Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS SCJ/1290/2024 Sneha Polyfab Pvt.Ltd Vs. Smt. Rinita Sanjaybhai Shah Page no. 1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE: NORTH WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI COURT: NEW DELHI
Unique case ID No: CS SCJ 1290/2024
CNR NO. DLNW03-001964-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :
SNEHA POLYFAB PVT. LTD.
Through its AR MR. RAM SWAROOP PAREEK
Office :-Unit-2, 1012, 10th floor ,
Pearls Best Heights-11,C-9,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034. ………...Plaintiff
VERSUS
SMT. RINITA SANJAYBHAI SHAH
Proprietor of M/s Rushi Enterprises
202, Rajlaxmi Flat, 18, MODH
Champner Society, Usmanpura,
Ahemedabad-13, Gujrat ...........Defendant
Date of Institution: 21.09.2024
Date of pronouncing Judgment: 02.04.2026
-- 1 of 5 --
CS SCJ/1290/2024 Sneha Polyfab Pvt.Ltd Vs. Smt. Rinita Sanjaybhai Shah Page no. 2 of 5
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. Present matter is instituted for recovery of money of Rs.1,45,430/-.
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Private
Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956
having office under the name and address style of M/S Sneha
Polyfab Pvt.Ltd. Engaged in business of trading of PP woven
fabric. It is stated that defendant is the proprietor of the firm M/s
Rushi Enterprises situated at Gujarat. It is stated that the defendant
approached the plaintiff at its place of business at Delhi and
requested the plaintiff to supply goods, hence, the defendant placed
an order worth Rs.2,09,892/- and goods were supplied by the
plaintiff to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant made some
part payment of Rs.1,03,499/- on 19.08.2021, 05.03.2022 and on
15.04.2022 in Kotak Mahindra Bank, NSP, Pitampura, Delhi and
the remaining amount of Rs.1,06,393/- is still pending to be paid
hence the present suit has been filed seeking recovery of Rs.
1,45,430/-(principal amount of Rs.1,06,393/- and the interest of Rs.
39,037/-) along with pendente lite and future interest @18% per
annum.
3. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendant however
none appeared for the defendant. Hence, the right to file written
statement of defendant was closed and the defendant was
proceeded ex-parte on 30.05.2025 by the Ld. Predecessor of this
-- 2 of 5 --
CS SCJ/1290/2024 Sneha Polyfab Pvt.Ltd Vs. Smt. Rinita Sanjaybhai Shah Page no. 3 of 5
Court.
4. The plaintiff only examined one witness on his behalf i.e., the Sh.
Surinder Kumar Midha Officer on special duty (OSD) of M/s
Sneha Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. who stepped into the witness box and
examined himself as PW1. In his testimony, PW1 tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit being Ex.PW1/A and he reiterated the
contents of the plaint and also relied upon the following
documents:
(1) Ex. PW1/1 is the memorandum of Association .
(2) Ex. PW1/2 is Article of Association.
(3) Ex. PW1/3 is certificate of incorporation.
(4) Ex. PW1/4 registration certificate.
(5) Ex.PW1/5 Board Resolution.
(6) Ex. PW 1/6 Printout of GST status of defendant.
(7) Ex. PW 1/7 Invoice and e-way bill.
(8) Ex.PW 1/8 Bank Statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank.
(9) Ex.PW 1/9 Statement of Accounts.
5. No Cross examination was done as the defendant had already been
proceeded ex-parte by the Ld. Predecessor. PE was closed on
18.03.2026 and ex-parte final arguments were heard.
6. During the Ex-parte arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff relied
-- 3 of 5 --
CS SCJ/1290/2024 Sneha Polyfab Pvt.Ltd Vs. Smt. Rinita Sanjaybhai Shah Page no. 4 of 5
upon the documents tendered by him in chief examination and has
argued that the defendant had purchased goods from plaintiff and
had defaulted the payment with mala fide intention which is also
visible from the fact that they did not appear before this Court to
face the proceedings choosing not to defend the suit.
7. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the suit of the plaintiff should
be decreed as the testimony of PW1 remains uncontroverted along
with the corroborative evidence on the record.
8. Heard. Perused. Considered.
9. The plaintiff has sufficiently discharged the burden of proof placed
upon him by virtue of Section 104 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 (earlier Section 101 Indian Evidence Act, 1872). The PW1
has testified in the affidavit of evidence that the defendant had
purchased goods from plaintiff for which he was liable to pay
money and accordingly invoice was raised by the plaintiff. The
oral testimony is supported by corroborative documentary
evidence. PW1 has also duly proved the bills and the ledger
account by relying on documents.
10. In any case, since the defendant has not appeared despite
service and also chose not to file WS, it can be safely presumed
that he has no defence to offer. The suit of the plaintiff is well
within the limitation.
-- 4 of 5 --
CS SCJ/1290/2024 Sneha Polyfab Pvt.Ltd Vs. Smt. Rinita Sanjaybhai Shah Page no. 5 of 5
11. The present suit is therefore decreed in favour of the plaintiff
entity and against the defendant. The Defendant is liable to pay Rs.
1,45,430/- to the plaintiff alongwith pendente lite and future
interest of 6% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of
actual realization of the decretal amount as the interest @ 18%
deems to be on a higher side.
12. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance with due
formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 02.04.2026
The judgment contains five pages and each page has been signed by
me.
(VAIBHAV KUMAR)
CIVIL JUDGE-(NORTH-WEST)/
ROHINI COURTS/NEW DELHI
-- 5 of 5 --