Arya Unicorn Pvt. Ltd. vs Span Furniture Systems Pvt. Ltd. & ...

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No.85/2014

%                                                   19th March, 2014

ARYA UNICORN PVT. LTD.                               ....Appellant
                  Through:               Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

SPAN FURNITURE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ANR.                    ...... Respondents
                  Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA


To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.5143/2014 (condonation of delay in re-filing)

1.           For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in re-

filing the appeal is condoned.

             C.M. stands disposed of.

+ RSA No.85/2014 and C.M. No.5142/2014 (stay)

2.           This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment of the first appellate court

dated 19.10.2013.    The appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the

RSA No.85/2014                                                 Page 1 of 4
 plaintiff against the judgment of the trial court dated 29.7.2011 by which the

trial court had dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,71,680/-. Recovery

was    claimed    on   account    of   furniture   items   supplied   by     the

plaintiff/respondent no.1 to the defendant no.2/respondent no.2 at the request

of the appellant herein and who was the defendant No.1 in the suit.

3.            At the outset, it is required to be noted that the

appellant/defendant no.1 did not lead evidence in the trial Court whereas the

respondent no.1/plaintiff led detailed evidence, both oral and documentary

evidence, and proved its case. How the respondent no.1/plaintiff proved its

case is noted in para 10 of the impugned judgment of the appellate court

dated 19.10.2013 and which reads as under:-


     "10.      Plaintiff produced invoice Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 in respect of the
     goods supplied at the office of defendant no.2. The same is claimed to
     be received by defendant no.1. Ex.P2 also bears the stamp of
     defendant no.1. Plaintiff has also filed his statement of accounts
     Ex.P4 in respect of the transaction of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1
     denied these facts in their written statement but did not cross-examine
     PW1 in respect of the same. As per Ex.P4, the payments as shown
     therein for period from 01/04/2000 to 31/03/2001 had been made by
     defendant no.1 to the plaintiff through their bank payee cheques.
     PW2 official from the J & K Bank produced plaintiff's bank statement
     showing payment of cheques credited to plaintiff's account and the
     cheque amount and number corroborates with the entries shown in
     statement of accounts Ex.P4. PW3 produced the bank statement of
     defendant no.1 from HDFC Bank. Ex.PW3/2 where the cheques of
     defendant no.1 are shown to be debited from their account. The said
     entries in regard to amount and the cheque number corroborates with
RSA No.85/2014                                                 Page 2 of 4
      the statement of accounts of the plaintiff's bank Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW6/7
     and pay in slips Ex.PW6/ to Ex.PW6/6. PW4 official of defendant
     no.2 had appeared and stated that as per the understanding between
     the parties, furniture was supplied by plaintiff at the office of
     defendant no.2 at Chennai and Calcutta. As per agreement between
     plaintiff and defendant no.1, defendant no.2 had made the entire
     payment to defendant no.1 and stated that bills Ex.P2 & P3 were
     actually issued to defendant no.1 and also bears their stamps as
     acknowledgment by defendant no.1 and that the said bills were issues
     in their name as consignee only. Defendant no.1 also did not give any
     suggestions to the witness PW4 that no amount was either paid by
     defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 or that there was no relationship
     between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Further defendant no.1
     had denied having any transaction with the plaintiff but has failed to
     show as to on what account their cheques for an amount of
     Rs.1,03,638/-, Rs.1,28,927/-, Rs.25,288/- & Rs.1,26,644/- had been
     debited from their account to the plaintiff's account. In these
     circumstances, the onus to prove that defendant no.1 had no
     transaction with the plaintiff in respect of the suit had shifted on the
     defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 however, omitted to led any evidence
     and therefore, the version of the plaintiff was unrebutted and
     corroborated from the evidence on record. The findings of issue no.1
     & 2 are therefore, not sustainable and are accordingly set aside."
4.            In my opinion, in a case such as the present where the

appellant/defendant no.1 has led no evidence and the respondent

no.1/plaintiff has proved the case by proving the bills in question; one bill

bearing the stamp of the appellant/defendant no.1, the statement of account

showing regular dealings between the appellant/defendant no.1 and the

respondent no.1/plaintiff and lack of cross-examination of PWs on vital

points shows that the first appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit

for recovery of money for goods/furniture supplied.
RSA No.85/2014                                                  Page 3 of 4
 5.           In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for

this Court to exercise its power under Section 100 CPC, and therefore the

appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




MARCH 19, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne RSA No.85/2014 Page 4 of 4