Equipment Firm Loses Appeal In Rs 54.67 Lakh Shipping-Customs Dispute; Delhi HC Notes It Cross-Examined Plaintiff Despite Defence Being Struck Off

The respondent sued to recover ₹54,67,346 for shipping and customs-clearance invoices.

An earlier ordinary suit was transferred to a Commercial Court, which returned the plaint for presentation as a fresh commercial suit.

In the subsequent suit, the appellant’s written statement was not taken on record as it had been filed beyond the 120-day limit; the appellant’s defence was struck off.

After trial, the Commercial Court decreed the suit.

The appellant appealed, challenging the return of the earlier plaint and alleging that it had been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent’s witness.

The return order and the order declining to take the written statement on record had not been challenged.

Section 24 CPC permits transfer of a suit, while Order VII Rule 10 CPC provides for return of a plaint for presentation to the proper court.

As explained in Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 143, either return of the plaint or an application for transfer may be available in a commercial-suit context; however, the power to transfer under Section 24 CPC lies with the High Court, whereas the District Judge or Additional District Judge may return the plaint.

The Court also relied on Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15 SCC 585, and Narendra Kumar v. Om Daily Needs Retailing Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5618, on the proper forum and return of plaints in commercial matters.

The Court distinguished Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Aroush Motors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2181, where the defendant had received no opportunity to cross-examine; here, the appellant had cross-examined PW-1 at length.

The challenge to the return of the earlier plaint could not be entertained because the order returning it had attained finality and was not under appeal.

In any event, the cited authorities supported the Commercial Court’s power to return the plaint; the earlier transfer by the District Judge did not establish that the suit had to proceed in the Commercial Court.

On cross-examination, the record showed that the appellant had cross-examined PW-1 at length despite its defence being struck off.

The order refusing to take the written statement on record was also unchallenged. Accordingly, the facts did not attract the rule in Anvita Auto Tech Works, where no opportunity to cross-examine had been given.

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications.