HIMANSHU SAIGAL vs P K ASTIR

J. MEHTA, J .

C.M. Appl. No. 20371/2018 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. Appl. No. 20372/2018 (for delay)

For the reasons stated in this application, the delay of 350 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 419/2018 and C.M. Appl. No. 20370/2018 (for stay)

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment

of the trial court dated 21.1.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,19,350/- along with

interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The suit has been decreed on account of the respondent/plaintiff supplying to the appellant/defendant knitted and

embroidered fabrics and allied items.

The facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that the appellant/defendant placed upon the respondent/plaintiff at

New Delhi orders for supply of goods. The goods were supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant and various bills were raised

which were duly acknowledged by the appellant/defendant. In terms of the statement of account maintained at the closing of the financial year 2013-

14 respondent/plaintiff claimed that an amount of Rs.3,19,350/- was due. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the last payment of Rs.10,800/- was made

by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff on 22.3.2013. Since the appellant/defendant was not paying the amount due hence the

respondent/plaintiff served a legal notice upon the appellant/defendant dated 9.10.2014 with a corrigendum dated 11.12.2014, and since this did not

yield the desired result, hence the subject suit was filed.

5.(i) At this stage, I would like to note that though appellant/defendant filed his written statement, however there is no evidence which was led by the

appellant/defendant because appellant/defendant after filing his affidavit by way of evidence did not appear for cross-examination and therefore the

affidavit by way of evidence filed of the appellant/defendant in law could not be looked at because the appellant/defendant did not subject himself to

cross-examination.

(ii) Respondent/plaintiff has led evidence and proved his case. The statement of account was proved as Ex.PW1/22. The invoices of supply were

proved as Ex.PW1 to PW21. The legal notice served by the respondent/plaintiff upon the appellant/defendant was proved as Ex.PW1/23 and the reply

of the appellant/defendant was proved as Ex.PW1/24.

In my opinion since the respondent/plaintiff proved his case and appellant/defendant led no evidence and did not have the courage of conviction to

step in the witness box to be crossexamined, the trial court has committed no illegality in accepting that the respondent/plaintiff has proved his suit

claim, and accordingly the trial court has rightly decreed the subject suit for recovery of money on account of goods supplied.

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that the trial court did not have territorial jurisdiction because goods were supplied at the office

of the appellant/defendant at Noida and entire dealings were at Noida and therefore the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction because Courts at

Delhi did not have territorial jurisdiction. The argument urged by the appellant/defendant in this regard is misconceived because respondent/plaintiff

has pleaded in the plaint that the orders were placed by the appellant defendant upon the respondent/plaintiff at New Delhi, and this is not specifically

denied in the written statement, and therefore the place of conclusion of the contract will be Delhi where the offer of the appellant/defendant was

accepted. Also the trial court has rightly held that it is the debtor who must seek the creditor, and therefore the creditor/plaintiff being at Delhi, the

Courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction. Also, it was an undisputed fact appearing on record that in terms of the bills proved, the said bills had a

clause of only the Courts at Delhi having territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, in my opinion, the trial court has committed no error in holding that the

courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction.

Dismissed.