Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ : CIVIL JUDGE : NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS SCJ104523
CNR No. DLNT030020452023
In reference:
MS OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD.
Through its Director
Shri Nitin Thukral
3/42, West Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi110026. ..……….. Plaintiff
VERSUS
RAJU
Proprietor of M/S Jaiswal Electric
D-39/47, Kodai Chowki,
Varanasi, UP-221001. ……...Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.09.2023
Date of reservation of Judgment : 01.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 01.08.2024
CS SCJ1045-23 M-S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJU Page No. 1 of 6
.
-- 1 of 6 --
EXPARTE J U D G M E N T
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant
seeking the recovery of Rs. 2,14,386/ along with pendentelite and
future interest @ 18 % p.a.
FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT :
2. The case of the plaintiff as per plaint in brief is that Plaintiff is a
private Limited company registered under Companies Act doing
business of LED lights and parts of LED lights and Defendant being
proprietor of M/S Jaiswal Electric placed order of LED lights of
various qualities to Plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had
supplied the LED lights to the Defendant as per bills / invoices and as
per the running account maintained, the Defendant has a liability and
outstanding to the tune of Rs. 2,14,386/. It is the case of the plaintiff
that despite repeated reminders and service of legal notice dated
17.06.2023, the Defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount.
Hence, the present suit.
PRAYER:
3. Plaintiff has made the following prayer:
(a) That a decree for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,14,386/
alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., pendentelite as well as future
interest along with costs.
(b) Any other relief.
CS SCJ1045-23 M-S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJU Page No. 2 of 6
.
-- 2 of 6 --
DEFENCE :
4. In the present case, the Defendant was duly served on 15.01.2024.
However, since no WS was filed on his behalf, the right of defendant
to file WS stood closed and the suit was proceeded exparte qua the
said defendant on 02.05.2024.
ISSUES:
5. No issues have been framed in the present case.
DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE:
6. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1,
who tendered his exparte evidence by way of af fidavit Ex. PW1/A
and relied upon following documents:
(a) Ex PW-1/1 being the certificate of incorporation
(b) Ex PW-1/2 being the registration certificate.
(c) Ex PW-1/3 being the board resolution.
(d) Ex PW-1/4 to Ex PW-1/8 being the invoices.
(e) Ex PW-1/9 and Ex PW-1/10 being the e-way bills.
(f) Ex PW-1/11 being the certificate u/S 65B, IEA.
(g) Ex PW-1/12 being the statement of account.
(h) Ex PW-1/13 being the legal notice.
(I) Ex PW-1/14 being the postal receipt.
(j) Ex PW-1/15 being the tracking report.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
7. Exparte final arguments have been heard at length on behalf of the
plaintiff.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
CS SCJ1045-23 M-S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJU Page No. 3 of 6
.
-- 3 of 6 --
8. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines “burden of proof” and
lays down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the
person who asserts the facts. Therefore, the burden of proof always
lies on the plaintiff initially to prove the facts alleged by him. This
principle of law remains the same even in cases where the suit has
been proceeded exparte qua the defendant.
9. The law with regard to burden of proof of plaintiff in case of exparte
proceeding has been well settled in a plethora of judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though, the burden of proof on the plaintiff
in exparte proceeding is not very heavy, but the necessity of proof by
the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the court cannot be
dispensed with. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chand
Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350 explained the law
with regard to burden of proof of plaintiff in an exparte suit. The
observations of the Hon’ble Apex court may be reproduced herewith
as follows:
“Even if the suit proceeds ex parte and in the absence of
a written statement, unless the applicability of Order 8
Rule 10 CPC is attracted and the court acts thereunder,
the necessity of proof by the plaintiff company of his case
to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with.
In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of
proof on the plaintiff company is not very heavy. A prima
facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of
action would suffice and the court would grant the
plaintiff company such relief as to which he may in law
be found entitled. In a case which has proceeded ex parte
the court is not bound to frame issues under Order 14
CS SCJ1045-23 M-S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJU Page No. 4 of 6
.
-- 4 of 6 --
and deliver the judgment on every issue as required by
Order 20 Rule 5. Yet the trial court should scrutinize the
available pleadings and documents, consider the
evidence adduced, and would do well to frame the
“points for determination” and proceed to construct the
ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by
one. Merely because the defendant is absent the court
shall not admit evidence the admissibility whereof is
excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced
by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence.”
10. In order to prove its case, plaintiff has examined its AR as PW-1 and
relied upon the following documents: Ex PW-1/1 being the certificate
of incorporation, Ex PW-1/2 being the registration certificate, Ex
PW-1/3 being the board resolution, Ex PW-1/4 to Ex PW-1/8 being
the invoices, Ex PW-1/9 and Ex PW-1/10 being the e-way bills, Ex
PW-1/11 being the certificate u/S 65B, IEA, Ex PW-1/12 being the
statement of account, Ex PW-1/13 being the legal notice, Ex PW-
1/14 being the postal receipt and Ex PW-1/15 being the tracking
report. The testimony of PW-1 remained unconverted, unchallenged
and duly corroborated by relevant documents, hence, there is no
reason to disbelieve the said testimony. In the considered opinion of
this Court, the Plaintiff has been able to discharge his burden qua the
entire claim of Rs. 2,14,386/- on the precipice of preponderance of
probabilities. The present suit has been filed within the period of
limitation. In ex-parte suits, where defendant does not file a written
statement or does not appear to contest the case, the plaintiff as well as
the court proceeds on the basis that there was no real opposition to put
forth. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to a sum of Rs.
CS SCJ1045-23 M-S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJU Page No. 5 of 6
.
-- 5 of 6 --
2,14,386/- from the defendant.
11. The plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a.
This Court is of the considered view that if interest @ 9% p.a. is
granted to the plaintiff, it would meet the ends of the justice.
Therefore, interest is granted to the plaintiff @ 9% p.a. from the date
filing of suit till its realization.
12. In the light of the above discussion and reasons therein, the suit of the
plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,14,386/- and alongwith interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization.
Costs of the suit are also decreed in the favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant.
13.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open
Court on 01.08.2024
(PRITU RAJ)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/01.08.2024
CS SCJ1045-23 M-S OXALER HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJU Page No. 6 of 6
.
-- 6 of 6 --