Mere Statement of Consultation and Fund Arrangement Fails to Constitute Plausible Explanation for Condoning Delay

The plaintiff (respondent), a proprietor of a cloth firm, filed a suit for recovery of ₹4,90,412/- with interest against the defendants (appellants) for goods purchased on credit

The defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend, wherein they contended that the goods were of inferior quality, some were returned via transport, and that the suit was barred by limitation and misjoinder

The Trial Court (Commercial Court, Ahmedabad) decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 15.09.2025, awarding the principal amount with 9% interest

The appellants challenged this decree with a delay of 136 days

1. Whether the applicant provided a plausible explanation to condone the 136-day delay in filing the appeal

2. Whether the defendants proved their defense regarding the supply of defective goods and their subsequent return to the plaintiff

3. Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation

The Court applied Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which governs the appeals process and timelines for commercial disputes

Regarding the merits, the court relied on the Indian Evidence Act principles concerning the burden of proof, specifically that a party asserting a fact (defective goods/return of goods) must provide cogent documentary evidence such as delivery challans, messages, or emails to substantiate the claim

For limitation, the court applied the Limitation Act, calculating the three-year period from the date of the last part-payment

The High Court found the explanation for the 136-day delay—attributed to "various factors" and "arrangement of funds"—to be vague and unacceptable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act

On merits, the court observed that while the defendants alleged the goods were of inferior quality and returned via "Gokul Roadways Transport," they failed to produce any transport receipts, emails, or witness testimony to prove these claims

Conversely, the plaintiff proved the debt through ledger accounts (Exh. 41, 43, 44) and invoices (Exh. 46 to 50)

Regarding limitation, the court noted the last payment was made on 17.10.2017, and the suit filed on 04.12.2019 was well within the statutory period

The Court further noted the defendants' failure to argue their case before the Trial Court despite opportunities

The court held that the defendants failed to rebut the plaintiff's documentary evidence with any cogent proof of their own

The holding affirmed the Trial Court's decree for ₹4,90,412/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization