M/S. Shree Hari Vansh Collection vs M/S. Venus Garments
2014 Latest Caselaw 480 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No.243/2013

%                                                   24th January, 2014

M/S. SHREE HARI VANSH COLLECTION             ......Appellant
                   Through: Mr. Saurabh, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

M/S. VENUS GARMENTS                                       ...... Respondent
                 Through:                Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Advocate.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgments of the Courts below; of

the trial Court dated 18.12.2012 and the appellate Court dated 7.9.2013; by

which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff under Order 37 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been decreed for a sum of Rs.2,22,748/-

alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

2.           As per the suit plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff the

appellant/defendant had received garments and for which two bill Nos.119

and 120 were raised. Since these bills were not paid, a demand notice dated

RSA No.243/2013                                                 Page 1 of 2
 17.10.2010 was served upon the appellant/defendant, which too failed to

yield any result, and therefore the subject suit for recovery was filed.

3.           The appellant/defendant after entering appearance filed its leave

to defend application and which has been dismissed by the trial court by the

impugned     judgment     dated   18.12.2012     and    the   appeal       of   the

appellant/defendant has also been dismissed as stated above.

4.           There is no illegality or perversity whatsoever in the judgments

of the courts below inasmuch as the fact that the appellant/plaintiff admitted

to have made payment in cash shows that there is no dispute that goods were

received by the appellant. The payment which is alleged to have been made

in cash is not shown by means of filing of single document in the courts

below or even before this Court. Accordingly, the courts below have rightly

refused leave to defend because the defence is a moonshine.

5.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, as no

substantial question of law arises, and the same is therefore dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JANUARY 24, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne