Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree in the sum of EURO 56572 together with interest @ 18% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Suit is based on two invoices, identical worded, save and except quantity and description of material and the amount payable. Leave to defend is sought by and under IA No. 5607/2004.

( 2 ) RAISING of the two invoices dated 9. 5. 2000 and 13. 9. 2000 is admitted by the defendant. Receipt of goods under the two invoices has been admitted by the defendant.

( 3 ) GROUNDS on which leave to defend the suit is prayed are two: (i) That an invoice is not a document which falls within the ambit of order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) Goods supplied were defective and of sub-standard quality.

( 4 ) PLEAS have been taken in the application for leave to defend pertaining to the authorization in favour of Dr. Cosima Paul who has signed the suit and verified the pleadings on behalf of the defendant but during arguments said plea was not pressed by the Counsel for the defendant.

( 5 ) AS per the suit, plaintiff supplied the goods described in the invoice dated 9. 5. 2000 to the defendant pertaining to order dated 25. 4. 2000 placed by the defendant on the plaintiff and raised the invoice as per agreed rates. Further, plaintiff supplied the goods detailed in the invoice dated 13. 9. 2000 pursuant to order dated 4. 8. 2000 placed by the defendant and raised the invoice on the agreed rates.

( 6 ) THE two invoices, inter alia, stipulate as under: (i) Conditions of payment-Prompt-payment discount i. e. discount for payment within 14 days; net within 30 days. In case of late payment, we charge interest on arrears.

( 7 ) IN IA No. 5607/2004, being the application by and under which leave to defend is prayed for, it is stated that the goods which were received under the two invoices were found to be defective. Plaintiff was required to take back the goods. The goods are stated to be still lying with the defendant, It is stated that the customers of the defendant returned the goods. Accordingly, it is stated that no amount is payable to the plaintiff.

( 8 ) AT the outset, I may note that though the invoice relied upon by the plaintiff contains a stipulation that on late payment, interest would be charged, without specifying the rate of interest, plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum. While seeking leave to defend, defendant has not joined issues with the plaintiff pertaining to the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff.

( 9 ) AS per the averments made in the plaint, purchase order placed by the defendant gave the description, quantity and colour of the goods. Further, it is stated by the plaintiff that it supplied the goods as described in the purchase order, delivery effected was as per the quantity specified. Colour of the goods was as specified in the purchase order. Price indicated in the invoice was as per the purchase order. These assertions have not been denied by the defendant. Further, assertion of the plaintiff that it delivered the goods as per the invoice has not been denied by the defendant, as noted, defence is of defective/substandard goods.

( 10 ) WHILE considering grant or refusal to leave to defend, it has to be considered by this Court whether the defence raised is a moonshine or not; whether the defence raised requires evidence to be produced to substantiate the defence. In this context, it has to be considered whether the defence is based on evidence which is not legally and statutorily barred from being considered. It also has to be considered whether the defence is contrary to any law and should, therefore, be ignored. For such kind of defences, no useful purpose would be served by granting leave to defend. In a nutshell whether the inevitable end would be a decree being passed in the suit.

( 11 ) DEFENDANT has admitted the purchase orders and the invoice in questi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document