The main legal point established is that the requirement of law to serve the defendant with summons for judgment must be fulfilled, and hyper-technical objections devoid of merit will not affect the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Appellants in the present Appeal are aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment & Decree dated 14.12.2022 ("impugned judgment") passed by the learned ADJ-3, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit bearing CS No.408/20 titled as Transportation India 3 PL Vs Aayushi Air Express Pvt. Ltd..

2. The Appellants had failed to file an application seeking leave to defend in the said Suit. The learned Trial Court, accordingly, vide the Impugned Judgment, based on the uncontroverted documents placed on record by the Respondent, decreed the Suit for recovery filed by the Respondent under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. With consent of the learned counsel for the Appellants, the Appeal is taken up for hearing. Learned counsel for the Appellants state that he had filed complete Trial Court record and consented for the disposal of the present Appeal based on the documents placed on record by him.

BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

4. The Respondent is a registered partnership firm represented through its partner, engaged in the business of providing logistic services including transportation, warehousing, courier and C&F etc.

5. It is the case of the Respondent that Appellant No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, represented through its Director, Mr. Sujeet Kumar. Appellant No.2 is the other director of Appellant No.1/Company.

6. The Appellants approached the Respondent for availing its services. Even though there was no written contract between the parties, an arrangement was formulated between the parties and the transactions took place between the parties in terms of the said arrangement. As per the agreed terms, the Appellants were given a credit period of 45 days to clear the payments due to the Respondent.

7. It was the practice between the parties that the Respondent used to raise invoice(s) for the services rendered to the Appellants by the Respondent and the Appellants were to clear the payment in respect of the said invoice(s) within the credit period of 45 days as agreed between the parties. The transaction(s) between the parties continued for a period of approximately eight to ten months. The Appellants cleared/paid some of the invoices raised by the respondent, however, majority of the invoices were left unpaid.

8. According to the Respondent, the Appellants admitted that an amount of Rs.23,52,372.80/- is outstanding to be paid by them towards the unpaid invoices of the Respondent as on 25.01.2020. Thereafter, the Appellants made partial payment of Rs.50,000/- on 05.02.2020 and Rs.1,00,000/- each on 04.06.2020 and 07.07.2020 towards their liability thus reducing the total outstanding amount to Rs.21,02,324.50/-.

9. Despite repeated requests, the Appellants failed to clear the said outstanding amount payable to the Respondent. The Appellants issued two cheques to the Respondent in the month of January 2020 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- each towards part payment of the said outstanding dues. However, upon presentation, the said cheques were dishonored. The Respondent issued legal notice dated 27.01.2020 calling upon the Appellants to clear the outstanding dues along with interest. The Respondent also initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, however, the outstanding dues remained unpaid.

10. The Respondent issued another legal notice dated 29.09.2020 calling upon the Appellants to clear the outstanding amount. Despite receipt of the said legal notice, the Appellants failed to clear the outstanding amount payable to the Respondent. Hence, the Respondent filed the Suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC.

11. Summons of the Suit were issued to the Appellants and accordingly the Appellants entered their appearance on 12.05.2022. Thereafter, the Respondent filed summons for judgment on 15.07.2022.

12. There were disputes regarding the service of summons for ju