Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL
SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 80/2026
CNR No. DLNW03-000096-2026
In the matter of :
Smt. Sunita Bansal
(Proprietor of Salasar Marketing, India)
Address :
I) Ground Floor, Kh. No. 628/468-480, Sultanpur, Majra, Near
Anoop Dharam Kaanta, New Delhi-110086
II) WZ-28, Second Floor, Hari Singh Park, Paschim Vihar,
New Multan Nagar, Delhi-110056
......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Firoz Abdulkadar Khimani
(Proprietor of Supreme Enterprise)
Address :
B/6/7, Sukan Plaza, Gandhi Road, Bardoli,
Surat, Gujarat-394601
....Defendant
Date of institution : 16.01.2026
Reserved for Judgment : 13.08.2026
Date of decision : 14.08.2026
CS SCJ No. 80/2026 Sunita Bansal v. Firoz Adbdulkadar Khimani 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.19,693/- (Rupees Nineteen
Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three Only) alongwith
pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till realization and
cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the
plaint are that plaintiff is a proprietorship firm running under the
name and style of "Salasar Marketing (India)" and is engaged in
the business of manufacturing, trading, wholesale & retail of
footwear and other related products (hereinafter referred to as
"Goods") at pan India level. The present suit is being filed
through its Special Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Naresh Bansal
who is duly authorized by the proprietor of plaintiff by way of
Special Power of Attorney dated 11.12.2025. It is stated that he is
well conversant with the facts of the present case as he was
himself involved in the entire transaction with the defendant and
as such competent to file the present suit. It is averred that in
2022, the defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of goods
from the plaintiff and assured that the payments against the goods
supplied by the plaintiff shall be remitted in favour of the
plaintiff on issuance of invoices without any failure/default of
any manner whatsoever. It was further assured by the defendant
that it possesses the sound financial capacity and means to
honour its obligations due towards the plaintiff. Plaintiff agreed
CS SCJ No. 80/2026 Sunita Bansal v. Firoz Adbdulkadar Khimani 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
to enter into the instant business relationship with the defendant.
Pursuant to the aforesaid representations & assurances and
considering the same to be true, plaintiff supplied goods to the
defendant from time to time as per its requirements and demands
under distinct invoices. It is averred that the delivery of goods so
supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant was duly obtained and
accepted by the defendant well in order without any protest
and/or complaint. It is stated that after having procured the
delivery of goods from the plaintiff, the defendant defaulted in
making timely payment of the dues to the plaintiff. Further,
whenever the plaintiff requested for settlement of dues, the same
was avoided by the defendant on one or the other pretext. It is
stated that as per the ledger account statement as maintained by
the plaintiff concerning the defendant, the principal amount of
Rs. 19,693/- remains unpaid and outstanding against the
defendant till date. It is averred that as per the agreed terms and
conditions between the parties, the defendant is liable to pay
interest @18% p.a. to the plaintiff on the outstanding amount of
the invoices till the entire amount is paid by the defendant. It is
further stated that as per the terms and conditions, the interest is
imposed upon the defendant on expiry of 15 days from the date
of invoice or last part payment made by the defendant till the
date by which the entire liability is paid by the defendant. Hence,
the present suit.
3. The summons of the suit issued to defendant on
03.02.2026. However, the defendant failed to appear despite
CS SCJ No. 80/2026 Sunita Bansal v. Firoz Adbdulkadar Khimani 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
service, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
30.05.2026 and the plaintiff was directed to bring ex-parte
evidence.
4. Sh. Naresh Bansal, SPA holder of plaintiff examined as
PW1 who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has
reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He
has relied upon the following documents :
(a) Copy of GSTIN details of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/1;
(b) SPA dt. 11.12.2025 is Ex.PW1/2;
(c) Copy of GSTIN details of defendant is Ex.PW1/3;
(d) Copy of invoices alongwith respective e-way bills is
Ex.PW1/4 (colly) to Ex.PW1/6 (colly);
(e) Copy of ledger account is Ex.PW1/7;
(f) Screenshot of GST portal is Ex.PW1/8(colly);
(g) Certificate u/s 63 (4) (c) of BSA, 2023 is Ex.PW1/9 and
Ex.PW1/10.
5. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the material available
on record carefully.
6. Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and
submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff, it is important to
note that in the present case, the defendant has never appeared
and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2026. It is
further noted that the Court is mindful of the fact that in cases
where the defendant is ex-parte, the Court needs to be extra
cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence pointing
CS SCJ No. 80/2026 Sunita Bansal v. Firoz Adbdulkadar Khimani 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
out the defect in the case of plaintiff and before passing the
judgment, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff should be
weighed carefully before arriving at the finding as to whether the
plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. The initial burden to
prove the averments of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the
plaintiff who has to discharge the said burden as per law. In civil
litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove its case by
preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V. Bhimappa
(2017) 9 SCC 586, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
observed that:
“It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is
always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings
and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support
thereof.”
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely is
upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
7. PW-1 has proved on oath the allegations against the
defendant and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on
unchallenged and un-rebutted. Copy of GSTIN details of plaintiff
is Ex.PW1/1; SPA dt. 11.12.2025 is Ex.PW1/2; Copy of GSTIN
details of defendant is Ex.PW1/3; Copy of invoices alongwith
respective e-way bills is Ex.PW1/4 (colly) to Ex.PW1/6 (colly);
Copy of ledger account is Ex.PW1/7; Screenshot of GST portal
is Ex.PW1/8(colly); Certificate u/s 63 (4) (c) of BSA, 2023 is
Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10.
Point for determination
CS SCJ No. 80/2026 Sunita Bansal v. Firoz Adbdulkadar Khimani 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
8. The present suit is filed on 16.01.2026 and has been filed
within the prescribed period of limitation as per provisions of
Limitation Act. Plaintiff has proved all the documents i.e.
invoices/account statements for supplying of goods by plaintiff
to the defendant (which were supplied at the direction of
defendant) and the fact that defendant has not made payment of
same to the plaintiff. As defendant has not turned up despite
service and accordingly was proceeded ex-parte, the averments
made in the plaint and the testimony of the plaintiff during PE
remained unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelief the
unrebutted testimony of PW1 and the documents relied upon
him. These documents coupled with testimony of the plaintiff
prove the case of the plaintiff.
Relief
9. In view of the reasons given above and uncontroverted
evidence brought on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed
and following reliefs are granted in her favour and against the
defendant :-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs.19,693/- (Rupees Nineteen
Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three Only).
ii. Seeing the prevalent market conditions, pendente lite and
future interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum is also awarded in
favour of the plaintiff from 18.10.2023 (the date when payment
become due) till the realization of the amount.
CS SCJ No. 80/2026 Sunita Bansal v. Firoz Adbdulkadar Khimani 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
iii. Cost of the suit.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to
Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
on 14.08.2026
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,
North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi
CS SCJ No. 80/2026 Sunita Bansal v. Firoz Adbdulkadar Khimani 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --