Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER : NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Presided by : Mr. Himanshu Raman Singh
Sonia Gupta, Proprietor
Vtree Enterprises
A-187, DSIIDC Industrial Area,
Narela, Delhi-110040. …..Plaintiff
Versus
Shadab Ahmad, Proprietor
M/s City Shoe Word
S – 10/203;C – 6,
Hukulganj Chaukaghat,
Varanasi, U.P. – 221002. …..Defendant
E X P A R T E - J U D G M E N T
CNR No. DLNT 0300 2588 2023
Case No. 1334/23
Under Section
Suit for recovery of
Rs. 2,17,954/- alongwith pendete
lite and future interest @ 18% per
annum.
Date of Institution 30.11.2023
Date of Reserving Order 09.06.2025
Date of Final Order 09.06.2025
Final Order Suit Decreed
__________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ No. 1334/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Shadab Ahmad Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
PLAINT
1. Plaintiff is the proprietor of Vtree Enterprises engaged in
the business of manufacturing, dealing/whole selling of Footwear
having GSTIN No. 07BQNPG9949Q1ZN. Defendant is proprietor of
M.s City Shoe Word having GSTIN No. 09AJAPA6068R1ZR doing
whole sale/Retail business in footwear at above address. Defendant
used to place purchase orders to the plaintiff for Sandals, Shoes,
Slippers, Dip, Kids Shoes etc. as per his need and plaintiff in turn
supplied same goods on various dates by raising invoices, bills for the
financial year 2021-2022 i.e. since April, 2021. As per statement of
account for the financial year 2021-2022; 2022-2023 there being
outstanding amount of Rs. 2,17,954/- against defendant. On
27/12/2022, the defendant made last payment of Rs. 9,000/- through
cash to the plaintiff and thus he is liable to pay the said amount to the
plaintiff. On 16.10.2023, plaintiff issued legal demand notice vide
speed post, email and whatsapp demanding Rs. 2,17,954/- alongwith
interest 18% p.a. and the same was duly received by the defendant
who failed to reply the legal notice and or make the outstanding
payment. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
2. Defendant has not entered his appearance nor filed any
Written Statement and was proceeded
exparte vide order dated
23.01.2025. He remained
exparte thereafter.
TRIAL
__________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ No. 1334/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Shadab Ahmad Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
3. PW1/Vipin Kumar Gupta/SPA holder of plaintiff
examined himself
vide affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the
contents of his plaint and relied upon the following documents :-
S. No. Description of documents Exhibit Nos.
1 Copy of Aadhar Card. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2 Special power of attorney. Ex. PW1/2
3 GST registration of plaintiff. Ex. PW1/3
4 GST registration of defendant. Ex. PW1/4
5 Original invoices. Ex. PW1/5 (colly.)
6 Ledger Ex. PW1/6
7 Legal demand notice, postal
receipt, tracking report,
screenshot of e-mail and
whatsapp.
Ex. PW1/7 (colly.)
8 Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex. PW1/8
3.1 The witness was not cross-examined as the defendant
remained
exparte during trial. No other witness was examined and PE
stood closed on 17.04.2025.
Heard. Perused.
FINDINGS
4. PW1 has duly proved the contents of the plaint as well as
the documents relied upon by him. His testimony to the effect that
there were business transactions between the parties whereby material
__________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ No. 1334/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Shadab Ahmad Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
was supplied to the defendant vide invoices Ex. PW1/5 (colly) for a
sum of Rs. 2,17,954/-
; that the said amount remains outstanding
against defendant for the supply of aforesaid material as reflected in
the Ledger Ex. PW1/6 and that the defendant has failed to pay the
same despite service of Legal Notice Ex. PW1/7, has gone unrebutted
and uncontested in the absence of any cross-examination by the
defendant to this effect. The uncontroverted testimony of the witness
is duly corroborated by the Ledger Ex. PW1/6 generated by the
plaintiff in its regular course of business as well as invoice Ex. PW1/5
(colly), placed on record. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
same. The suit of the plaintiff is well within limitation.
The unrebutted testimony of PW1 therefore stands
proved.
4.1 Plaintiff has sought recovery for a sum of Rs. 2,17,954/-
alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of
suit till its realization. Same appears to be on the higher side. In my
opinion, interest @ 6% per annum would serve the ends of justice.
RELIEF
5. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, plaintiff has
successfully proved its case.
A decree of recovery of Rs. 2,17,954/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum
w.e.f. the date of institution of the suit till its
realization is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
__________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ No. 1334/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Shadab Ahmad Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
( Himanshu Raman Singh)
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court / Delhi
__________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ No. 1334/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Shadab Ahmad Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --