The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of written documents for maintaining a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC and the principles governing the grant of leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

I.A.2592/2023

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the written submissions is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

I.A.1220/2016

3. This suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,97,37,562/- alongwith interest due thereon from the defendant, alleging therein that the plaintiff had sold and delivered various educational and stationery products from time to time to the defendant on the basis of various requisitions/orders made by the defendant, both personally as also telephonically. The defendant had been making on account payments in respect to various invoices received by it from time to time, which were duly credited by the plaintiff in its Books of Account. Taking advantage of the credit policy of the plaintiff ranging between 30 days and 120 days from the date of the sale, disbursed payments against such invoices were made by the defendant. It is asserted that the defendant duly acknowledged and confirmed an outstanding amount of Rs.53,85,094/- to be due and payable by it as on 31.12.2012. Even thereafter, the relationship between the parties continued and the total outstanding of the defendant increased to Rs.1,37,14,063/-. As the defendant was not making the payment, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 09.12.2013 followed by another notice dated 26.06.2014 to the defendant claiming the above amount. The defendant did not reply to the said notices, forcing the plaintiff to file the present suit.

4. In its application seeking leave to defend, the defendant denies the alleged acknowledgement of debt stating that his signatures have been forged on the said documents. As far as the future transactions are concerned, the defendant states that no such supplies were received by the defendant.

5. The learned counsel for the defendant further submits that, in any case, as the present suit has been filed relying upon the purported ledger of the plaintiff of the transactions between the parties, the same is not maintainable under Order XXXVII as a Summary suit. In support, he places reliance on the judgments dated 15.09.2016 of this Court in Inventa Cleantec Pvt. Ltd. v Amit Mudgal, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5144; Associates India Financial Services (P) Ltd. v. Atwal and Associates and Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4150 and Juki Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Jay Cee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4284.

6. The learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant has raised substantial defence in the suit inasmuch as the document of acknowledgement relied upon by the plaintiff has been denied and alleged by the defendant as a forged document. He further submits that the fact of any supply being made against the subsequent invoices is also denied by the defendant and would need to be proved by the plaintiff in the trial. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels and Power Corporation and Anr., (2022) 3 SCC 294; IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 and of the High Court of Gujarat in Jashbhai Motibhai Patel v. Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Patel, 1990 SCC OnLine Guj 74, he submits that the present case would warrant grant of an unconditional leave to defend.

7. In rejoinder, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has asserted that the denial of the acknowledgment by defendant is mala fide. He submits that, in fact, relying upon the same acknowledgement of debt, the plaintiff had addressed two legal notices to the defendant to which the defendant did not give any reply. The defendant also did not deny the fact of executing the said acknowledgment.

8. On future supplies, he has drawn my attention to the fact that the subsequent invoices have been filed by the defendant himself. The plaintiff has also filed the delivery challans evidencing the p