Final Order 6

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. 229/2026
CNR No. DLNW03-000338-2026
In the matter of :
M/s Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office at :
A-25, First Floor, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Maneesh Makan
(Prop. of M/s Manish Aluminium & Hardware)
Registered Office at :
Plot No. A-21, Pathwari Road, Subhash Nagar,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001
....Defendant
Date of institution : 12.02.2026
Reserved for Judgment : 25.05.2026
Date of decision : 26.05.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.98,456/- (Rupees Ninety
Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Six Only) along with
pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date
of filing of present suit till realization alongwith cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the
CS SCJ No. 229/2026 M/s Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd. v. Maneesh Makan 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
plaint are that plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated
under companies act, 2013. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of
Aluminum Composite Panel Sheets manufacturing products
under the name and style of M/s. Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd. It is
stated that defendant placed the order for supply of Aluminum
Composite Panel Sheets, and plaintiff accordingly supplied the
ordered ordered materials to the defendant from time to time,
which were duly received and acknowledged by defendant from
time to time. It is stated that as per the statement of account
maintained by the plaintiff in the name of defendant a sum of
Rs.98,456/- is outstanding and payable by the defendant to the
plaintiff towards the goods supplied by the plaintiff. It is averred
that defendant in discharge of legally enforceable liability had
issued post-dated cheque on 07.04.2025, cheque no. 000045 for
Rs.98,456/- dated 30.06.2025 drawn on Baroda Rajasthan
Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch at S.C. Bharatpur, Distt,
Bharatpur (Rajasthan), in favour of plaintiff company with the
assurances that the same will be encashed on presentation.
Plaintiff presented the said cheque for encashment with its
Banker i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd., Keshavpuram Lawrance Road, New
Delhi, 35 having its branch at Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi
34, however, the said cheque was returned unpaid by plaintiff
bankers with the remarks "Fund Insufficient". It is further stated
that plaintiff on many events approached defendant and requested
him to clear the above said outstanding amount, but defendant
fails to consider the requests of plaintiff and postponed the matter
on one pretext to other. Hence, the present suit.
CS SCJ No. 229/2026 M/s Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd. v. Maneesh Makan 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
3. The summons of the suit issued to defendant on
24.02.2026. However, the defendant failed to appear despite
service, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
12.05.2026 and the plaintiff was directed to bring ex-parte
evidence.
4. Sh. Pawan Kumar, AR 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 Certificate of Incorporation is Ex.PW1/1(OSR);
(b) Copy of Board Resolution is Ex.PW1/2(OSR);
(c) Copy of Board Resolution is Ex.PW1/3(OSR);
(d) Original Tax invoices is Ex.PW1/4(colly-7 pages);
(e) Ledger of account is Ex.PW1/5(colly-3 pages);
(f) Cheque dt. 30.06.2025 is Ex.PW1/6;
(g) Original cheque returning memo is Ex.PW1/7;
(h) Certificate u/s 63 BSA, 2023 is Ex.PW1/8.
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 12.05.2026. 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
CS SCJ No. 229/2026 M/s Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd. v. Maneesh Makan 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence pointing
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 Certificate of
Incorporation is Ex.PW1/1(OSR); Copy of Board Resolution is
Ex.PW1/2(OSR); Copy of Board Resolution is
Ex.PW1/3(OSR); Original Tax invoices is Ex.PW1/4(colly-7
pages); Ledger of account is Ex.PW1/5(colly-3 pages); Cheque
dt. 30.06.2025 is Ex.PW1/6; Original cheque returning memo is
Ex.PW1/7; Certificate u/s 63 BSA, 2023 is Ex.PW1/8.
Point for determination
CS SCJ No. 229/2026 M/s Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd. v. Maneesh Makan 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
8. The present suit is filed on 12.02.2026 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 his favour and against the
defendant :-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs.98,456/- (Rupees Ninety Eight
Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Six 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 the date of filing of present suit till
the realization of the amount.
CS SCJ No. 229/2026 M/s Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd. v. Maneesh Makan 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
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 26.05.2026
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,
North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi
CS SCJ No. 229/2026 M/s Aldeko Panels Pvt. Ltd. v. Maneesh Makan 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --