Absence of bank records or reconciliation statements renders a plea of payment insufficient to warrant leave to defend.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for the recovery of ₹2,33,46,254/- plus interest, arising from the supply of TMT bars under three purchase orders issued in 2013

The Plaintiff relied on invoices, debit notes issued by the Defendant for short supply (which were adjusted), balance confirmations, statutory ‘C’ Forms, and an email dated 12.09.2014 from the Defendant’s Purchase Manager acknowledging liability

The Appellant (Defendant) sought leave to defend, contesting the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi courts, alleging the 2014 email was fabricated, and objecting to the late filing of a Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate

The learned Single Judge refused leave to defend and decreed the suit on 16.11.2018

The Defendant appealed this dismissal.

Whether the Courts at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit given that goods were supplied outside Delhi

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing leave to defend on the grounds that the defense raised no bona fide or triable issues

Whether the subsequent filing of a Section 65-B certificate and additional electronic records without formal leave prejudiced the Appellant

The court applied Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the place of suing where the cause of action arises

Section 21 of the CPC, which stipulates that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity and require a showing of "consequent failure of justice"

The court also applied the principles governing Order XXXVII of the CPC for summary suits, specifically the standard for granting leave to defend where a "bona fide" or "triable issue" must be disclosed

Furthermore, it considered Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility of electronic records

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that while goods were delivered elsewhere, the purchase orders were issued from Delhi, debit notes were sent from Delhi, and negotiations occurred at the Defendant’s Delhi registered office

Under Section 21 CPC, the Court held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any "failure of justice" or prejudice caused by the trial in Delhi

Regarding the electronic evidence, the Court found the email chain (supported by a Section 65-B certificate) consistent with the ledger accounts; since the Appellant did not produce an affidavit from the concerned manager denying the email, the plea of fabrication was deemed a "bald assertion"

The Court further observed that the Appellant admitted receipt of goods through 'C' Forms and delivery notes, yet failed to provide any documentary proof (bank statements or receipts) to support the claim that dues had been fully paid

Procedural delays in filing the 65-B certificate were viewed as technicalities that did not defeat the substantive claim as the Appellant had the opportunity to rebut the documents

The Court held that no triable issues existed as the receipt of goods was undisputed and the defense regarding payment was unsubstantiated by evidence

The Court affirmed the refusal of leave to defend, concluding that the Appellant’s grounds were purely technical and intended to delay the recovery of admitted commercial debts