The failure to provide evidence and contradictory stands can lead to the dismissal of an appeal, and the court may uphold a decree based on unrebutted evidence.

VINOD GOEL, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 01.10.2013 in Suit No. 489/13 adjudicated ex-parte against them passed by the court of learned ADJ-01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The Trial Court had decreed suit of the Respondent for recovery of the amount of Rs.7,99,912.85 along with pendente lite and future interest @10% per annum.

2. The respondent had filed the suit for recovery in the Trial Court alleging that on the request of appellant, they had supplied them wood of different kinds as they were engaged in the business of construction and the appellants promised to pay the consideration amount through cheques on the delivery of goods.

3. Pursuant to the orders placed by the appellant, the respondent supplied goods and raised various invoices against the said orders. The respondent placed on record several invoices for the period from 23.04.2010 to 04.06.2011. Details of some of the cheques issued by the appellant in part payment of outstanding amount drawn on Canara Bank in favour of the respondent which were dishonoured are reproduced below:-

S.NO	CHEQUE NO.	AMOUNT	DATE
1	047559	60,009	22.12.2010
2	047557	1,01,381	03.01.2011
3	047554	76,070	07.01.2011
4	047582	54,592	15.01.2011
5	050357	5,845	16.01.2011
6	050362	91,318	20.01.2011
7	050355	81,467	25.01.2011
8.	050354	86,480	26.01.2011
9.	115559	71,723	30.05.2011
10.	122511	67,333	20.06.2011
11.	136812	97,383	15.12.2011

4. The respondent requested the appellant to pay the amount due to them after these cheques were dishonoured, but the when the appellant failed to pay the amount due, the respondent preferred a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, on the submission of the respondent’s counsel, the suit was treated as an ordinary one and summons were accordingly issued to the appellants/defendant. The appellants appeared on the date fixed and sought time to file a Written Statement but subsequently appellants stopped appearing without even filing written statement on record. The appellants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2013 by the Trial Court.

5. In his evidence, Power of Attorney holder of the respondent company Sh. Mohan Sharma testified as PW-1 and relied on the following documents to prove his case:

i. Copy of the certificate of incorporation of respondent (Ex.PW-1/1).

ii. Copy of the power of attorney (Ex.PW-1/2).

iii. Tax invoices (Ex.PW-1/3) (Collectively).

iv. Ledger accounts of the respondent (Ex.PW-1/4) (Collectively). v. Original Cheques which were dishonoured (Ex.PW-1/5) (Collectively).

vi. Original cheque returning memos (Ex.PW-1/6) (Collectively).

6. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the testimony of PW-1 was duly corroborated by the documents on record and since his testimony went unrebutted, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent.

7. Mr. T.P.S. Kang, learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the impugned judgment is not based on the settled position of law and therefore deserves to be set aside.

8. He argued that the in the present case, Article I of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable as the account kept by the respondent was not a mutual, open and current and instead of Article 14 would apply. He argued that the respondent had claimed the bills for the period 01.04.2011 till 31.03.2012 but the respondent has not been able to prove the delivery of these goods. He relied upon a judgment of this court in RFA 69/2003 decided on 10.07.2012 in the case of BIPS Systems Vs. TATA Infotech Ltd. He contended that the respondent’s ledger account and Tax Invoices would be of no value if no proof of delivery of goods is brought on record. He also argued that certain goods supplied were returned to the respondent but sa