Delhi District Court
Shri Ram Laminators Pvt Ltd vs Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed on 8 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01) NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM)/100/2020
CNR No.DLNW01-002972-2020
SHRI RAM LAMINATORS PVT. LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
B-96, Wazirpur Industrial Area,
Delhi-110052
Through Its Authorised Representative:
Sh. Saurabh Chadha
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed
Proprietor: Nazras International
19/7, Mohammed Pura,
2nd Street, Ambur,
Tamil Nadu-635802
.....Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.3,27,049/- (RUPEES THREE
LAKH TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND FORTY NINE ONLY)
ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
& OTHER CHARGES.
Date of institution : 12.03.2020
Date of hearing final arguments : 07.07.2026
Date of judgment : 08.07.2026
Digitally signed
CS (Comm.)byNo.100/2020
DEVENDER Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 1 of 25
DEVENDER KUMAR
KUMAR JANGALA
JANGALA Date:
2026.07.08
16:32:06 +0530
JUDGEMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of
Rs.3,27,049/- along with cost, pendente lite and future interest
against the defendant.
2. Brief facts:- The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff
is a private limited company, having its registered office at B-96,
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052, and carries on the business
of lining, cosmo materials, fabrics and allied products used in sports
footwear and other industries. That the present case has been
instituted by Sh. Saurabh Chadha, Authorised Representative of the
Plaintiff company (employed since 2015) who has active knowledge
of the affairs of the company with respect to the facts of the present
case.
3. That the defendant Sh. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed had
approached the plaintiff and placed orders for goods. That after
receipt of orders, the goods were supplied against invoices to
defendant, and plaintiff registered all the purchases made by the
defendant in formal account books/ledger. That the defendant used
to make the payments for goods bought on ‘running account basis’.
That the accumulated amount due towards the goods purchased is
Rs.1,78,979/- (principal amount), which is due and outstanding
against the defendant. That lastly, the goods were supplied vide
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 2 of 25
invoice dated 25.06.2015. That the goods were supplied to the
defendant from the registered address of the plaintiff at Delhi. That
the purchases made by defendant were duly recorded in the books of
account by the Plaintiff. That the invoices raised for the purchases
made by defendant, contains condition of sale of goods for which
the timely payment was essence. It stated that as the defendant had
failed to make the payment within time, hence liable to pay interest
@ 18% per annum on the same. That despite several reminders,
when the defendant did not clear the outstanding amount, the
Plaintiff issued a notice dated 24.01.2019.
4. That the cause of action for filing the present suit/plaint
accrued in favour of the Plaintiff, when the Plaintiff supplied goods
to the Defendant. That it further arose when the defendant despite
acceptance of goods, did not pay the outstanding amount. That it
further arose when the defendant issued cheques to the Plaintiff in
discharge of his liability but the same were dishonoured and further,
did not cleared the outstanding amount. That the cause of action is
still subsisting and continuing one.
5. That the defendant made a belated payment of Rs.25,000/- on
25.04.2016 via NEFT to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff issued legal
notice dated 24.01.2019 to the defendant and the same was sent to
the defendant. That thereafter, defendant lastly contacted the
plaintiff & paid sum of Rs.5,000/- only on 17.04.2019 in cash
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 3 of 25
through his agent at Delhi and further promisedto pay the remaining
outstanding shortly. That it is well settled law that “fraud vitiates
everything” and “the debtor shall find the creditor and pay at his
place”. That the plaintiff company has its registered office within
the territorial jurisdiction of this court. That as also the Golden
principle remains – “the debtor shall find the creditor & not vice
versa”. That the specified value of this suit is Rs.3,27,049/-
(Rs.1,78,979/- principal outstanding and Rs.1,48,070/- as interest
@18% p.a. calculated from 25.06.2015 till December, 2019). It is
prayed that a decree for recovery of suit amount may kindly be
passed.
6. Summons for settlement of issues, in respect of the present
Suit were sent to the defendant. Defendant was duly served through
WhatsApp on 20.12.2020 and by way of registered post on
05.01.2021. Ld. counsel for defendant appeared on 08.09.2021 and
filed written statement. Vide order dated 31.08.2022, the written
statement filed by the defendant was taken on record in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition
(Civil) No.03/2020 whereby Ld. Apex Court has extended the
limitation due to Covid-19 crisis.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
7. While denying the contents of the plaint in toto, the
Defendant states in his written statement that the Plaintiff has notCS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 4 of 25
come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has blatantly lied in
the pleadings. That the present suit is devoid of any merits and no
cause of action has arisen in favour of the Plaintiff to file the present
suit. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed under the
Provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. That the present suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.
That in the plaint, the goods were lastly supplied on 25.06.2015 and
payment of Rs.25,000/- was made on 25.04.2016 via NEFT. That
thereafter, the Plaintiff has mentioned that the Defendant made last
payment of Rs.5,000/- in cash on 17.04.2019 through his agent in
Delhi. That no such payment was ever made by the Defendant to the
Plaintiff nor there is any such agent of the Defendant at Delhi. That
the said averment is a blatant lie and is a false evidence created by
the Plaintiff to cover the limitation lapse. That no transaction has
occurred between the parties since the last three years from the date
of the filing of the present case and as such the present case needs
dismissal on this ground. That further, there was no running account
maintained between the parties as stated. That the suit of the
plaintiff is bad in law and also on facts.
9. That the account between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was
settled way back in April 2016 and thereafter all the sub-standard
goods supplied by the Plaintiff were taken back by the Plaintiff and
the account was fully settled for Rs.25,000/-. which was paid by the
Defendant on 25.04.2016. That the plaintiff approached the
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 5 of 25
defendant as it was in need of expanding its business in south India.
That it was mutually agreed between the parties that the material
will be supplied on credit basis and the payments would be released
on sale basis. That the material supplied was of inferior/ bad quality
and as such the defendant suffered loss of goodwill besides
monetary losses and the present matter was settled for a sum of Rs.
25,000/- to which payment was released through NEFT way back in
the year 2016. That thereafter, there had been no dealings between
the parties as the accounts were settled in full and final settlement.
That the story propounded by the plaintiff company of receiving
cash of Rs.5,000/- is blatant lie just to cover the point of limitation
to which the defendant denies in toto. That the suit filed is based on
falsehood with the sole intention to grab the hard earned money of
the defendant. It is prayed that the present suit be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
10. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 19.12.2022,
Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs.1,78,979/- towards principal amount and Rs.1,48,070/-
towards interest @ 18 per annum for period 25-6-2015 till
December, 2019 from defendant? O.P.P.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover future interest
@24% per annum from the date of respective invoices
from defendant? O.P.P.
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 6 of 25
3. Whether suit is barred by limitation? O. P. D.
4. Relief.
11. In support of its case the plaintiff has examined its substituted
AR Sh. Shashi Kumar Wadhwani as PW-1. He tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/9 and relied upon the
following documents viz:-
1. The Board of resolution is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. The Ledger maintained by the plaintiff company is
Ex.PW1/2.
3. The True computer generated copies of the invoices are
Ex.PW1/3 (Colly).
4. The certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/4.
5. The Legal notice dated 24.01.2019 along withh original postal
receipts & envelope returned with endorsement unclaimed are
Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7.
6. The plaint is Ex.PW1/8.
12. The defendant failed to appear before Ld. Local Commssioner
for purpose of recording evidence, after framing of issues and
before Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Vide order dated 28.03.2024,
the defendant was proceeded ex-parte for non appearance. The ex-
parte PE was concluded on 16.04.2026 and the matter was listed for
ex-parte final arguments on 14.05.2026.
13. Final arguments advanced by Sh. Johri Mal, Ld. counsel for
plaintiff were heard. It is argued by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 7 of 25
defendant has failed to make payment of the outstanding amount
despite repeated opportunities and reminders. That the deposition of
the PW-1 Sh. Shashi Kumar Wadhwani, has gone
unchallenged/unrebutted. That in view of deposition of PW1 and
documents placed on record, the decree as prayed may kindly be
passed.
14. I have considered the submissions made by Ld. counsel for
plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.
15. It is settled position of law that in civil proceedings, the
standard of proof is governed by the principle of preponderance of
probabilities. The court is not required to attain absolute certainty,
rather, it must assess whether, on the basis of the material on record,
one version appears more probable than the other. If the evidence
leads the court to conclude that a fact is more likely than not to have
occurred, the burden of proof stands discharged. However, where
the probabilities are evenly balanced, the party bearing the burden
must fail.
16. This standard is not uniform in its application and may admit
of varying degrees depending upon the nature and gravity of the
subject-matter involved. In cases involving serious allegations or
grave consequences, the court is expected to exercise greater caution
and require a higher degree of probability, though still within the
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 8 of 25
civil standard. Thus, while proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required, the evidence must inspire sufficient confidence to persuade
the court that the version advanced is reasonably probable and
worthy of acceptance.
17. Thus, proof of a fact depends upon the probability of its
existence. The finding of the court must be based on the test of a
prudent person, who acts under the supposition that a fact exists and
in the context and circumstances of a particular case. (See “proved”
under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 2(1)
(j) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha
Ranjan Debbarma, decided on 04.01.2023, reported as (2023) 19
SCC 782 stated that the proving of a fact is to be based on the
person who asserts it in terms of Section 101 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023). The relevant porition of Smriti Debbarma
(supra) is reproduced below:
“37. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies
upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the
existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims
relief. (See Addagada Raghavamma (supra). This is mandated in
terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden of
proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the
affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not
be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the
present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102
of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must
fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuousCS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 9 of 25
process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for
title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of
probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such
evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged
only when he is able to prove title. (See Venkatachala
Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC
752). The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the
suit. (See Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd.,
(2014) 2 SCC 269 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 66).”
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chowdamma v. Venkatappa,
decided on 25.08.2025, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1814
discussed the difference between burden of proof and onus of proof.
The relevant paras of Chowdamma (supra) are extracted as
follows:
“BURDEN OF PROOF AND ONUS OF PROOF
43. This Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC
558, observed thus:
“19. There is another aspect of the matter which should
be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof
and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi.
It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question
of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which
party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to
indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of
a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of
establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence;
and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or
both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is
inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on
the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a
case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the
defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would
disentitle the plaintiff to the same.”
44. Also, in Addagada Raghavamma (supra), this Court observed
as follows:
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 10 of
“12. … There is an essential distinction between burden of
proof and onus of proof : burden of proof lies upon the per-
son who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus
of proof shifts. …Such considerations, having regard to the cir-
cumstances of a particular case, may shift the onus of proof.
Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evalua-
tion of evidence. …” ”
(Emphasis supplied in bold)
20. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashish Tewari vs. G.P.
Tewari & Anr., decided on 24.04.2026, reported as 2026:DHC:3411
on Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 observed as
under:
“59. In terms of Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (hereinafter ‘Evidence Act‘), the burden of proof lies on the
party who asserts the existence of a fact and seeks relief on that
basis. The initial onus, therefore, was on the plaintiff to establish his
entitlement to rendition of accounts by placing on record cogent
evidence in support of his claim that the suit properties were purchased
by Sh. J.P. Tewari from the sale of ancestral lands in the village which
he has failed to discharge. It is only upon discharge of such initial
burden that the onus would shift to the defendants to rebut the
same. Consequently, the burden never shifted upon the defendants.
It was not for the defendants to prove that the suit properties were
purchased from the personal income and savings of Sh. J.P. Tewari.
Reference in this regard may be to the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 .”
(Emphasis supplied in Bold)
21. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Smt. Chaman Lata
Bhardwaj & Ors. vs. Smt. Nirmal Devi, decided on 12.05.2026,
reported as 2026:DHC:4173 laid down as under:
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 11 of
“38. A mere plea of forgery taken by the Appellants, without any
particulars, proof, or even an attempt at cross-examination, cannot
displace documentary evidence proved through primary witnesses and
supported by bank records and cheque return memos. Once execution
of Loan Agreement and issuance of cheques, to establish the friendly
loans advanced, are proved, the burden shifted squarely on the
Defendant to rebut the presumption that such cheques were not
issued or were not towards a legally enforceable liability. If the
defendant fails, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree, on the standard
of preponderance of probabilities.”
(Emphasis supplied in Bold)
22. Thus, as can be observed from various landmark judicial
pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court in Smriti Debbarma
(supra) and Chowdamma (supra), and recent pronouncements of
our own Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Ashish Tewari (supra) and
Chaman Lata Bhardwaj (supra), the burden of proof lies upon the
party asserting a fact and never shifts, though the onus of proof
shifts continuously in the evaluation of evidence. There exists an
essential distinction between the two, inasmuch as the initial onus is
always upon the Plaintiff, and it is only upon discharge thereof the
onus shifts upon the Defendant to rebut the same.
APPLICATION OF LAW ON FACTS
23. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the
plaintiff, the applicable principles governing burden of proof and
onus to prove, and the submissions advanced on behalf of the
plaintiff, the issue-wise findings of this Court are as follows:-
ISSUE NO. 03
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 12 of
3. Whether suit is barred by limitation? O. P. D.
23. The plaintiff for being entitled to the recovery of the suit
amount with or without interest is first required to prove the issue of
limitation in his favour as it is a necessary condition for
maintainability of the present suit. As a result, Issue No. 3 is taken
up first.
24. The law of limitation is not a mere technicality but a
substantive and salutary principle of law designed to ensure legal
certainty. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Popat and
Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association,
decided on 29.08.2005,, reported as (2005) 7 SCC 510:
“Bar of limitation does not obstruct the execution. It bars the
remedy. (See V. Subba Rao and Ors. v. Secretary to Govt.
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Govt. of A.P. and
Ors. (1996 (7) SCC 626.) Rules of limitation are not meant to
destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties
do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy
promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair
the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of
limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress
of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted
time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer
causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek
legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a life-span must be
fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the
remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential
anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy.
It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis
litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to
litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept
alive for legislatively fixed period of time. (See N.
Balakrishanan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998 (7) SCC 123).”
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 13 of
25. Thus, the law of limitation does not extinguish the
underlying right, it merely restricts the enforceability of the remedy
through courts after the prescribed period. Its purpose is not to
defeat legitimate claims, but to ensure that parties act with
reasonable diligence and do not indulge in unnecessary delay. The
legal system provides remedies to redress injuries, but such
remedies cannot be kept open indefinitely. Thus, limitation law is
grounded in considerations of public policy, encapsulated in the
maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, meaning that it is in
the interest of the State that litigation must come to an end. The
legislative intent is to ensure that every legal remedy is pursued
within a fixed and reasonable time.
26. As per the plaintiff’s own facts, the goods forming the
subject matter of the suit were last supplied to the defendant vide
invoice dated 25.06.2015. A suit for recovery of the price of goods
sold and delivered on running account is governed by Article 1 of
the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, and the period of three
years starts running from the close of the year in which the last item
admitted or proved is entered in the account, or, in the case of goods
sold and delivered simpliciter, three years from the date of delivery
under Article 14 of the said Schedule. On either view, in the
ordinary course, limitation for institution of the present suit expired
three years from 25.06.2015, i.e., on or about 25.06.2018. The suit
came to be instituted only on 12.03.2020, i.e., admittedly beyond the
ordinary period of limitation. The plaintiff, therefore, is required to
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 14 of
demonstrate that the limitation stood extended either under Section
18 or Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to
as “LA, 1963”) to save the suit.
27. Section 18 of the LA, 1963 provides for extension of
limitation by way of written acknowledgement. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Technical Construction Company v.
Engineering Project (India) Limited, decided on 15th March,
2024, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1924 discussed in detail
on aspect of written acknowledgement vis-a-vis Section 18 of the
LA, 1963 while relying upon the celebrated decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Assam State
Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd, decided
on26.10.2004, reported as (2004) 12 SCC 360. The relevant
paragraphs of the Technical Construction (supra) are extracted
hereinbelow:
“22. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, reads:
(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 theCS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 15 of
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.
23. The above-mentioned provision clearly provides that if there is an
express acknowledgement of liability in writing by the opposite party, a
fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when
acknowledgement was signed. The same has also been laid down by the
Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India (supra), wherein it was
held that that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the
meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied
by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are set out below:
“14. According to Section 18 of the Limitation Act,
an acknowledgement of liability made in writing in respect of
any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party
against whom such right is claimed made before the expiration
of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of such right has the
effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date
on which the acknowledgement was so signed. It is well settled
that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the
meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be
accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by
implication.
15. The statement providing foundation for a plea of
acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability,
though the exact nature or the specific character of the said
liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the
acknowledgement must indicate the existence of jural
relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and
creditor. The intention to attempt such jural relationship must be
apparent. However, such intention can be inferred by implication
from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in
words. A clear statement containing acknowledgement of
liability can imply the intention to admit jural relationship of
debtor and creditor. Though oral evidence in lieu of or making a
departure from the statement sought to be relied on asCS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 16 of
acknowledgement is excluded but surrounding circumstances
can always be considered. Courts generally lean in favour of a
liberal construction of such statements though an
acknowledgement shall not be inferred where there is no
admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement
by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. So long as
the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural
relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the
admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be
found due from the person making the admission or that on an
account being taken something may be found due and payable to
the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom
the statement is made.”
28. Thus, it can be said that if there is an express written
acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, a fresh period of
limitation shall start from the time when such acknowledgment was
signed. While strongly relying upon Food Corporation of India
(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Technical
Construction (supra) said that within the meaning of Section 18 of
the LA, 1963, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either
expressly or even by implication. The statement which provides
foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present
subsisting liability, though the liability may not be indicated in
words. The words as used in the acknowledgement must show that
there is an existing jural relationship between the parties which can
be implied by a clear statement containing acknowledgement of
liability. Courts generally apply a liberal construction method of
statutory interpretation in ascertaining whether an acknowledgement
of debt results in extension of limitation under Section 18 of the LA,
1963.
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 17 of
29. Before going over the merits of the present case, the Court
shall also discuss current judicial position with respect to part
payment and its effect on limitation expressly provided under
Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, decided on
18.12.2019, reported as (2020) 2 SCC 677 discussed in detail while
excerpting Section 19 of the LA, 1963. The relevant portion is
provided as follows:
“12. Section 19 of the Limitation Act is as follows:
“19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of
interest on legacy.–Where payment on account of a
debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the
expiration of the prescribed period by the person
liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly
authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation
shall be computed from the time when the payment
was made:
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest
made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an
acknowledgment of the payment appears in the
handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person
making the payment.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section–
(a) where mortgaged land is in the possession
of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or
produce of such land shall be deemed to be a
payment;
(b) “debt” does not include money payable
under a decree or order of a court.”
15. Order 7 Rule 6 uses the words “the plaint shall show the
ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed”.
The exemption provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 are based on certain facts and events.
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 18 of
Section 19, with which we are concerned, provides for a
fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain
facts i.e. (i) whether payment on account of debt or of
interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the
prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or
legacy, (ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in
the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person
making the payment.
16. We may notice the judgment of this Court dealing with
Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was akin to
present Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Sant Lal
Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477, this Court held
that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act,
1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must
be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it
must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in
the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him.
This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption
under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras
9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p. 479)
“9. It would be clear, we think, from the language of
Section 20, Limitation Act, that to attract its operations two
conditions are essential : first, the payment must be made
within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, it
must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in
the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. We
agree with the Subordinate Judge that it is the payment which
really extends the period of limitation under Section 20,
Limitation Act; but the payment has got to be proved in a
particular way and for reason of policy the legislature
insists on a written or signed acknowledgment as the only
proof of payment and excludes oral testimony. Unless,
therefore, there is acknowledgment in the required form,
the payment by itself is of no avail. The Subordinate Judge,
however, is right in holding that while the section requires
that the payment should be made within the period of
limitation, it does not require that the acknowledgment should
also be made within that period. To interpret the proviso in
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 19 of
that way would be to import into it certain words which do
not occur there. This is the view taken by almost all the High
Courts in India and to us it seems to be a proper view to take.
(See Mohd. Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi [Mohd.
Moizuddin Mia v. Nalini Bala Devi, 1937 SCC OnLine Cal 20
: AIR 1937 Cal 284 : ILR (1937) 2 Cal 137] ; Lal
Singh v. Gulab Rai [Lal Singh v. Gulab Rai, 1932 SCC
OnLine All 265 : ILR (1933) 55 All 280] , Venkata
Subbhu v. Appu Sundaram [Venkata Subbhu v. Appu
Sundaram, ILR (1894) 17 Mad 92] , Ram Prasad
Babu v. Mohan Lal Babu [Ram Prasad Babu v. Mohan Lal
Babu, 1922 SCC OnLine MP 10 : AIR 1923 Nag 117]
and Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram
Saraf [Vishwanath Raghunath Kale v. Mahadeo Rajaram
Saraf, 1933 SCC OnLine Bom 3 : ILR (1933) 57 Bom 453] .)
10. … If the plaintiff’s right of action is apparently barred
under the statute of limitation, Order 7 Rule 6, Civil
Procedure Code makes it his duty to state specifically in the
plaint the grounds of exemption allowed by the Limitation
Act, upon which he relies to exclude its operation; and if the
plaintiff has got to allege in his plaint the facts which entitle
him to exemption, obviously these facts must be in existence
at or before the time when the plaint is filed; facts which
come into existence after the filing of the plaint cannot be
called in aid to revive a right of action which was dead at the
date of the suit. To claim exemption under Section 20,
Limitation Act the plaintiff must be in a position to allege
and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a
debt or part-payment of the principal, but that such
payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner
contemplated by that section.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti
Conductors (supra) while relying upon Sant Lal
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 20 of
Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, decided on 17.10.1951, reported as AIR
1951 SC 477, gave two essentials for a part payment to come under
Section 19 of the LA, 1963 which are as follows:
(i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on
legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period
by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy,
(ii) an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the
handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making
the payment.
31. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors
(supra) while relying upon Sant Lal (supra) held that the part
payment for extension of limitation is to be proved in only by a
written or signed acknowledgment and not by oral testimony. Unless
there is a written acknowledgment in the required form, the payment
by itself is of no avail.
32. Hence, in view of Section 19 of LA, 1963, the new limitation
period begins from the time of payment for a debt or interest on a
legacy only if the payment is made before the original period
expired. The payment is required to be made by the person liable to
pay or duly authorised agent. A plaintiff can claim exemption only
when there was a payment of interest on a debt or part-payment of
the principle along with an acknowledgment in writing by the
person making the payment.
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 21 of
33. On a perusal of the record, no document has been placed by
the plaintiff which constitutes a written acknowledgment of liability
signed by the defendant at any point in time. The only
communication on record emanating in this regard is the legal notice
dated 24.01.2019 (Ex.PW1/5), which is a notice issued by the
plaintiff to the defendant, and not a writing signed by the defendant
admitting liability. A unilateral notice issued by the creditor does
not, and cannot, satisfy the requirement of Section 18, which
contemplates an acknowledgment signed by the debtor himself or
his authorised agent. There being no such acknowledgment on
record, the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of Section 18 of the
Limitation Act, 1963.
34. The plaintiff has further sought to place reliance upon two
payments said to have been received from the defendant, namely,
Rs. 25,000/- through NEFT on 25.04.2016 and Rs. 5,000/- in cash
on 17.04.2019. Even if this Court were to proceed on the most
liberal assumption in favour of the plaintiff and treat the NEFT
payment dated 25.04.2016 as sufficient to attract Section 19, a fresh
period of three years would commence from 25.04.2016 and would
expire on 25.04.2019. The present suit, admittedly instituted on
12.03.2020, would still fall outside even this extended period. The
NEFT payment of 25.04.2016, therefore, does not, in any view of
the matter, save the suit from the bar of limitation.
35. As regards the alleged cash payment of Rs. 5,000/- said to
have been made on 17.04.2019 through an agent of the defendant at
Delhi, the same stands specifically and categorically denied by the
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 22 of
defendant in the written statement as a fabrication introduced solely
to overcome the bar of limitation. Quite apart from this denial, no
document in the handwriting of, or signed by, the defendant or his
agent acknowledging such payment has been placed on record.
Consequently, even assuming the alleged cash payment to be true
for the sake of argument, it cannot be relied upon to extend
limitation, for want of the statutorily mandated written
acknowledgment. It follows that the last payment which is capable
of being reckoned in law, i.e., the NEFT payment of 25.04.2016,
itself falls short of extending limitation beyond 25.04.2019, as noted
above.
36. The pleadings of the plaintiff, even taken at their highest, do
not disclose a written and signed acknowledgment of either
payment. The plaintiff has, therefore, failed to discharge the onus,
which lay squarely upon it, of proving that the suit was instituted
within the period of limitation prescribed by law, an onus which
does not stand obviated merely because the defendant has been
proceeded against ex-parte, since limitation is a matter which the
Court is bound to examine on its own even in the absence of contest.
37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the
suit is filed beyond three years from the date of last supply on
25.06.2015 and is barred by the law of limitation.
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 23 of
Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in
favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs.1,78,979/- towards principal amount and Rs.1,48,070/-
towards interest @ 18 per annum for period 25-6-2015 till
December, 2019 from defendant? O.P.P.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover future interest
@24% per annum from the date of respective invoices
from defendant? O.P.P.
38. In view of the finding recorded on Issue No. 3 above, which
goes to the very root of the maintainability of the suit, the question
of the plaintiff’s entitlement to the principal amount as well as
interest till institution of the suit and future interest does not survive
for independent adjudication.
Issues No. 1 and 2 are accordingly decided against the plaintiff,
and in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO. 04
4. Relief
39. In view of the findings recorded on Issue No. 3 above, the
present suit being barred by limitation, is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 24 of
Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 8th day of July, 2026
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
08.07.2026
CS (Comm.) No.100/2020 Shri Ram Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Jaleel Nadeem Ahmed Page 25 of
