JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This application has been filed by the defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) for leave to defend on behalf of the defendant.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.29,02,788/-. As per the plaint, the defendant is a customer which purchased material i.e., paper from time to time. It is averred that from 01.04.2009 to 04.11.2009 against 10 different invoices, paper worth Rs.31,77,139/- were supplied to the defendant. The material was supplied on 60 days? credit and the defendant is said to have made part payment of Rs.15,07,998/- leaving a balance of Rs.16,69,151/- which the defendant is liable to pay along with alleged interest @ 30% per annum. It is urged that a legal notice was sent on 08.04.2011 which was duly served. The postal receipt and AD Cards are placed on record. It is stated that despite service of legal notice, the defendant has failed to make the necessary payment.

3. The defendant in the present application has averred that the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be a summary suit as the bills placed on record by the plaintiff were never received or acknowledged by the defendant. It is denied that bills as reproduced in para 3 of the plaint were ever issued to the defendant for which the alleged materials have been received by the defendant. It was further averred that bills are not even supported by the transport receipts/challans. The bills do not even bear stamp of defendant company or the date and name of person by whom the material was received on behalf of the defendant. It is, however, stated that the defendant has made payment of Rs.15,07,998/-. It is further stated that confiscatory interest @30% is sought to be recovered only to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. The receipt of legal notice is denied.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant has also pointed out that a perusal of the invoice numbers would show that they bear numbers almost in sequence. Bill No.T009 is dated 17.09.2009, Bill No.T010 is dated 26.09.2009, Bill No.T011 is dated 01.10.2009, Bill No.T012 is dated 24.10.2009. This serial number continues. This shows what is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff seems to have no other customer and is raising bills only on the defendant. It is averred that this is prima facie clear indication that the bills are make belief. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this High Court in S.V. Electricals Ltd. v. M/s Sylvania & Lakshman Ltd. 83 (2000) DLT 9 to argue that mere issuance of a bill or invoice does not establish the case of the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that though there is no proof of delivery of goods but the plaintiff has paid VAT on the goods supplied.

6. There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the defendant. The invoice numbers are in sequence and the bills are of different dates which prima facie shows that either the invoices are concocted or the plaintiff has no other customer. A perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff shows that the invoices placed on record do not have any receipt of the invoices by the defendant. No transport receipt is attached to the bills to show delivery of the goods or the transport used for delivering the goods. The other document which is placed on record to show the alleged claim of the plaintiff are some documents showing payment of VAT. There is nothing in these documents to connect them to the defendant. The copy of the ledger account showing a total debit of Rs.16,69,151/- is also on record. This will have to be proved by the plaintiff.

7. The present suit is filed as a summary suit based on the invoices said to have been raised by the plaintiff. However, there is nothing as of now to show that the invoices were agreed upon by the defendant or received by the defendant or that even the goods stated in the invoices were delivered to the defendants. It is for the plaintiff to show that the invo