Delhi High Court
Vinod Gupta vs Sh. Parmod Manchanda on 22 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 406/2001
% 22nd February, 2011
Vinod Gupta ...... Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
Sh. Parmod Manchanda ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This matter is on the 'Regular Board' of this Court since 3.1.2011.
Today, this matter is effective item No.11 on the 'Regular Board'. It is
3.15 P.M. and no one has chosen to appear for the parties. I have
therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. The challenge by means of this regular first appeal under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment and
decree dated 22.8.2001 whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for
recovery of the balance advance of Rs.1 lac was decreed with interest at
12% per annum.
RFA No. 406/2001 Page 1 of 4
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff paid a sum of
Rs.2,25,000/- to the appellant as advance for supply of pullovers. Since
the pullovers were not supplied, the appellant/defendant returned two
sums of Rs.80,000/- on 13.1.1995 and Rs.45,000/- on 16.2.1995 leaving
the balance of Rs.1 lac for which the suit was filed along with the claim of
interest. The defendant/appellant did not dispute the receipt of the
amount but claimed that goods of the total amount of Rs.2,25,000/- were
supplied to the plaintiff before the scheduled date and since only goods of
the value of Rs.1,25,000/- were found to be defective, the amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- was repayable and was repaid. It was further alleged that
the balance goods worth Rs.1 lac had been utilized by the plaintiff for the
purpose of exports. It was therefore contended that since an amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- already was paid to the plaintiff on 13.1.1995 and
16.2.1995, in lieu of the defective goods supplied and utilized,
consequently, no amount was due to the plaintiff who had received goods
worth Rs.1 lac.
4. The trial court by the impugned judgment and decree has held that
the appellant failed to prove that the goods were supplied to the
respondent/plaintiff. The trial court has said that if there was no alleged
settlement as claimed by the appellant/defendant that there were
defective goods worth Rs.1,25,000/- and the balance goods were O.K,
which were used by the respondent/plaintiff because if that was so, then
there would surely have been some sort of writing / document to that
effect. The trial court has concluded that merely on the basis of an oral
RFA No. 406/2001 Page 2 of 4
statement, the appellant/defendant cannot be said to have discharged
onus of proof.
5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment
and decree because it was for the appellant/defendant to prove that
goods of the value of Rs.2,25,000/- were supplied to the
respondent/defendant and that goods worth Rs.1 lac were used by the
respondent/plaintiff. A mere oral statement, as rightly held by the trial
court, cannot discharge the onus of proof. The trial court has therefore
rightly held that the appellant failed to prove that there was a settlement
whereby Rs.1,25,000/- was to be returned for the defective goods and
Rs.1lac was not to be returned because respondent/plaintiff received
goods and that amount was utilized for exports. I may also note that in
the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff, he categorically denied
that he had received goods or he rejected the goods worth Rs.1,25,000/-
or that an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid for the rejected goods .
6. The trial court also held that the suit to be within limitation because
the suit was filed on 12.2.1998, and two payments of Rs.80,000/- and
40,000/- were admittedly made by means of cheques dated 13.1.1995
and 16.2.1995 by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff
which was treated as acknowledgement of debt in terms of Section 19 of
the Limitation Act.
7. I, therefore, do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment and decree which calls for interference by this court in the
RFA No. 406/2001 Page 3 of 4
appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed leaving the
parties to bear their own costs. Interim orders stand vacated and security
furnished by the respondent for release of the part of the decretal amount
is discharged. Trial court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 22, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
