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
Maksub Bashasab Shaikh, Proprietor
Metro Traders
Add: Patil Complex, Masjid Road,
Latur, Maharashtra – 413512
(Behind Subhash Crocery) …..Defendant
E X P A R T E - J U D G M E N T
CNR No. DLNT 0300 2589 2023
Case No. 1333/23
Under Section
Suit for recovery of
Rs. 43,837/- 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. 1333/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Maksub Bashasab Shaikh 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
Maharaja Shoes having GSTIN No. 20BFDPA7332E1ZA doing whole
sale/Retail business in footwear at above address. Defendant used to
place purchase orders to the plaintiff for Sandals, Shoes, Fine Shoes,
Gents Shoes etc. as per his need and plaintiff in turn supplied same
goods on various dates by raising invoices, bills for the financial year
2019-2020 and 2020-2021. As per statement of account for the
financial year 2019-2020; 2020-2021 there being outstanding amount
of Rs. 43,837/- against defendant. On 22.01.2021, the defendant made
last payment of Rs. 4,000/- 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. 43,837/- 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. 1333/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Maksub Bashasab Shaikh 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. 1333/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Maksub Bashasab Shaikh Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
was supplied to the defendant vide invoices Ex. PW1/5 (colly) for a
sum of Rs. 43,837/-
(Rs. 47,837/- minus 4,000/- paid in cash by
defendant to the plaintiff); 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. 43,837/-
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. 43,837/- 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.
__________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ No. 1333/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Maksub Bashasab Shaikh Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
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. 1333/23 Sonia Gupta Vs. Maksub Bashasab Shaikh Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --