Final Order 26

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 1 of 19
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL,
LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI-32
CS (COMM) 260 OF 2024
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PG. NO.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. The Plaint 3-4
3. Written Statement 4-6
4. Replication 4-6
5. Admission/ denial 6-7
6. Issues Framed 7
7. Plaintiff’s Evidence 7-8
8. Defendant’s Evidence 8
9. Issue-Wise Findings/ Analysis 8-18
10. Relief 18-19
-- 1 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 2 of 19
In the matter of:
M/s Shree Kamakhya Roadlines Pvt.
Ltd.
(Through Its Director
Sh. Madan Lal Sharma)
Office at:- UG Floor, 483/48-B-1,
Flat No. 2, Near Raj Market,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095
….. Plaintiff
V E R S U S
Retails Space Fitouts & Infra LLP
(Through its Directors Sh. Sachin Gupta,
Sh. Sanjeev Arora, Smt. Sapna Ahuja)
Office at: Ground Floor, Kh. No.: 1153,
Near Asthal Mandir, Village- Bhati,
South- Delhi- 110074 …. Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.05.2024
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 05.02.2026
DATE OF CONCLUSION : 17.04.2026
-- 2 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 3 of 19
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall decide the present suit filed by
the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,17,950/- along
with interest.
THE PLAINT
2. It is submitted that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of
transport and other logistic solutions and has business relations with the defendant
since last 3-4 years. It is further submitted that after the request of the defendant
and offer from the defendant, the plaintiff provided transportation to the
defendant on basis of actual freight which was decided by mutual consent.
3. It is averred that the plaintiff raised the bills for the freight against
transportation provided time to time to the defendant for an amount of Rs.
10,17,950/-, however, the defendant accepted the balance amount of Rs.
10,14,670/- only in its ledger vide CIN No. AAR-0201 dated 31.03.2022. Further
it is submitted that the petitioner several times made request to the defendant to
pay Rs. 10,17,950/- however, defendant did not pay the same to the plaintiff.
4. It is stated that having no other options, plaintiff sent a legal notice
to the defendant through his counsel on 28.02.2023 demanding the above said
amount but the defendant neither complied with the notice nor paid the money.
Thereafter, the plaintiff initiated pre-institution mediation on 01.05.2023, but
the defendant refused to participate and hence, a non-starter report was issued on
10.07.2023.
5. It is submitted that cause of action arose when the plaintiff raised
different invoices for freight against the transportation provided time to time to
defendant. It is stated to have further arisen when the plaintiff made request to
defendant to pay Rs. 10,17,950/- but the defendant did not pay any heed and it is
stated that cause of action further arose when the plaintiff sent a legal notice to
-- 3 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 4 of 19
the defendant through his counsel but the defendant neither complied with it nor
paid any amount to the plaintiff.
6. It is submitted that the present court has territorial jurisdiction to
try, entertain and decide the present suit as the cause of action arose at N-15/C-2,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 because the transportation has been hired from the
said address and thereafter, the plaintiff has changed his office at present address,
from where the plaintiff is dealing with defendant which falls within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and it is stated that the present suit involves
commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts
Act.
7. It is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is valued at Rs. 10,17,950/-
and appropriate court fees has been annexed upon it. Prayer has been made to
pass a decree of Rs. 10,17,950/- to the plaintiff along with interest @ 18% p.a. in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is also prayed that the cost of
the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The plaint is supported by the affidavit and statement of truth of
Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, AR of the plaintiff.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. It has been stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
and is liable to be outrightly rejected and the plaintiff has filed the present suit
despite knowing fully well that there exists no dues/ liability outstanding towards
the defendants payable to the plaintiff, as the defendant has made the entire
payment in respect to all invoices except the fabricated invoices i.e. invoice/
Voucher dated 15.02.2020 and 01.07.2020 bearing no. as SKRL/617, SKRL/620,
SKRL/621, SKRL/622, SKRL/636, SKRL/637 and thus, the suit of the plaintiff
is without any cause of action.
-- 4 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 5 of 19
9. It is further averred that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed as the same is based upon fabricated documents and is barred by the
law of limitation as the plaintiff has filed the suit on basis of the invoices which
commence from 18.02.2020 and the suit has been filed on 25.04.2024, so the
recovery on the basis of invoices prior to 25.04.2021 is barred by the limitation.
10. It is further averred that the suit of the plaintiff is also liable to be
dismissed as the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try this suit
as order were taken by the plaintiff from the address of the defendant at G/F,
Khasra No. 1153, Near Hasal Mandir, Village Bhati, South Delhi- 110074 and
registered addressee of the defendant is SK-III, 699, SF-2, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh which does not fall within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court. Thus, it is submitted that present court does not have territorial
jurisdiction to try the present case.
11. On merits, it is submitted that the defendant has been diligently and
regularly making payment to the plaintiff company for the services hired from the
plaintiff company and there stands nothing outstanding payable to the plaintiff. It
is further stated that the alleged legal notice was never served upon the answering
defendants and it is submitted that otherwise also the said legal notice was false,
frivolous and thereby inconsequential and that the defendant was never served
with any notice from the pre-mediation authority.
12. It is submitted that the alleged ledger dated 31.03.2022 was never
issued, accepted or acknowledged by answering defendant and the said ledger is
fabricated document as are the above-mentioned invoices. Rest of the contents of
the plaint are denied and prayer has been made to dismiss the suit of the
plaintiff.
-- 5 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 6 of 19
Written Statement is signed on each and every page and is duly
supported by the affidavit and statement of truth of all the directors of the
defendant company.
REPLICATION
13. It has been stated that the defendant has not made the payment of
the freight to the plaintiff despite repeated requests and the defendant has liability
towards the plaintiff and it is submitted that the plaintiff has filed the present suit
on the basis of the running account and thus, the present suit is filed within the
limitation period.
14. It has been further submitted that the transportation has been hired
from N-15/C-2, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 and thereafter, the plaintiff has
changed his office at his present address from where the plaintiff is doing the
dealing with the defendant which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
this court and thus, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
15. It has been averred that the defendant has not paid the due amount
and the defendant has the liability to pay the said amount as stated in the suit.
Moreover, the defendant has submitted that defendant has not paid the due
amount to the plaintiff, hence, the present suit and legal notice was also duly
served upon the defendant. Rest of the contents of the written statement has been
denied and the contents of the corresponding paras of the plaint have been
reiterated which is not repeated here for sake of brevity. Prayer has been made to
decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ADMISSION/ DENIAL
16. The defendant in his affidavit of admission/ denial of the
documents has admitted the following documents of the plaintiff:
-- 6 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 7 of 19
 Copy of different bills i.e. Voucher number SKRL/790; SKRL/791;
SKRL/792; SKRL/854; SKRL/855; SKRL/857; SKRL/869; SKRL/870;
SKRL/ 871; SKRL/908/ SKRL/909; SKRL/910; SKRL/912; SKRL/0036;
SKRL/0046; SKRL/0047; SKRL/0053; SKRL/0054; SKRL/0083;
SKRL/0089 and SKRL/00113 is Ex. P1.
17. On the other hand, since the defendant has not filed any document
along with WS, thus, no admission and denial of documents is required on behalf
of the plaintiff.
ISSUES FRAMED
18. Vide order dated 24.07.2025, on completion of pleadings the
following issues were framed for consideration:
i. Whether the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try and
decide the present suit? OPP
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what
amount? OPP
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what
rate and for which period? OPP
iv. Relief.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
19. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Madan Lal
Sharma, director of M/s Shree Kamakhya Roadlines Pvt Ltd as PW-1 who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the
following documents:
 Photocopy of certificate of registration and certificate of incorporation of
the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/1.
-- 7 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 8 of 19
 Original authority letter of plaintiff as Ex. PW1/2
 Office copy of various bills of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/3
 Office copy of ledger account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff
alongwith affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 (3) r/w Section 65B of The
Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/4
 Photocopy of ledger of the plaintiff maintained and handed over by the
defendant as Mark PW1/5.
 Copy of bank account statement of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/6.
 Copy of legal notice as Ex. PW1/7
 Postal receipt is Ex. PW1/8
 Delivery report is Ex. PW1/9
 Non starter report of the pre-institution mediation is Ex. PW1/10
 Certificate u/s 63 of BSA as Ex. PW1/11.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by the ld. counsel for the
defendant. Thereafter, PE was closed on his statement.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
20. In rebuttal, no evidence was led by defendant despite number of
opportunities been given. Moreover, the ld. counsel for the defendant has
submitted that he does not wish to lead any DE. Thus, DE was closed.
21. The court has perused the records of the case and has heard the
arguments from both the sides. The court has also perused the written arguments
filed by the defendant.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Issue no. 1: Whether the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide
the present suit? OPP
-- 8 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 9 of 19
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The ld. Counsel
for the defendant has argued that the orders were taken by the plaintiff from
address of the defendant at G/F, Khasra NO. 1153, Near Hasal Mandir, Village
Bhati, South Delhi- 110074 and the registered address of the defendant is SK-III,
699, SF-2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and it does not fall within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court.
23. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has contended
that the transportation has been hired from N-15/C-2, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-
110095 which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff in his
evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A has stated that on the request of the defendant, the
plaintiff has provided transportation time to time. The counsel for the defendant
has not given any suggestion to PW-1 during cross examination that orders were
not placed at address of the plaintiff which is within the jurisdiction of the present
court. The defendant himself has not examined any witness and, therefore, the
defendant has not proved that the orders were taken by the plaintiff from the
address of the defendant. It is also not the case of the defendant that any particular
place of payment was fixed between the parties.
24. Perusal of the record also reveals that the plaintiff has filed one
bank account statement (Ex. PW 1/6) of its account maintained at ICICI Bank
Limited having branch at A-31, Anand Vihar, Main Vikas Marg Extn.- 110092
showing receipt of the payment of Rs. 2,02,000/- from the defendant in the
account of plaintiff on 04.06.2021. As no place was fixed between the parties, the
defendant was bound to make the payment of the remaining amount to the
plaintiff at the place of the plaintiff or in the bank account of the plaintiff. Since
the plaintiff maintains a bank account within the territorial jurisdiction of this
court and the defendant has also made a part payment in the same bank account,
thus, on the basis of the principle of ‘Debtor Seeks Creditor’, the present court
has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.
-- 9 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 10 of 19
Thus, issue no. (i) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what
amount? OPP
25. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The present suit
is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1)(c)
of the Commercial Courts Act as the transaction between the parties was
commercial and the amount claimed is more than Rs. 3 Lacs i.e. the specified
value fixed for the Commercial Courts and hence, this court has jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the present suit. Moreover, the Plaintiff has also duly
complied with mandatory provision of Pre- Institution Mediation and
Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as per the
non-starter report dated 10.07.2023 (Ex. PW-1/10).
26. As far as the limitation is concerned, as per ledger account
Ex.PW1/4, the last Invoice is dated 24.01.2022. However, the defendant has
contended that the suit is barred by limitation as the suit has been filed on the
basis of the invoices commencing from 18.02.2020. It is argued that the suit has
been filed on 25.04.2024 and thus, the recovery of invoices prior to 25.04.2021
is barred by limitation.
26.1. However, this contention is not correct. The suit is well within the
limitation even if the limitation is calculated from 18.02.2020. The Hon’ble SC
In
Re: Suo Moto Cognizance For Extension of Limitation SMW (c) no. 3 of 2020
has held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded from
computing the period of limitation. Thus, period from 18.02.2020 till 15.03.2020
i.e. a period of 27 days will be calculated and remaining period of 2 years 11
months 3 days will be available to the plainitff from 01.03.2022. Thus, clearly the
suit is filed within the extended period of limitation.
-- 10 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 11 of 19
26.2. Moreover, the period consumed in complying Pre-Institution
Mediation is also liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation
as per Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Thus, the period from
01.05.2023 to 10.07.2023 is also liable to be excluded. Thus, the present suit is
filed within the period of limitation and the contention of the defendant in this
regard is liable to be rejected.
27. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same has already
been dealt above and is not repeated herein for sake of brevity.
28. Now coming to the merits of the case, the defendant has admitted
the business relations between the party and has also admitted certain invoices
but the defendant has denied some invoices being forged and fabricated. It has
been contended by the defendant that accounts between the parties were settled
and nothing is outstanding upon the defendant.
29. As per affidavit of admission/ denial filed by the defendant, a total
of 6 invoices of the year 2020 for an amount of Rs.2,02,000/- have been denied
and rest of the invoices are admitted. It has been contended that the rest of the
money has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. At the same time, it is
pertinent to mention here that the defendant has not filed any single document in
support of its case. The defendant has not filed any document to prove that he has
made any payment to the plaintiff. Thus, in absence of the any documentary
proof, the plea of the defendant can not be considered as gospel truth.
30. Another contention raised by the defendant is that the PW-1 is not
the author of the invoices raised. The relevant cross examination of PW-1 is as
follows:
“The computer to maintain the accounts is not being operated by
me and for the same there are employees. No mail has been served
from the side of the defendant to me or the plaintiff company.”
-- 11 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 12 of 19
31. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the PW-1 is
director of the company and the plaintiff company can employee various persons
for different role and it is not always necessary that one person should be
responsible for every work in a company. Moreover, in the certificate under
section 63 of the BSA (Ex. PW1/11), it has been specifically stated that the digital
device or the source of the electronic/ digital record is operated by the office of
the PW-1. So this contention of the defendant makes no difference as PW-1 can
depose on the basis of the documents maintained in the ordinary course of the
business in their office and it is not necessary that only he should have taken the
print out of the same.
32. Another contention of the defendant is there is no
acknowledgement of the defendant on the invoices. In this regard, the relevant
cross of PW-1 is as follows:
“The Ex. PW1/3 (colly) are of the period and date when the same
was generated for the purpose of defendant and as and when the
same are generated two copies thereof are generated. One copy is
sent to the defendant and one is kept with us.
….
Q. Kindly tell from the records or from your own records that
whether you have any acknowledgement/ confirmation
regarding the delivery of goods transported for the defendant, in
respect of any of their orders. What do you have to say?
A. INKA AADAMI JATA THA WHO AADMI MAAL
UTARWATA THA AUR RECEIVING LEKE INKO DETA THA.
RS. 10,17,950/-SOMETHING DUE HAI CHAAR SAAL HO
GYE. USI KE LIYE CASE KIYA HAI. TOTAL 12 LAKH
-- 12 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 13 of 19
SOMETHING JAB KAAM HAMNE BAND KIYA THA BAKI
THA USME SE 2 LAKH RUPEES 2021 ME DE DIYE THE JO
INKE AUR HAMARE LEDGER ME LIKHA HUA HAI.”
33. The defendant has not produced anything to rebut the testimony of
the PW-1 and, thus, the contention of the defendant regarding no
acknowledgement of delivery of goods is merely an afterthought to evade his
liabilities. This is further strengthened from the fact that the invoices which have
been admitted by the defendant also do not bear any acknowledgement/
confirmation of the delivery of the goods transported by the plaintiff.
34. The defendant has further contended that the invoices are forged
and fabricated as it does not contain any description of the Tax paid. In this regard,
the relevant cross of PW-1 is as follows:
“We charge only for the freight. The Tax is paid by the party
ordering for the freight. We do not claim any input of the tax paid
by the other party.”
35. Since the tax was to be paid by the defendant then it is
responsibility of the defendant to show that no tax has been paid by them. But no
such proof has been filed by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant has failed to
file anything on record to rebut the testimony of the PW-1. Thus, this contention
of the defendant is not acceptable.
36. Plaintiff has proved the ledger account (Ex. PW1/4) reflecting all
the invoices raised by the plaintiff against the defendant and also reflecting a part
payment made by the defendant on 04.06.2021 of an amount of Rs. 2,02,000. The
defendant has also contended that the ledger produced by the plaintiff (Ex.
PW1/4) is not reliable document as the same is manufactured by the plaintiff
himself. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the defendant has not
produced any ledger account maintained by them so as to rebut the case of the
-- 13 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 14 of 19
plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the defendant is liable to be rejected at
threshold.
37. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendant has admitted
21 invoices in its affidavit of admission/ denial, the details of which is as
follows:
S. No. Invoice No. and date Amount (In Rs.)
1. SKRL/790 dt.20.08.2020 32,000/-
2. SKRL/791 dt. 20.08.2020 40,000/-
3. SKRL/792 dt. 20.08.2020 47,000/-
4. SKRL/854 dt. 20.01.2021 50,000/-
5. SKRL/855 dt. 20.01.2021 56,000/-
6. SKRL/857 dt. 20.01.2021 40,000/-
7. SKRL/869 dt. 05.02.2021 76,000/-
8. SKRL/870 dt. 05.02.2021 55,000/-
9. SKRL/871 dt. 05.02.2021 44,000/-
10. SKRL/908 dt. 20.03.2021 77,000/-
11. SKRL/909 dt. 20.03.2021 26,000/-
12. SKRL/910 dt. 20.03.2021 60,000/-
13. SKRL/912 dt. 31.03.2021 55,000/-
14. SKRL/0036 dt 20.08.2021 48,500/-
15. SKRL-0046 dt 01.10.2021 54,500/-
16. SKRL-0047 dt. 01.10.2021 48,000/-
17. SKRL-0089 dt. 09.12.2021 67,000/-
18. SKRL-0083 dt. 08.12.2021 62,000/-
19. SKRL-0054 dt. 29.10.2021 18,500/-
20. SKRL-0053 dt. 29.10.2021 48,000/-
21. SKRL-00113 dt. 24.01.2022 35,000/-
Grand Total 10,39,500/-
-- 14 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 15 of 19
38. Since it has been contended by the defendant that he has made
entire payment to the plaintiff and nothing is outstanding upon him, thus,
believing this to be true, the defendant must have made a payment of Rs.
10,39,500/- i.e. cumulative amount of all the admitted invoices. If the defendant
had contended that he had already made payment of above said amount then the
onus was upon the defendant to prove it by producing cogent evidences.
However, the defendant has not provided any detail i.e. dates and specific amount
of any such payment being made to the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the
defendant that they have made all the outstanding payment is liable to be rejected
at threshold.
39. Moreover, the defendant has not led the evidence and AR of
defendant has not stepped into the witness box so as to withstand the veracity and
test of cross examination and in this regard, an adverse inference can be drawn
against the defendant. In the case of
Vidhydhar vs Manikrao AIR 1999 SC 1441,
the Hon'ble SC has held that when a party to the suit does not state his case on
oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by other side, an adverse
inference can be raised against that party. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble
SC is as follows:
"Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box
and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be
cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that
the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of
decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council
beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh vs.
Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1927 Privy Council 230. This was
followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh vs. Ajaipal
Singh and others, AIR 1930 Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court
in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari vs. Radhabai Krishnarao
-- 15 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 16 of 19
Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter vs. Narsingh Nandkishore
Rawat, AIR 1970 Madhya Pradesh 225 also followed the Privy
Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh’s case (supra). The
Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh vs. Virender Nath and
another, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29 held that if a party abstains from
entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse
against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Bhagwan Dass vs. Bhishan Chand and others,
AIR 1974 Punjab & Haryana 7, drew a presumption under Section
114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the
witness box. Defendant No.1 himself was not a party to the
transaction of sale between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff. He
himself had no personal knowledge of the terms settled between
defendant No.2 and the plaintiff. The transaction was not settled
in his presence nor was any payment made in his presence. Nor,
for that matter, was he a scribe or marginal witness of that sale
deed. Could, in this situation, defendant No.1 have raised a plea
as to the validity of the sale deed on the ground of inadequacy of
consideration or part- payment thereof. Defendant No.2 alone,
who was the executant of the sale deed, could have raised an
objection as to the validity. of the sale deed on the ground that it
was without consideration or that the consideration paid to him
was highly inadequate. But he, as pointed out earlier, admitted the
claim of the plaintiff whose claim in the suit was based on the sale
deed, executed by defendant No.2 in his favour. The property
having been transferred to him, the plaintiff became entitled to all
the reliefs which could have been claimed by defendant No.2
-- 16 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 17 of 19
against defendant No.1 including redemption of the mortgaged
property."
40. The Hon’ble SC in the case of
Ishwar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai
Patel vs Harihar Behera & Anr AIR 1999 SC 1341 (also referred to in Iqbal Baith
and Ors vs N. Subbalakshmi and Ors Civil Appeal no. 1725 of 2010 decided by
three judges bench of Hon’ble SC on 14.12.2020) has observed as follows:
“Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented
himself for cross examination, an adverse presumption has to be
drawn against him on the basis of principles contained in
illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Applying the
principles stated above to the instant case, it would be found that
in the instant case also the appellant had abstained from the
witness box and had not made any statement on oath in support of
his pleading set out in the written statement. An adverse inference
has, therefore, to be drawn against him. Since it was specifically
stated by respondent No.2 in his statement on oath that it was at
the instance of the appellant that he had issued the cheque on the
account of respondent No.1 in the Central Bank of India Ltd.,
Sambalpur Branch, and the appellant, admittedly, had encashed
that cheque, an inference has to be drawn against the appellant
that what he stated in the written statement was not correct. In
these circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in
decreeing the suit of respondent No.1 in its entirety and passing
a decree against the appellant also.”
The defendant has not tendered the evidence by way of affidavit,
nor has submitted himself for cross examination by the opposite party. Thus, an
adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant. On the other hand, the
plaintiff has proved their case on oath and has also proved all the documents
-- 17 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 18 of 19
during evidence. All the Invoices have been admitted by the defendant, except 6
Invoices. The cumulative amount of the 6 Invoices which the defendant has not
admitted is Rs.2,02,000/- and it is pertitnent to mention here that defendant has
made a specific payment of Rs.2,02,000/- to the plaintiff in June, 2021 and
therefore, prima facie, it appears that payment of Rs.2,02,000/- has been made by
the defendant against Invoices of the year 2020. DW-1 has categorically stated
during cross examination that the total amount receivable from the defendant was
more than 12 lakhs, out of which around Rs.2 lakhs was received in 2021 and the
present suit is filed regarding the claim of the remaining amount.
41. Thus, on the basis of the documents proved by the plaintiff i.e.
Invoices (Ex. PW1/3), ledger account (Ex. PW1/4) and bank account statement
(Ex. PW 1/6), it is clear that the plaintiff has delivered the services for which the
defendant has not made the payment and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the
outstanding payment as per ledger i.e. an amount of Rs. 10,17,950/-.
Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to money decree for an amount of Rs.
10,17,950/-. Issue no. (ii) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant.
Issue no. (iii): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate
and for which period? OPP
42. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 18%
p.a. Moreover, the plaintiff has neither quantified his claim for pre-suit interest as
per Order VII Rule 2A CPC nor has paid any court fees upon it. Thus, it seems
that the plaintiff has foregone his claim for the pre-suit interest.
43. As far as the pendente lite and future interest claimed by the
plaintiff @ 18% p.a. is considered, the same can not be granted at such exorbitant
rate and also that such rate was not mutually agreeable rate between the parties.
Thus, interest can not be awarded @ 18% p.a.
-- 18 of 19 --
CS(COMM) 260/2024 SHREE KAMAKHYA ROADLINES PVT LTD VS RETAIL SPACE FITOUTS AND INFRA LLP Page 19 of 19
44. However, since plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to the
outstanding amount of Rs. 10,17,950/-, thus, he will be interest at a reasonable
rate. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of
institution of suit till its realization.
Issue no. (iii) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant.
Issue no. (iv): Relief
45. In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.10,17,950/- along
with pendente lite and future interest @8% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.
10,17,950/- w.e.f. 01.05.2024 (date of institution) till its realization. The cost of
the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the tune
of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost and also the cost to the extent of the court fees.
Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court Kiran Bansal
on 17.04.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court
Delhi/ 17.04.2026
-- 19 of 19 --