Full Judgment Text
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.03.2025
+ RFA(COMM) 512/2024 & CM APPL. No.75412/2024
AHMED RAZA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Fahim Khan, Adv.
Versus
NITISH JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ram Prakash Soni, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. ( Oral )
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated
04.09.2024 [ the impugned order ] passed by the learned Commercial Court
in a suit involving a commercial dispute being CS(COMM) 314/2024
captioned Nitish Jain v. Ahmed Raza.
2. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court
allowed the application filed by the respondent [plaintiff in CS(COMM)
314/2024] under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [
the CPC ] seeking a decree on admission.
3. The respondent [hereafter also referred to as the plaintiff ] had filed
the aforementioned suit [being CS(COMM) 314/2024] for recovery of a
sum of ₹14,74,236/- along with interest from the date of institution of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:TARUN RANA
Signing Date:25.03.2025
13:24:04
RFA(COMM) 512/2024 Page 1 of 6
suit till the realisation of the amount.
4. The plaintiff claimed that it had supplied garments/fabric to the
appellant [hereafter also referred to as the defendant ] in the normal course
of business and a sum of ₹14,74,236/- was outstanding and payable by the
defendant. The plaintiff claimed that it had served a legal notice dated
07.03.2024 on the defendant calling upon him to clear the outstanding
amount but the defendant had failed and neglected to do so.
5. The defendant had filed a written statement claiming that he had made
several payments to the plaintiff, which were not reflected in the statement
of accounts filed by him. Further, the defendant claimed that no goods were
supplied in respect of certain invoices raised by the plaintiff. Thus, the
defendant was not liable to pay any amount against those specified
invoices. In addition to the above, the defendant also claimed that he had
made part payments against some of the invoices. The defendant filed
certain documents, including the ledger accounts in the name of the
defendant’s sole proprietorship concern (Veer Fabtex), which reflected that
a sum of ₹6,21,214/- was outstanding and payable to the plaintiff.
6. In view of the above, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XII
Rule 6 of the CPC, claiming that a decree for a sum of ₹6,21,214/- be
passed in favour of the plaintiff, being the amount admittedly owed by the
defendant and reflected in the statement of accounts furnished by it.
7. The order sheets of the learned Commercial Court indicate that the
suit was listed on 27.07.2024. On that date, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff had filed the aforementioned application under Order XII Rule 6 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:TARUN RANA
Signing Date:25.03.2025
13:24:04
RFA(COMM) 512/2024 Page 2 of 6
the CPC after providing the defendant an advance copy of the same. A copy
of the said application was once again supplied to the defendant during the
course of the hearing and the same is recorded in the order dated
27.07.2024. The defendant was granted ten days time to file a reply to the
said application and the matter was listed on 14.08.2024 for reply and
arguments on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6
of the CPC. The parties were directed to appear in person for exploring the
possibility of a settlement.
8. Whilst the plaintiff appeared along with his Advocate before the
learned Commercial Court on 14.08.2024, the defendant did not appear.
However, his counsel joined the proceedings virtually and sought further
time to file a reply to the plaintiff’s application for decree on admissions
under Order XII Rule 6. The defendant was granted further one week’s time
to file a reply to the said application, subject to payment of cost of ₹2,000/-
and the hearing was adjourned to 04.09.2024. The parties were once again
directed to appear in person on the said date of hearing.
9. The defendant did not file any response to the application. On
04.09.2024, the learned counsel for the defendant stated in unambiguous
terms that the defendant did not wish to file any reply to the said
application. He also conceded that the defendant had admitted that an
amount of ₹6,21,214/- was due and payable by the defendant. We consider
it apposite to reproduce the impugned order in entirety. The same is set out
below:
“Previous cost of Rs.10,000/- has been paid by the defendant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:TARUN RANA
Signing Date:25.03.2025
13:24:04
RFA(COMM) 512/2024 Page 3 of 6
to the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, through electronic modes.
The Ld. Counsel for the defendant does not want to file any
reply to the application of the plaintiff u/o XII Rule 6 r/w
Section 151 CPC, filed on 27.07.2024, registered as I.A. No.
01/24.
Submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the parties are heard on
the said application.
It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that, as per
the Ledger Account of the defendant, at page 97 of the
documents, an amount of Rs.6,21,214/-was admittedly, due
against the defendant and therefore, the present application
may be allowed and a Decree for the admitted amount may be
passed against the defendant.
He has further prayed that the present suit may be proceeded
further, for the remaining Principal amount.
The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has admitted that an
amount of Rs.6,21,214/-is due and payable by the defendant,
and, therefore, the defendant shall pay the aforesaid admitted
amount to the plaintiff, in installments.
In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the parties
and the admissions by the defendant, the present application
u/o XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC, is hereby allowed and a
Decree for the admitted amount of Rs. 6,21,214/-, is passed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant u/o XII Rule
6 CPC. I.A. No. 01/24 is disposed off accordingly. Decree
Sheet be prepared accordingly.
From the submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the parties, it
appears that there is an element of settlement between the
parties. Therefore, the matter is referred for mediation. Parties
and their Ld. Counsels are directed to appear before the Ld.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:TARUN RANA
Signing Date:25.03.2025
13:24:04
RFA(COMM) 512/2024 Page 4 of 6
Judge Incharge, Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, for
mediation, on 10.09.2024 and to report before this Court, on
the next date of hearing on 24.09.2024.”
10. The defendant does not dispute that it had filed a statement of
accounts along with its written statement, clearly reflecting that a sum of
₹6,21,214/- was payable to the plaintiff. He, however, blames his counsel
for not drafting a proper written statement. It is his case that he had
supplied all the documents to his counsel and the written statement was
prepared on the counsel’s advice. However, the said written statement was
deficient and did not specifically state that the defendant had cleared all the
amounts as payable by him. He also states that his counsel did not file all
relevant documents along with the written statement.
11. Insofar as the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the
CPC is concerned, the defendant claims that he had instructed his counsel
to file a reply to this application and time was also sought for the said
purpose. However, his counsel failed to file the reply to the said application
and had unauthorisedly admitted before the learned Commercial Court that
the amount of ₹6,21,214/- as reflected in the statement of accounts was due
and payable to the plaintiff.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff earnestly contended
that there was no requirement for the defendant to have sought further time
to file a reply on payment of costs if the defendant did not wish to file any
reply to the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Additionally, he submitted that the defendant had also filed a complaint
with the Bar Counsel of Delhi against his counsel, which is pending.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:TARUN RANA
Signing Date:25.03.2025
13:24:04
RFA(COMM) 512/2024 Page 5 of 6
13. We find no merit in the aforesaid contentions. First, there is no
dispute that the defendant had filed its written statement along with the
statement of accounts, in which it is clearly acknowledged that the amount
of ₹6,21,214/- was payable to the plaintiff. Second, the defendant was
present in the court on the date when the impugned order was passed. Thus,
he was fully aware of the submissions made by his counsel before the
learned Commercial Court, including the submission that he did not wish to
file any reply to the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the
CPC and that a sum of ₹6,21,214/- was admittedly due and payable to the
plaintiff.
14. Clearly, in view of the above, this court finds no infirmity with the
decision of the learned Commercial Court in decreeing the suit on
admissions to the extent of ₹6,21,214/-.
15. The appeal is unmerited and, accordingly, dismissed. Pending
application is also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TEJAS KARIA, J
MARCH 17, 2025
RK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:TARUN RANA
Signing Date:25.03.2025
13:24:04
RFA(COMM) 512/2024 Page 6 of 6