Invoices can be considered as written contracts under Order XXXVII of the CPC, and the defendant's failure to enter appearance can lead to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.

G.S. Sistani, J (Oral)

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.60,36,522/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18%, per annum.

2. Summons in the suit were issued to the defendant Under Order XXXVII CPC in Form 4 of Appendix B CPC. Since, the defendant could not be served in the ordinary way, the plaintiff filed an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service. Defendant has since been served by publication. Despite substituted service defendant has failed to enter appearance in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff prays for passing of a decree while relying on Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) of CPC.

4. As per the plaint, plaintiff is a partnership firm and defendant is a company. The defendant, through its Directors and other officials, had approached the plaintiff at its Delhi office for supply of Palm Stearine Oil. A detailed discussion and deliberation with respect to the said purchase, including the final price and other terms, was held at plaintiff’s Delhi office and thereafter contract between the parties was finalised at Delhi. As per the contract, the plaintiff supplied Palm Stearine Oil to the defendant vide Invoice at Sl.No.1444, Book No.29 dated 11.3.2010, for a sum of RS.10,57,920/-; Invoice at Sl.No.1452, Book No.30, dated 25.3.2010 for a sum of Rs.10,49,534/-; Invoice at Sl.No.1454, Book No.30, dated 30.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.11,20,558/-; Invoice at Sl.No.1456, Book No.30, dated 31.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.12,08,952/-; Invoice at Sl.No.1457, Book No.30, dated 02.04.2010 for a sum of Rs.11,01,128/-; total amounting to Rs.55,38,092/-. Reliance is placed on copy of C Forms, which would evidence quantum of goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant.

5. As per the terms and conditions settled between the parties for the abovesaid supply, the defendant made payments to the plaintiff by way of five cheques, details of which read as under:

SL.NO.

CHEQUE

NO. DATE AMOUNT

i. 965348 12.4.2010 Rs.10,56,400/-

ii. 965358 15.4.2010 Rs.10,49,534 /-

iii. 965371 25.4.2010 Rs.11,20,558/-

iv. 965372 26.04.2010 Rs.11,00,148/-

v. 965373 27.04.2010 Rs.11,01,776/-

vi. TOTAL Rs.54,28,416/-

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that before the cheques could be presented for realisation, the defendant requested the plaintiff not to present the aforesaid cheques as the defendant company was facing a financial crunch, however, all the cheques were presented by the plaintiff after 20.5.2012 on the assurance given by the defendant that the said cheques would be encashed on presentation. It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff that despite assurance given by the defendant the said five cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, perused the plaint and the certified copies of all the documents, which have been placed on record in support of the pleas raised by the plaintiff in the suit. Present suit is based on dishonour of five cheques and invoices.

8. It is no longer res intigra that invoices/bills are covered within the definition of written contract. In the case of KLG Systel Ltd. V. Fujitsu ICIM Ltd., reported at 92 (2001) DLT 88 it was held as under:

“1. The defendant/applicant has also challenged the maintainability of the suit under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C., stating that “there is no debt or liquidated demand in money payable to defendant-Company (sic. Read plaintiff) and/or based on a written contract”. It is no longer res integra that invoices/bills are ‘written contracts’ within the contemplation of this Order. Reference is directed to Messrs. Punjab Pen House v. Samrat Bicycle Ltd., AIR 1992 Delhi 1; Corporate Voice (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Uniroll Leather India Ltd., 60 (1995) DLT 321; and Beacon Electronics v. Sylvania and Laxman Ltd., 1998 (3) Apex Decisions (Delhi) 141. There is, thus, no hesitancy in holding that the prese