Facts
The plaintiff (respondent) filed a commercial suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,32,720/- against the defendant (appellant), claiming outstanding dues for electronic goods supplied to the defendant’s firm, "New Aman Electronics"
Source reference: p. 1, para 2The defendant contended that all payments were cleared and that a surplus of Rs. 57,000/- had actually been paid
Source reference: p. 2, para 3The Commercial Court (Trial Court) partially decreed the suit, holding that while the defendant proved a cash payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- via the plaintiff’s driver, he failed to prove an additional payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- allegedly made to the plaintiff’s nephew, Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky
Source reference: p. 4-5, paras 11-12The Trial Court rejected the latter claim on the grounds that the original accounts register was not produced and the defendant’s affidavit was silent on the nephew's signature
Source reference: p. 5, para 12The defendant appealed, arguing the findings were perverse and contrary to the record.
Source reference: no citationIssues
1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the claimed sum of Rs. 3,32,720/- from the defendant.
Source reference: p. 4, para 102. Whether the Trial Court erred in concluding that the defendant failed to prove the cash payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff's authorized signatory.
Source reference: p. 5-6, paras 13-14Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of civil appreciation of evidence and the doctrine of "perversity in findings."
Source reference: no citationIt relied on the evidentiary value of documents produced and confronted during cross-examination under the Indian Evidence Act, specifically regarding the production of original records (OSR) to prove transactions
Source reference: p. 6, para 13The Court emphasized that a finding of fact is unsustainable if it ignores material evidence on record or proceeds on a factual premise contradicted by the transcript of the proceedings
Source reference: p. 6, para 14Reasoning
The High Court found the Trial Court’s conclusion regarding the Rs. 2,00,000/- payment to be factually incorrect and perverse
Source reference: p. 5, para 13While the Trial Court claimed the original register was never produced, the High Court pointed to the cross-examination transcript of the plaintiff (Paramjeet Singh), which explicitly noted: "I have seen the page of the register brought by the defendant... a copy of the said page of the register is Mark PW1/D1 (OSR)"
Source reference: p. 6, para 13This confirmed that the original register was indeed produced in court.
Source reference: no citationFurthermore, document DW-1/4 (Mark PW1/D1) clearly depicted that Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky had signed acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on February 25, 2021
Source reference: p. 6, para 14The Court noted that the plaintiff had admitted in cross-examination that Lucky generated bills and that his signatures appeared on tax invoices, establishing him as an authorized person
Source reference: p. 3, para 5Consequently, the High Court determined that the defendant had successfully proved the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to the Rs. 1,80,000/- already recognized by the lower court.
Source reference: no citationHolding
The Court held that the total payments proved by the defendant (Rs. 1,80,000 + Rs. 2,00,000) exceeded the plaintiff’s claim, rendering the Trial Court’s decree for Rs. 1,43,030/- unsustainable
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated January 31, 2023, passed in CS(COMM) 95/2022
Source reference: p. 6-7, paras 16-17The suit for recovery was effectively dismissed.
Source reference: no citationOriginal Court PDF
Aman VermavsParamjeet Singh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
