Dismissing an undefended commercial suit without considering existing documentary evidence or permitting oral evidence is legally unsustainable.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of ₹3,55,277.90/- against the Respondent (Defendant) for goods supplied, supported by tax invoices, transport bills, and ledger accounts.

Since the Defendant failed to appear despite service via WhatsApp and email, the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte on September 20, 2022.

Relying on Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, the Trial Court dispensed with the requirement for the Plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence, but ultimately dismissed the suit on January 21, 2023, citing a lack of purchase orders and insufficient proof of delivery.

The Appellant challenged this dismissal, contending that substantial evidence was ignored.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC while simultaneously holding that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the Plaintiff's case.

2. Whether the lack of a formal purchase order or acknowledged receipt is fatal to a recovery suit when other documentary evidence (invoices, E-way bills, ledgers) is available.

The Court applied Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which empowers a court to pronounce judgment or pass orders as it thinks fit when a defendant fails to file a written statement.

The Court considered the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" in commercial disputes.

The Court emphasized that under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the CPC, if a court deems the existing evidence insufficient for a summary judgment under Order VIII Rule 10, it must provide an opportunity for the party to lead evidence rather than dismissing the suit in a summary fashion.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning "sketchy and cryptic," noting that it dismissed the suit despite substantial evidence being on record, such as E-way bills and tax invoices.

The Court reasoned that the Trial Court committed a procedural error: if it was unsatisfied with the documentary evidence to decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, it should have directed the Plaintiff to lead oral evidence to prove delivery rather than dismissing the case outright.

The Bench observed that the Trial Court failed to discuss the specific electronic evidence and certificates under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act already filed by the Plaintiff.

By failing to appreciate the cumulative weight of the invoices and transport receipts, the Trial Court’s "summary fashion" dismissal was deemed legally unsustainable.

The court held that a suit should not be dismissed for lack of evidence without granting the Plaintiff an opportunity to lead evidence if the court chooses not to exercise its discretion under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication, with directions to frame issues and conduct a full trial.

The Respondent was granted 30 days to file a written statement, and the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on May 15, 2026.