Delhi District Court
Mr Sunil Mishra vs Mr Jagdish Kumar on 24 February, 2026
CNR No. DLCT010036462025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)- 03: CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURT (EXTENSION BLOCK): DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025
In the matter of :-
Mr. Sunil Mishra
Proprietor of
R.S.M Bearing Co.
475/3, Zeenat Wari, Kashmere Gate,
Hamilton Road,
Delhi - 110006 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Jagdish Kumar
Proprietor of
M/s. J.K. Motors (India),
R/o 1st Floor, 563/30, Street Behl Sahib,
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi - 110006 .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 06.03.2025
Date on which Judgment reserved : 24.02.2026
Date on which judgment pronounced : 24.02.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court set to adjudicate on myriad issues
flagged on either side, let the Court to spell out laconically the
landscape of the pleadings.
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 1 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:28:36
+0530
2. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.9,09,157/- along with
interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
(A) Pleadings of the Parties :-
3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the sole
proprietor of the proprietorship firm namely R.S.M Bearing Co.,
having its office at 475/3, Zeenat Wari, Kashmere Gate, Hamilton
Road, Delhi-110006. The present suit has been instituted, signed
and verified by Shri Sunil Mishra, sole proprietor of R.S.M
Bearing Co. who is competent to file the present suit.
4. It has been further averred that the Defendant
namely M/s J.K. Motors (India) through its Proprietor, Shri
Jagdish Kumar, having its registered office at 1st floor, 563/30,
Street Behl Sahib, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 had approached
the Plaintiff and expressed its willingness and dire need to
purchase car bearings from the plaintiff and also assured the
plaintiff for the timely payment of goods purchased and supplied.
5. It has been further averred that on such
representations made by defendant, the Plaintiff supplied the
required material (car bearing) against invoices to the satisfaction
of the defendant as and when directed by the defendant. It has
been further averred that the defendant never raised any objection
or complaint in relation to the quality or quantity of the material
supplied by the plaintiff and after receiving the aforesaid goods,
the defendant also made part payment to the plaintiff which shows
that there was no defect in goods supplied to the defendant.
6. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 2 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:28:47
+0530
maintaining the running account of the defendant and as per the
ledger account maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 9,09,157/-
is due and payable to plaintiff by the defendant.
7. It has been further averred that the plaintiff had
given multiple reminder for clearing the outstanding due amount,
however, the defendant delayed the payment and sought time to
clear the due amount on the pretext of sudden stoppage of his bank
due to outbreak of the Covid-19 lock down. It is further averred
that after much persuasion, the defendant had made part payment
of Rs.1,30,000/- in various trances from 11.04.2019 till date.
8. It has been further averred that the defendant, in
spite of repeated assurances, failed to make complete payment of
goods supplied by the plaintiff and a total debit balance of
Rs.9,09,157/- (including interest of Rs.3,18,954/- @ 18% per
annum on the outstanding amount of Rs.5,90,203/- from
23.06.2022 until 23.01.2025) is due and payable by the defendant
to the plaintiff and the same is reflected in the ledger account
maintained by the plaintiff as on 23.01.2025.
9. It has been further averred that the plaintiff had tried
to contact the defendant several times and also given several
reminders to the defendant for the payment of outstanding dues,
but the defendant has paid no heed to plaintiff’s repeated request
and has tried to ignore him on one pretext or another.
10. It has been further averred that since the defendant
did not pay the outstanding amount, the plaintiff filed an
application for initiating pre-institution mediation on 13.02.2024
before DLSA, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, however, the
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 3 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:28:56
+0530
defendant did not participate in mediation proceedings and a non-
starter report dated 08.08.2024 was issued by the authority.
11. Thus, aggrieved by the acts of defendant, plaintiff
has filed the present suit praying for decree in sum of Rs.9,09,157/-
alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till the date
of realization of the present suit.
12. Defendant has contested the suit by filing a detailed
written statement. By way of preliminary objections,
maintainability of the suit has been challenged on the ground that
the suit is barred by limitation as the alleged transactions pertains
to the year 2019. It has been further alleged in order to bring the
suit within the period of limitation, the plaintiff has shown a
payment of Rs.10,000/- on 22.06.2022 made by defendant to the
plaintiff in his ledger account but no proof of the said transaction
has been placed on record by the plaintiff.
13. Another objection taken by the defendant is that the
plaintiff has deliberately concealed about the payment received
from defendant in his bank account and also concealed about the
returning of faulty/ defective goods by the defendant and has filed
a false affidavit before the Court for which he is liable to be
prosecuted U/s 379 BNSS. It has been further alleged that
defendant has made payment of Rs.2,98,000/- to the plaintiff in his
bank account through cheque on various occasions and the goods
which was supplied by the plaintiff was faulty/defective and the
same were returned to the plaintiff against due acknowledgment.
It has been further alleged that despite repeated requests/ several
calls made by the defendant, the plaintiff has neither replaced the
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 4 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:29:03
+0530
faulty goods which were returned to the plaintiff nor refunded the
amount of Rs.2,98,000/- to the defendant which the plaintiff is
liable to pay to the defendant.
14. On merits, each and every averment of the plaint has
been controverted. It has been reiterated that the defendant had
returned the goods to the plaintiff in the month of May 2019
against due acknowledgment from the plaintiff as the said goods
were defective/faulty on which the plaintiff requested some time
for replacement of the said goods which has not been done till date.
It is further alleged that the defendant requested the plaintiff to
either replace the goods or refund the amount of Rs. 2,98,000/-
which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff but the plaintiff
avoided the same on one pretext or other. It has been further
alleged that no amount is due and payable to the plaintiff and in
fact the amount of Rs. 2,98,000/- is due and payable by the plaintiff
to the defendant. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff has
concealed the fact of replacement of goods by the defendant and
that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.2,98,000/- to the plaintiff.
It has been further alleged that the plaintiff had fabricated the
ledger account and has not annexed any single proof of transaction
on 22.06.2022 and thus the suit is barred by limitation. It is
therefore, prayed that the suit of plaintiff, being without any cause
of action and barred by limitation, be dismissed.
15. No replication has been filed on behalf of the
plaintiff despite opportunity.
(B) Issues :-
16. From the pleading of the parties, following issues
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 5 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:29:11
+0530
were framed: –
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a money decree of
Rs. 5,90,203/-, as prayed? (OPP).
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at
what rate and for which period? (OPP)
3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation as claimed? (OPD)
4) Whether the entry made on 22.06.2022 in the ledger
account of the plaintiff of cash payment of Rs.
10,000/-is forged and fabricated, if so, its effect?
(OPD)
5) Whether the quality/ defective goods were supplied
by the plaintiff and same was returned in May 2019
against the due acknowledgment, if so, its effect?
(OPD)
6) Whether the defendant has made a payment of
Rs.2,90,000/- over and above the legally recoverable
dues? (OPD)
7) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present
form as claimed? (OPD)
8) Relief.
(C) Evidence:- (a) of Plaintiff
17. In order to prove its case, plaintiff has examined Sh.
Sunil Mishra, Proprietor of M/s R.S.M Bearing Co., as PW-1. He
has reiterated the facts averred in the plaint in his affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon following documents: –
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit
1. Original 12 Tax Invoices Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly)
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 6 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:29:18
+0530
2. Internet generated copy of GST returns Ex. PW-1/2
3. True copy of ledger account as on Ex. PW-1/3
23.01.2025
4. Original Non-Starter Report dated Ex. PW-1/4
08.08.2021
5. Ledger account for the period from Ex. PW-1/5
01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020
18. During his cross-examination, the PW-1 had
testified that none of the invoices were in his handwriting and
voluntary stated that the invoices are prepared by their Accountant
Mr. Jai Narayan Mishra, however, the present invoices were
prepared by the defendant himself. He had admitted that it is not
mentioned in his affidavit or in the plaint that the invoices were
prepared by Mr. Jai Narayan Mishra. He denied the suggestion that
he was deposing falsely that all the invoices are prepared by the
defendant or that all the invoices are false and fabricated or that he
was not aware about the contents of the invoices Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
19. The PW1 had admitted that all the amounts were
paid by the defendant through cheque and again said that one of
the amount i.e. Rs. 10,000/- was paid in cash. He had denied the
suggestion that the defective goods were returned by the defendant
or that no credit of that returned goods were given to the
defendant.
20. During the cross-examination, the witness was
shown the copy of 10 return notes/ receipts dated 29.04.2019,
29.04.2019, 06.05.2019, 08.05.2019, 16.05.2019, 25.05.2019,
06.06.2019, 15.06.2019, 24.06.2019 and 24.06.2019, bearing seal
and signatures of the defendant, Ex. PW1/D1 (Colly). After
going through the same, the PW1 had admitted that it bears the
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 7 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:29:25
+0530
seal and signature of his firm.
21. During his further cross-examination, the PW-1 has
testified that except the said cash entry of Rs. 10,000/-, no cash
payment was ever made by the defendant. He has further testified
that no receipt of Rs.10,000/- was issued by them to the defendant
and no written notice was sent to the defendant mentioning that
after making cash payment of Rs. 10,000/-, any amount is due
towards the defendant. He has denied the suggestion that
defendant never made any cash payment or that a false entry has
been made in the ledger account in order to bring the case within
the limitation period or that for said reason, no cash receipt was
ever issued to the defendant or placed on record. He has further
denied the suggestion that he had to return the overdue amount of
Rs.2,98,000/- to the defendant after the return of the goods or that
no amount was due against the defendant or that a false case has
been filed against the defendant.
22. No other witness was examined on behalf of
plaintiff. Therefore, PE was closed.
(b) of Defendant:-
23. In order to prove its case, defendant/Jagdish Kumar
has examined himself, as DW-1 and has relied upon documents
which are as under: –
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit
1. Copy of 11 receipts Ex.DW1/1
2. Copy of Statement of Account Mark - A
24. The DW1 was not cross-examined despite
opportunity. Accordingly, vide order dated 17.12.2025, witness
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 8 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:29:33
+0530
was discharged after recording the opportunity to cross examine
the witness as ‘Nil’.
25. No other witness was examined on behalf of
defendant. Therefore, DE was closed.
(D) Final Arguments:-
26. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Shyam Babu and
Sh. Mohit Gulati, counsels for the plaintiff and by Sh. Rajesh
Sharma and Sh. Dhananjay Jain, counsels for the defendant.
Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of parties
reiterating the oral averments made by learned counsels for the
parties. During the course of arguments, counsels for plaintiffs
and defendant reiterated respective averments made in the plaint
and written statement and also referred to documents filed on
behalf of respective parties.
27. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the
plaintiff has conclusively proved his case through unimpeachable
documentary evidence maintained in the regular course of
business, whereas the Defendant has failed to substantiate his
defence by even a shred of credible evidence. The defence raised
is contradictory, evasive and demonstrably false, and is liable to
be rejected in toto. It has been further submitted that it is admitted
fact that the goods supplied by the plaintiff are duly received by
the defendant and the defendant also admitted the supply of the
goods as well as invoices, Ex.PW1/1. It has been further submitted
that as per the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff,
defendant has paid Rs.1,30,000/- out of total principal outstanding
of Rs.5,90,203/-. It has been further submitted that the defendant
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 9 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:29:41
+0530
is also liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum as per the term
mentioned in the invoices which was duly agreed and
acknowledged by the defendant, however, plaintiff charged
interest @ 18% p.a in the present suit. It has been further
submitted that in the W.S, the defendant has pleaded that the goods
were allegedly returned in May 2019, however, the receipts sought
to be relied upon by the defendant bear the date of April 2019 and
June, 2019, thereby directly contradicting the defendant’s pleaded
case and such a material inconsistency goes to the very root of the
defence and clearly demonstrates that the story of return of goods
has been fabricated without even maintaining internal coherence.
It has been further submitted that a litigant cannot be permitted to
shift stands at different stages to suit convenience. It has been
further submitted that as elicited during the cross-examination of
the plaintiff’s witness, the said receipts do not mention name of
defendant or any description of products, material, quantity,
invoice number, or particulars of goods allegedly sold, returned,
or founded defective. In the absence of any such details, the
receipts are incapable of proving either return of goods or
defectiveness. It has been further submitted that defendant’s plea
of defective goods is further exposed by the complete absence of
any document showing that such alleged defects were ever
communicated to the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that
not a single email, letter, notice, complaint, debit note, return
memo or contemporaneous correspondence has been placed on
record. It has been further submitted that in commercial dealings,
defects, if any, are immediately communicated and the plea of
defective goods is an afterthought, raised only as an excuse to
evade payment. It has been further submitted that the suit is withinCS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 10 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:29:53
+0530
the prescribed period of limitation and the cause of action is
continuous and recurring, arising from a running and mutual
account maintained between the parties in the ordinary course of
business. The defendant not only made part payments through
banking channels but also paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in cash
towards the outstanding liability, which further constitutes a clear
acknowledgement of debt under law. It has been further submitted
that each such payment, including the said cash payment of
Rs.10,000/- unquivocally extends the period of limitation and the
defendant having acknowledged his liability repeatedly by making
part payments, is estopped from raising any plea of limitation at
this belated stage. Thus, it is prayed that suit of the plaintiff be
decreed.
28. Per contra, counsel for the defendant has submitted
that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the plaintiff
did not attach any written proof of alleged cash payment of
Rs.10,000/- made on 22.06.2022 and concealed the fact that the
defendant had returned the faulty/defective goods against
acknowledgment of the same. It has been further submitted that
during cross-examination, the PW1 has admitted that all the
amounts were paid by the defendant through cheque and again
said, one of the amount was paid in cash i.e. Rs.10,000/-. It has
been further submitted that during cross-examination, the PW1 has
also admitted that except the said cash entry of Rs.10,000/- no cash
payment was ever made by the defendant and that no receipt of
Rs.10,000/- was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and that
no written notice was sent to the defendant mentioning that after
making said cash payment, any amount is due towards defendant.
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 11 / 33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.24 16:30:03 +0530
It has been further submitted that the PW1 has also admitted
during his cross-examination that he has received the
faulty/defective goods against acknowledgment of the same and
that the plaintiff has admitted the return of goods against the
receipts bearing seal of his firm and his own signatures. It has
been further submitted that in view of above admissions, the suit
is time barred as per Section 18 of Limitation Act and is liable to
be dismissed. It has been further submitted that the admissions
made by the plaintiff as regards to the return of the faulty goods
against his signatures and firm’s seal, clearly indicates that there is
no liability for any amount whatsoever of the defendant and the
plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit. Hence, it is prayed
that the suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.
29. I have heard Ld. counsels for the parties and also
perused the record carefully and my findings on aforesaid issues
are as under:-
(E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
30. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and
have also perused the record as well as the written submissions
filed on behalf of the parties.
31. Before returning the finding upon issues, from the
pleadings of the parties and evidence led, it would be relevant to
discuss that it is admitted fact that both the parties had commercial
transactions regarding the sale and purchase of motor parts/ball
bearings prior to the dispute arose between the parties regarding
the balance payment.
32. The first invoice in the present case placed on record
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 12 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:30:11
+0530
is dated 16.01.2019, second invoice is dated 26.02.2019, third
invoice is also dated 26.02.2019, fourth invoice is dated
28.02.2019, fifth invoice is undated, sixth invoice is dated
25.03.2019, seventh invoice is dated 24.04.2019, eight invoice is
dated 25.04.2019, ninth invoice is dated 26.04.2019, tenth invoice
is dated 25.07.2019, eleventh invoice is dated 26.07.2019 and the
last invoice is dated 29.07.2019. All these invoices have been
exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 (Colly). Thus, the last sale purchase
transaction between the parties as per case of the plaintiff was on
29.07.2019.
33. The plaintiff has relied upon statement of
account/ledger account as Ex.PW1/3 (running into 3 pages) for the
period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023, 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024
and 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025, another ledger account for the
period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 as Ex.PW1/5. Thus, from
the evidence led, it is to be noted that no ledger account for the
period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and ledger account for the
period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 have been filed on record or
has been proved in evidence.
34. According to the plaintiff, the last payment through
cheque was made in the month of April, 2019 as per ledger account
Ex.PW1/5. Thereafter, according to plaintiff a cash payment of
Rs.10,000/- was made on 22.06.2022.
35. In the present case, the pre-litigation mediation
application was made on 13.02.2024 and as per record, certificate
of non-starter report Ex.PW1/4 was issued on 08.08.2024.
36. Thus, from the transaction details, the limitation
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 13 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:30:22
+0530
period would have started from the last sale/purchase
transactions dated 29.07.2019 and therefore, it would have ended
on 29/30.07.2022 excluding the period of limitation for the
purposes of pre-litigation mediation and in view of the direction
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 passed
in case titled as In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) of 3/2020. After deducting the
period of limitation aforesaid, the limitation period would have
expired in the month of 08/09.01.2025. Even if the period spent in
pre-litigation mediation and Covid period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 is excluded for the purposes of limitation, the suit
would be time barred.
37. If the last payment is taken to be into consideration
for the purposes of limitation, the limitation period would have
expired on 22.06.2025 excluding the period of limitation for the
purposes of pre-litigation mediation. After deducting the period of
limitation aforesaid, the limitation period would have expired on
18/19.12.2025. Therefore, if it is proved that there was written
acknowledgment of liability by cash payment, the suit would be
within limitation.
38. It is a cardinal principle of law that in a civil suit the
party who asserts a fact has to prove it by leading cogent evidence
in terms of Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
(corresponding to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act) which
is reproduced as under for the ready reference:-
“Section 104: Burden of proof.–Whoever desires any
Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability
dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts,
must prove that those facts exist, and when a person is
bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said thatCS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 14 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:30:30
+0530
the burden of proof lies on that person.”
39. Further, in order to prove a case, the law is clear that
any particular fact is to be proved by the person who wishes that
particular fact to be in existence and that should be believed by the
Court to be in existence and for ready reference, Section 106 of
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section
103 of Indian Evidence Act) is reproduced as under:-
“Section 106: The burden of proof as to any particular
fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe
in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the
proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.”
40. The burden of proof to make an evidence available
lies on the person who wishes to give evidence and for ready
reference, the relevant provision under Section 107 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section
104 of Indian Evidence Act) is reproduced as under:-
“Section 107: The burden of proving any fact necessary
to be proved in order to enable any person to give
evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes
to give such evidence.”
41. It is also cardinal principle of evidence that a fact
specifically within the knowledge of any person is to be proved by
that person and for ready reference, the relevant provision under
Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
(corresponding to Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act) is
reproduced as under:-
“Section 109: When any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact
is upon him.”
42. Further, it is the cardinal principle of law that a civil
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 15 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:30:38
+0530
suit is to be decided on the principle of probability and in this
regard, reliance may be placed upon para 41 of the judgment in
case titled as Nand Kishore vs. DDA, RFA No. 240/2017, CM No.
19118/2021, decided on 29.11.2021 which is reproduced as under
for ready reference:-
“13. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis
of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in
the suit before the trial court in the form of plaint and
written statement and the nucleus of the case of the
plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the
form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit for
injunction, this suit is to be decided on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. As held in Raj Kumar
Singh &Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla. reported in 183 (2011)
DLT 418. “A civil case is decided on balance of
probabilities. In the case of Vishnu Putt Sharma Vs. Dava
Sapra. reported in (2009) 13 see 729. the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
“8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a
creditor can maintain a civil and criminal
proceedings at the same time. Both the
proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact
required to be proved for obtaining a decree in
the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the
criminal proceedings may be overlapping but
the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-a-vis
a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in
a criminal case the prosecution is bound to
prove the commission of the offence on the part
of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in
a civil suit ” preponderance of probability”
would serve the purpose for obtaining a
decree”.
14. Section 101 of the Evidence Act. 1872 defines
“burden of proof” and laid down that the burden of
proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts
the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other
party is not required to be called upon to prove his case.
The court has to examine as to whether the person upon
whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his
burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot
proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. In view
of Section 103 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to
any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the
Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by
any law that the proof of that fact shall lied on any
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 16 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
2026.02.24
Sharma 16:30:47
+0530
particular person. Further, Section 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in
any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents
agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing,
they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or
which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they
are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings. As held
in judgment reported as Uttam Chand Kothari Vs. Gauri
Shankar Jalan. AIR 2007 Gau. 20. admission in the
written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. In
view of this legal position of the Evidence Act, it is clear
that it is for the
appellant to prove that he has right, title or interest in the
suit property.
18. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003)
8 SCC 752. As held:-
“Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of
testing of “proved”, ” disproved” and” not
proved” as defined in Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is
the valuation of the result drawn by the
applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of
the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the
difference. In a suit for possession of property
based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high
degree of probability of his title to ownership,
instead of proving- his title beyond any
reasonable doubts, that would be enough to
shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant
fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden
of proof would stand discharged so as to
amount to proof of the plaintiff’s title. The
present case being a civil one, the plaintiff
could not be expected to prove his title beyond
any reasonable doubt; a high degree of
probability lending assurance of the availability
of title with him would be enough to shift the
onus the plaintiff’s burden of proof can safely
be deemed to have been discharged. In the
opinion of this Court the plaintiff has succeeded
in shifting the onus on the defendant and
therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the
plaintiff had stood discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
43. In the present case, it has been claimed on behalf of
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 17 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:30:56
+0530
the plaintiff that period of limitation got extended due to payment
made by the defendant on 22.06.2022 i.e. within limitation period
from the date of last transaction dated 29.07.2019 for a further
period of three years from 22.06.2022. Therefore, for ready
reference, the relevant provisions U/s 18 of the Limitation Act are
reproduced hereunder:-
18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.–
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period
for a suit or application in respect of any property or right,
an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property
or right has been made in writing signed by the party
against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any
person through whom he derives his title or liability, a
fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time
when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is
undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it
was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its
contents shall not be received.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it
omits to specify the exact nature of the property or
right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery,
performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is
accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform
or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-
off, or is addressed to a person other than a person
entitled to the property or right;
(b) the word “signed” means signed either personally
or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf; and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or
order shall not be deemed to be an application in
respect of any property or right.”
44. In the light of above discussed principle of law and
relevant provisions of law, now it is to be seen as to whether the
plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint.
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 18 / 33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.24 16:31:04 +0530
45. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed by
presenting the hard copy of the plaint on 10.03.2025 (e-filed on
06.03.2025). Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the present suit
is within limitation period. The basis of claim is that there was
running account between the parties as the plaintiff used to supply
the goods and defendant used to make payment in the said running
account. The factum of periodical payment by the defendant had
not been denied. Thus, there was a running open account between
the parties and therefore, from the last transaction i.e. alleged
payment dated 22.06.2022, if the period of limitation is to be
counted in the present case, admittedly that would be
22/23.06.2025 and if the date of filing of present plaint is taken
into consideration, the suit would be within limitation period even
without giving any benefit of period for pre-litigation mediation.
46. From the date of last sale/purchase of the goods on
29.07.2019, even if the period of pre-litigation mediation and
Covid period would be excluded in terms of the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the suit would be time barred.
47. In this context, the ledger account Ex.PW1/3 and
Ex.PW1/5 relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff alongwith
testimony of PW1 becomes relevant for the purposes of deciding
the issues framed in the present case.
48. In the testimony of PW1, it has come on record in
the cross-examination when he was asked as to whether all the
amount were paid by defendant through cheque, at the firsts
instance, PW1 has testified that same is correct and in the same
breathe he has again said one of the amount was paid in cash i.e.
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 19 / 33
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:31:18
+0530
Rs.10,000/-. Further, PW1 has testified that except the cash entry
of Rs.10,000/-, no cash payment was ever made by the defendant.
He has admitted that no receipt of Rs.10,000/- was issued by him
to the defendant nor any written notice was ever sent to the
defendant mentioning that after making cash payment of said
Rs.10,000/- any amount is due. PW1 has denied the suggestion of
making false entry or preparing fabricated ledger account in order
to bring the case within the limitation period.
49. In view of the said testimony of PW1, now it is to be
seen as to whether the entry in the ledger account have been made
in the ordinary course of business and if so, whether reliance can
be placed upon it for the purposes of ascertaining the entitlement
of the plaintiff for a money decree coupled with the fact that the
entry made regarding the last cash payment would extend the
limitation period or not.
50. Admittedly, in the present case there is no denial on
behalf of the defendant of any of the invoices in the affidavit filed
for admission/denial of documents and there is only denial of
ledger account to be false and fabricated and certificate U/s 65B
of Indian Evidence Act filed on behalf of the plaintiff to be not
being as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. Thus,
in the said circumstances, the genuineness of ledger accounts
becomes relevant not only for the purposes of limitation period but
also for the entitlement of the plaintiff for a money decree on the
basis of ledger account relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff.
51. In his cross-examination, when the PW1 was
confronted regarding the return of the goods vide the copy of list
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 20 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
2026.02.24
Sharma 16:31:25
+0530
of return goods dated 29.04.2019, 29.04.2019, 06.05.2019,
08.05.2019, 16.05.2019, 25.05.2019, 06.06.2019, 15.06.2019,
24.06.2019 and again 24.06.2019 (total 10 written notes/receipts)
bearing seal and signatures of the plaintiff, PW1 admitted that it
bear the seal and signatures of his firm and in view of his
admission, the document was exhibited as Ex.PW1/D1 (colly)
without any objection on the part of the plaintiff. Thus, it has been
proved on record that after the aforesaid alleged invoices
Ex.PW1/1 (colly), the part of goods so sold were returned by the
defendant under the due acknowledgment and therefore, their
entry should be there in the ledger account relied upon by the
plaintiff. However, perusal of both the ledger account Ex.PW1/3
and Ex.PW1/5 do not have any such entry of return of the goods
which should have been there in the ledger account maintained in
the ordinary course of business. Therefore, this fact in itself is
sufficient to raise the doubt about the veracity of the ledger
accounts Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5.
52. In ordinary course of business, a ledger account is
maintained financial year wise and the opening and closing
balance are forwarded to the next financial year and the entry is
made of sale, payment as well as any other credit note in the
form of return of goods. In order to raise presumption that the
ledger account Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 was maintained in
ordinary course of business, there should have been some
clarification regarding not maintaining the ledger account with
credit note entry.
53. The list of returned goods vide Ex.PW1/D1 (Colly)
has nowhere reflected in the entire ledger account despite
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 21 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:31:35
+0530
admission on behalf of the PW1 of return of goods on various dates
nor there is any reduction of the amount in the entire ledger
account qua the returned goods nor the witness has explained in
his testimony before the Court as to why there is no such entry
made in the entire ledger account qua the returned goods nor there
is any explanation as to why this fact has not been disclosed in the
plaint or in the affidavit in examination-in-chief. Further, PW1
has not even offered any plausible explanation after the
confrontation of documents Ex.PW1/D1 (Colly) regarding the
return of the goods. This fact itself again casts serious doubt about
the veracity and genuineness of the ledger account. The testimony
of PW1 again raises serious doubt about the proper entry and
maintenance of ledger accounts Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5. The
arguments on behalf of plaintiff regarding the period of return of
May, 2019 loses its relevance in view of admission by PW1.
54. Against his claim of cash payment on 22.06.2022 of
Rs.10,000/- as mentioned in ledger account Ex.PW1/3, when PW1
was cross-examined as to whether the said entry has been made in
order to bring the case within the limitation period, he has denied
the suggestion but he has admitted in his cross-examination that
he has never issued any receipt of cash payment.
55. It appears to be very doubtful that the payment entry
was made on the date of payment without issuing any receipt of
payment against the acknowledgment of liability. As discussed, a
period of limitation stands extended only against the written
acknowledgment of the liability within the period of limitation.
Therefore, had the plaintiff willing to rely upon Section 18 of the
Limitation Act for the purposes of extension of limitation of the
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 22 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
2026.02.24
Sharma 16:31:43
+0530
liability by the defendant, the cash receipt must have been issued
while taking the acknowledgment of liability in terms of Section
18 of the Limitation Act which clearly provides that any
acknowledgment in respect of a right must be made in writing
signed by the party against whom such right is claimed or by any
person through whom he derives his title or liability for a fresh
period of limitation from the time when the acknowledgment was
so signed. In absence of any written acknowledgment, even if for
the sake of arguments it is presumed that any payment in cash of
Rs.10,000/- was made on 22.06.2022, that cannot be treated to be
due acknowledgment within the meaning of provisions U/s 18 of
the Limitation Act acknowledging the liability of payment of
present case.
56. In a regular course of business the entry is made on
the day of sale, payment, return of goods and even in case there is
any non-payment due to dishonour of the cheque, reverse entry is
made and it is unusual in the business that no entry of return of the
goods/credit note is made in a ledger account. In the present case,
there is no entry of credit note/return of goods and this fact itself
raises the serious doubt about the veracity of maintaining ledger
account by the plaintiff.
57. Otherwise also, the witness PW1 in his cross-
examination has stated that the present invoices Ex.PW1/1 (Colly)
have been prepared by the defendant himself by way of his
voluntary statement but when he was asked as to whether this fact
has been mentioned in his plaint or affidavit, he has mentioned that
there is no such averment that the invoices are prepared by
defendant. However, perusal of the invoices reveals that all the
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 23 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:31:51
+0530
invoices are bearing the signatures of plaintiff himself. This
testimony of PW1 itself raises serious doubt about his own
veracity as throughout his cross-examination except the factum of
repeating the cash payment, his testimony has not been consistent.
Surprisingly in the entire affidavit filed in examination-in-chief,
he has not deposed that any cash payment of Rs.10,000/- was made
by the defendant on 22.06.2022 except deposing that the part
payment of Rs.1,30,000/- was made in various dates from
11.04.2019 till date.
58. Even the ledger account for the period from
01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and ledger account for the period from
01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 have not been placed on record for the
reason best known to the plaintiff. In order to corroborate the
version of running account, the account for the said period should
have been placed on record and since plaintiff has failed to place
and prove on record the running account for the said period,
adverse inference is bound to be drawn against him.
59. DW1 in his affidavit in examination-in-chief,
Ex.DW1/A, has proved the return of goods vide Ex.DW1/1
(colly) [also Ex.PW1/D1 (colly)] stating that the plaintiff has
supplied the faulty and defected goods and for the said reason,
defendant had to return the goods. He has also deposed that he
always paid the amount to plaintiff through cheque and never paid
any cash amount and in support of his oral testimony he has placed
reliance upon the copy of bank account statement Mark-A.
Despite opportunity, plaintiff has failed to cross-examine the
DW1. Therefore, the testimony of defendant remained
unchallenged and uncontroverted and there is no reason to
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 24 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:31:58
+0530
disbelieve his testimony regarding return of goods and making
payment through online modes and not making the payment in
cash at any point of time.
60. Even the plaintiff has placed reliance upon computer
generated copy of the ledger account Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 but
no Certificate U/s 63 of BSA, 2023 (corresponding Certificate U/s
65B of Indian Evidence Act) has been placed or proved on
record.
61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Anwar P.V.
Vs. P. K. Bhasheer, Air 2015 SC 180 has delved upon admissibility
of printouts of the documents by observing as under:-
“13. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record
under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be
proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Section 65B deals with the
admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these
provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form,
generated by a computer. It may be noted that Section starts with
a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an
electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or
copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer
shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions
mentioned under sub-Section (2) are satisfied, without further
proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of
such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as
computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four
conditions under Section 65B(2).”
“14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired
to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an
electronic record, it is permissible provided the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic
record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the
electronic record was produced;
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 25 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:32:09
+0530
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device
involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions
mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device.”
62. The issue of filing of Certificate U/s 65B of the Act
also came up for consideration before Hon’ble Delhi High Court
in case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MGR
Enterprises & Ors, CRL.L.P. 344/2019 decided on 24 th May,
2019. While referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Anvar P.V. (supra), following observations were made:-
“17. Further, the petitioner company has placed on record
the customer/ledger statement of account of the respondent
firm maintained by them from 1st January 2011 to 30th
November 2011 in order to show the liability. The same
has been produced in the form of a computer printout which
is a secondary evidence of the electronic record of data
purportedly stored in the computer of the petitioner
company. The petitioner company has not provided a
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to prove
the same and hence the ledger is inadmissible in evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since no
objection was raised qua the mode of proof at the time of
exhibiting the copies of the ledger account and the same
are duly exhibited, proved and admissible in evidence. This
contention of learned counsel deserves to be rejected as in
the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act a computer generated document is
inadmissible in evidence.
18. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision
Anvar P.V. (supra) wherein it was held that a computer
generated document would be admissible only when
accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian
Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be
inadmissible.”
63. It was thus concluded:-
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 26 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:32:17
+0530
“19. Legal position on the point is thus well settled that is
if the document is otherwise inadmissible for want of a
certificate or any other requirement of law, it being exhibited
in the course of trial does not make the document admissible
in law and though an objection as to the mode of proof can
be waived off and should be taken at the first instance,
however the objection as to the admissibility of a document
which goes to the root of the matter can be taken at any
stage. Supreme Court in the decision reported as R.V.E.
Venkatachala Gounder (supra) held:
“20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent
has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of
Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1457] in support of his
submission that a document not admissible in evidence,
though brought on record, has to be excluded from
consideration. We do not have any dispute with the
proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case.
However, the present one is a case which calls for the
correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily,
an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be
taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The
objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence
may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that
the document which is sought to be proved is itself
inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection
does not dispute the admissibility of the document in
evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof
alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the
first case, merely because a document has been marked
as “an exhibit”, an objection as to its admissibility is not
excluded and is available to be raised even at a later
stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the
objection should be taken when the evidence is
tendered and once the document has been admitted in
evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that
it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the
mode adopted for proving the document is irregular
cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent
to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter
proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is
whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point
of time, would have enabled the party tendering the
evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of
proof as would be regular. The omission to object
becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled
to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act
on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious
about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 27 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:32:25
+0530
objection does not prejudice the party tendering the
evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to
apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the
question of admissibility then and there; and secondly,
in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof
sought to be adopted going against the party tendering
the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of
the court for permitting a regular mode or method of
proof and thereby removing the objection raised by
the opposite party, is available to the party leading the
evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the
parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to
hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a
prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the
necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document,
the document itself which is sought to be proved being
admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence
would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior
court.”
64. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the
computer generated copy of ledger account Ex.PW1/3 and
Ex.PW1/5 could not be proved by way of evidence in absence of
necessary certificate and therefore, the very foundation of the case
regarding the entitlement of any of the relief in favour of the
plaintiff could not be proved in the testimony of PW1 on
preponderance of probability.
65. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the ledger entry in the ledger account
Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 cannot be said to have been proved as
per law on preponderance of probability in order to prove the
entitlement of the plaintiff. On the other hand, by the cross-
examination of PW1 and in the form of documentary evidence i.e.
copies of 11 receipts, Ex.PW1/D1, the defendant has successfully
proved that the ledger account relied upon by the plaintiff
Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 is not correct and genuine one
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 28 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:32:32
+0530
maintained in the ordinary course of business in order to prove the
entitlement qua recovery of the amount and for the purposes of
extension of limitation period with entry dated 22.02.2026 of cash
payment as there is no evidence at all led on behalf of the plaintiff
to prove any other cash entry.
66. In the light of aforesaid discussion, issue-wise
findings are as under:-
ISSUE No.1 :-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for a money decree of Rs.
5,90,203/-, as prayed? (OPP).
67. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. Plaintiff
has failed to prove its entitlement and that the suit has been filed
within limitation period, as discussed in detail hereinabove.
Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour
of the defendant.
ISSUE No.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate
and for which period? (OPP)
68. Onus to prove this isssue was upon plaintiff. Since it
has been held while deciding issue no.1 that plaintiff is not entitled
to claim any amount from the defendant, the question of it being
entitled to interest also does not arise. Accordingly, this issue is
also decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.3:-
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as claimed?
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 29 / 33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: 2026.02.24 Sharma 16:32:40 +0530 (OPD)
69. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant. As
discussed in detail hereinabove that the defendant has successfully
proved on preponderance of probability that no cash payment of
Rs.10,000/- on 22.06.2022 was made by the defendant to the
plaintiff. The ledger accounts Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 is not true
and correct ledger account and the entries made therein cannot be
relied upon. The necessary corollary is that the entry dated
22.06.2022 regarding the cash payment cannot be considered to be
true entry for the purposes of extension of limitation period.
Therefore, it is held that the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation
as the said date i.e. 22.06.2022 cannot be taken into consideration
for the purposes of computing the limitation period.
This issue is also decided accordingly in favour of the
defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.4:-
Whether the entry made on 22.06.2022 in the ledger account of the
plaintiff of cash payment of Rs. 10,000/- is forged and fabricated,
if so, its effect? (OPD)
70. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant. As
discussed in detail hereinabove, the defendant has successfully
proved on preponderance of probability that no cash payment of
Rs.10,000/- on 22.06.2022 was made by the defendant to the
plaintiff. The ledger account Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 is not true
and correct ledger account and the entries made therein cannot be
relied upon.
Therefore, this issue is accordingly decided in
favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 30 / 33 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: 2026.02.24 Sharma 16:32:48 +0530 ISSUE No.5:-
Whether the quality/ defective goods were supplied by the plaintiff
and same was returned in May 2019 against the due
acknowledgment, if so, its effect? (OPD)
71. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant. As
discussed in detail hereinabove, the defendant has successfully
proved on preponderance of probability that the defendant has
returned the goods vide returned Memo Ex.DW1 (Colly) (also
Ex.PW1/D1) and those amounts have not been entered into the
ledger account of the plaintiff. Therefore, it has been proved that
the ledger account relied upon by the plaintiff is not the proper
ledger account and there is concealment of material credit notes
which raises serious doubt about the authenticity and veracity and
the claim of the plaintiff cannot be based upon the said ledger
account. The arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that
according to the pleadings of defendant, the goods were returned in
May, 2019 and therefore, the alleged receipt of goods Ex.PW1/D1
cannot be relied upon does not hold much water as the return of the
goods have been proved on record during the relevant period of
transactions between the parties without any entry in the ledger
accounts.
Therefore, this issue is accordingly decided in favour
of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.6:-
Whether the defendant has made a payment of Rs.2,90,000/-
over and above the legally recoverable dues? (OPD)
72. Onus to prove this issues was upon defendant. As
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 31 / 33
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:32:55
+0530
discussed in detail hereinabove, the defendant has successfully
proved on preponderance of probability that the defendant has
returned the goods. However, there is no evidence that the value
of the said goods was Rs.2,90,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said
that there was any payment of Rs.2,90,000/- over and above the
legally recoverable dues. Since the supply of the goods against the
invoices has been admitted by the defendant and he has
successfully proved the return of the goods, therefore, the issue of
payment of Rs.2,90,000/- over and above the dues of the plaintiff
is not the subject matter of the present dispute but it may be counter
claim of the defendant. Since no counter claim has been filed in
the present matter, therefore, this issue has become infructuous and
is decided accordingly.
ISSUE No.7:-
Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form as
claimed? (OPD)
73. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant. As
discussed in detail hereinabove while returning the findings upon
issue no.4 that the defendant has successfully proved on
preponderance of probability that the suit is beyond the limitation
period. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of the
defendant and against the plaintiff.
R E L I E F:-
74. In view of foregoing observations, it is held that
plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit and the suit
is dismissed.
75. In the circumstances discussed hereinabove, parties
CS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 32 / 33
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.24
16:33:02
+0530
to bear their own costs.
76. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
77. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Dictated and pronounced Kumar
Kumar Sharma
in the open Court on Sharma
Date:
2026.02.24
24th February, 2026. 16:33:09 +0530(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, DelhiCS (COMM) No. 288/2025 Mr. Sunil Mishra Vs. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Pg. 33 / 33
