Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2298
DELHI HIGH COURT
P.K.Bhasin, J.
Walia Destination - Appellant
Versus
Road Gears & Ors. - Resopndent
CS(OS) 1611/2007
Decided On : 10-09-2013
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None(ex parte)
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act and the requirement to establish acknowledgment of debt within the prescribed period of limitation for recovery suits.
Headnote:
Recovery of Money - Sale of Goods - Limitation Act - [Plaintiff] - [Recovery of Money] - [Limitation Act, Section 18] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of money on account of goods sold, the issue of time-barred suit, and the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The court held that the suit was time-barred as the plaintiff failed to establish acknowledgment of debt within the prescribed period of limitation, and the plaintiff could not benefit from Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money on account of goods sold to the defendant firm. The defendants contested the suit claim on grounds of purchase value, time-barred suit, and issuance of post-dated cheques.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had sold goods worth Rs. 14,60,189/- to the defendants and that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Issues: The issues included the value of goods supplied, entitlement to interest, partnership concern, time-barred claim, and issuance of post-dated cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was time-barred as the plaintiff failed to establish acknowledgment of debt within the prescribed period of limitation.
Final Decision: The suit for recovery was dismissed as time-barred.
P.K.Bhasin, J.
This is a suit for recovery of money on account of price of goods sold by the plaintiff between to defendant no.1 firm, which as per the case of the plaintiff is a partnership firm of defendant nos. 2 and 3.
2. Defendant no.1 had allegedly been regularly purchasing from the plaintiff car accessories like car seat covers, solar films, car perfumes etc. in which items the plaintiff was dealing. During the period from 1st April,2004 till 20th July,2004 the defendants purchased goods in respect of which various bills were raised by the plaintiff in which one of the terms of payment was that payment was to be made within 15 days from the date of delivery of the goods purchased else interest on the price of the goods @ 24 p.a. was also to become payable by the defendants. It is alleged in the plaint that during the aforesaid period goods worth Rs. 19,15,676/- were supplied to the defendant no.1 firm but it had failed to make any payment towards the price of those goods despite demands made by the plaintiff. It was also the case of the plaintiff that defendants had issued 41 post dated cheques also towards the discharge of their liability in favour of the plaintiff and but all were dishonoured. Having failed to get its money from the defendants, the present suit for recovery was filed. In addition to the said principal amount of Rs.19,15,676/- the plaintiff also claimed Rs. 13,87,193/- on account of interest on the that amount but calculated @ 18% p.a.
3. The defendants in their written statement contested the suit claim inter alia on the grounds that they had not purchased the goods of the value of Rs.19,15,676/- as was being claimed by the plaintiff and that the suit was in any case time barred also. Then the following issues were framed on 1st October, 2008:
“1) Whether the Plaintiff had supplied goods of the total value of Rs. 19,15,676/- or of any other value to the Defendant No. 1 and if so, what amount, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to recover and from which of the Defendants? OPP
2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, on what amount, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3) Whether the Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship concern of the Defendant No. 2 and the Defendant No. 3 has no concern with the same? OPD
4) Whether the claim in the suit or any part thereof is barred by time? OPD
5) Whether the Defendants No. 2 and 3 had issued post-dated cheques to the Plaintiff without any consideration and if so, to what effect? OPD 6) Relief.”
4. Thereafter, on behalf of the plaintiff firm, his proprietor filed his own affidavit by way of his evidence. Affidavit of one more witness was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff. None of them was, however, cross-examined on behalf of the defendants despite opportunities granted for that purpose. In fact, when the case was fixed for cross-examination of the two witnesses of the plaintiff on 6th April, 2011 none appeared before the Joint Registrar on behalf of the defendants and consequently their cross-examination was treated as nil. Thereafter, the case was listed by the Joint Registrar for defendants’ evidence but no evidence was led. On 16th October, 2012 counsel for the defendants had appeared but he had sought his discharge. He was asked to move a proper application. However, thereafter no application was moved by the counsel and, in fact, he stopped appearing in the matter. Finally, evidence of the defendants was closed on 11th January, 2013 on which date also none had appeared on their behalf.
5. Thereafter, ex parte arguments were advanced by the counsel for the plaintiff.
6. As far as Issue No.1 is concerned the plaintiff was supposed to establish that it had supplied goods worth Rs.19,15,676/-. Though the plaintiff firm’s proprietor had proved 21 bills of the said value and in the plaint also those bills were referred to but in fact seven out of those 21 bills are not in the name of the defendant no.1 firm but are in the name of another firm by th
