarfaraz,
Ld. Counsel for applicant/plaintiff and by Sh. Himanshu
Yadav, Ld. Counsel for defendant. I have also perused the
record as well as reply, filed on behalf of defendant.
3. Ld. Counsel for applicant/plaintiff argued that the
defendant has denied receiving of material supplied vide
invoice no.100 although he has taken GST rebate of the
said invoice. It is submitted that defendant be directed to
produce GSTR 3B, GSTR2A and 2B as well as all the
purchase bills of financial year 2021-22 and ITRs of the
said financial year for proper adjudication of the present
suit.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for non-applicant/defendant
argued that plaintiff has not pleaded in the amended plaint
that the defendant had taken GST rebate against the
invoice no.100 or that plaintiff wishes to rely upon GSTR
3B, GSTR 2A and 2B and ITRs for the financial years
2021-22, which are in the possession and control of the
defendant and thus could not be filed by him. Ld. Counsel
for non-applicant/defendant vehemently contended that it
CS (Comm) 71/24 Mohd. Amir vs. Diwan Singh Yadav Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
is a settled law that the plaintiff must stand on its own legs
and has to prove his own case. It is submitted that it is for
the plaintiff to prove that he had delivered the material
regarding his claim of invoice no.100. It is thus submitted
that the present application is liable to be dismissed with
heavy cost.
5. In brief, relevant facts are that plaintiff filed the
present suit for recovery of Rs.5,66,695/- against the
material supplied to the defendant vide invoice no.69 dated
20.06.2021 for an amount of Rs.2,59,945/- and for invoice
no.100 dated 24.07.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,09,750/-. It
is stated that the material supplied by the plaintiff was duly
received by the defendant and no objections were raised by
the defendant regarding the quality and quantity but no
payment was made to the plaintiff.
6. Defendant filed his written statement and taken a
preliminary objection that the payment of invoice no.69
dated 20.06.2021 for Rs.2,56,945/- has been received by
the plaintiff on 14.05.2024 i.e. before filing of the present
suit and that defendant has not received goods as alleged to
have been dispatched vide invoice no.100, dated
24.07.2021 whose e-way bill stand cancelled by the
plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff had also filed an application for amendment
of the plaint while submitting that the plaintiff reconciled
his account and came to know that the defendant had made
the payment with respect to invoice no. 69 and now the
claim of plaintiff remains for invoice no.100, dated
CS (Comm) 71/24 Mohd. Amir vs. Diwan Singh Yadav Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
24.07.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,09,750/-. The said
application was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2024.
8. Plaintiff has not issued any notice to produce the
documents as mentioned in the present application in the
form provided in Appendix C to the Code of Civil
Procedure as mentioned in Order XI Rule 5 (2) CPC as
applicable to Commercial Courts Act. The delivery of the
material through invoice no.100 is to be proved by the
plaintiff in accordance with law.
9. Plaintiff has not pleaded in the amended plaint that
the defendant has claimed GST rebate/tax input of invoice
no.100, dated 24.07.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,09,750/-.
Plaintiff has failed to explain how all the purchase bills
regarding material purchased by the defendant or ITRs of
the defendant for the financial year 2021-22 are relevant
for just decision of the present suit, when the plaintiff has
himself filed invoice/purchase bill no.100 dated
24.07.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,09,750/- through which
it is claimed that defendant purchased goods from the
plaintiff. Therefore, there is no need for issuing directions
to the defendant to produce all the purchase bills or his
ITRs of the relevant period i.e. 2021-22. The present
application for issuing directions to the defendant for
production of documents as mentioned in para no. 4(a) to
(c) of the application is devoid of any merits and same
stands dismissed accordingly.
(Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
District Judge (Commercial Court)
North-East, KKD Courts, Delhi
08.01.2025
CS (Comm) 71/24 Mohd. Amir vs. Diwan Singh Yadav Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --