High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI, J.
Akansha Enterprises
Versus
Additional Secretary & D.G Cghs
CS(OS). No. 520 of 2013
Decided on: 16-09-2014
Recovery Suit - Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, Right to Information Act - [Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, Right to Information Act]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of unpaid bills with interest. Defendant failed to file a written statement within the allowed time and no application for extension was filed. Plaintiff sought decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
Defendant failed to file a written statement within the allowed time and no application for extension was filed, leading to the averments in the plaint being deemed admitted. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: Failure of the defendant to file a written statement within the allowed time, and the effect of such failure on the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of written statements and the exceptional nature of granting extensions beyond the prescribed time limits. The court also highlighted the significance of the Right to Information Act in establishing the defendant's liability.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the specified amount with interest and costs.
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral):
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.25,19,754/-with interest at the rate of 18%, per annum, from the date of receipt of unpaid bills till their realization. The plaintiff also prays for pendente lite interest.
2. Summons in the suit were issued on 18.3.2013. Defendant was duly served on 16.4.2013. On 12.8.2014, when the matter was listed, learned counsel for the defendant had informed the Joint Registrar that he intends to file his Vakalatnama along with written statement and an application seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement. The matter was adjourned to 15.11.2013, however, on account of holiday being declared on 15.11.2013, the matter was taken up on 21.11.2013, on which date the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 26.2.2014, when none appeared for the defendant nor written statement was filed. Thus, the right of the defendant to file written statement was closed on 26.9.2014. The matter was adjourned to 4.7.2014 when admission/denial of documents was not conducted by the defendant. The matter was placed before Court on 8.9.2014, on which date the matter was adjourned to enable the plaintiff to place original documents on record. It may be noticed that on 8.9.2014, learned counsel for the defendant had orally submitted that he had filed “brief submissions” on behalf of the defendants along with an affidavit on 5.9.2014”. Today the said “brief submissions” on behalf of the defendant is on record. Perusal of brief submission shows that it was filed in the registry on 5.9.2014, however, the same was returned back and the same was re-filled in the Registry on 11.9.2014. Even if this brief submission is to be treated as a written statement, the same has not been filed within the time allowed, not any application seeking enlargement of time has been filed. The plaintiff prays for a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC as after being duly served as far back as on 16.4.2013 the defendant has chosen not to file written statement within the time allowed nor any application for enlargement of time has been filed.
3. The order sheets reveal that the defendant was served on 16.04.2013. Time was sought to file vakalatnama and written statement. Till date no written statement has been filed. The defendant has placed brief submissions on record on 05.09.2014. No application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC by the defendant.
4. As per the plaint, plaintiff is a partnership firm and is an authorised dealer of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited for Ranbaxy Urology Division and was duly authorised to supply products and goods manufactured by Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. By a letter no.17/07 dated 29.3.2007 the plaintiff sought registration with defendant CGHS as a supplier of certain medicines, namely, Eligard 22.5 mg and Eligard 45 mg. In response to the said letter dated 29.3.2007, defendant granted approval to the plaintiff for supply of aforesaid medicines, subject to the plaintiff furnishing an undertaking to the effect that his rates are the lowest. Original letter dated 7.5.2007 received by the plaintiff from the defendant has been filed on record.
5. Further as per the plaint, the plaintiff started supplying medicines to the defendant from time to time against which payments were made to the plaintiff. Subsequently, two medicines, namely, CALURAN CP and NEURONOX were also added in the supply portfolio of the plaintiff. During the period November, 2010, to February, 2011, the plaintiff continued to supply medicines to the defendants against various indents/orders placed by the defendants, for which the plaintiff raised invoices in the total sum of Rs.25,19,754/- but no payments were made by the defendant. A summary of invoices has been placed on record.
6. It is also the case of the plaintiff that various oral requests were made to the defendant to release the payments. The plaintiff also contacted responsible office
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.