Failure to substantiate defenses with evidence can lead to the dismissal of an appeal.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.: (Oral)

1. The present appeal challenges judgment and decree dated 11th July, 2022 passed by District Judge (Commercial Courts), North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 52/2021, titled as "Nagma Enterprises Vs. M/s Tirupati Cable Industries". By way of the impugned judgment and decree, the suit for recovery filed on behalf of respondent herein was decreed.

2. Facts that emerge from the documents on record are that appellant purchased PVC compound from respondent herein against various invoices. However, appellant did not pay the full amount pertaining to the said invoices. Since appellant did not make payment towards the goods supplied to it despite various reminders and demand, respondent filed a suit for recovery praying for decree in sum of Rs.6,61,104/- along with interest. By the impugned judgment and decree, suit for recovery filed on behalf of respondent was allowed. Against the said judgment and decree dated 11th July, 2022, the present appeal has been filed.

3. On behalf of appellant, it is contended that the PVC compound delivered by respondent on 11th September, 2019 and 15th September, 2019 pertaining to invoice nos. 023 and 024, were of low/poor quality. Thus, the said goods were returned by appellant to an employee of respondent who took back the entire PVC compound delivered by respondent pertaining to invoice nos. 023 and 024. It is further the case on behalf of appellant that he was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.2,11,182/- to respondent herein.

4. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has not considered and appreciated the averments of appellant as stated in his written statement while deciding the suit of respondent. Conclusive proof of truth can be derived, if this Court peruses the documents as well as evidences adduced on behalf of appellant.

5. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and having perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court is correct and justified. The only defence as raised on behalf of appellant before the Trial Court was that the goods supplied by respondent were of inferior quality, which were returned to Mr. Javed, the driver of respondent herein. It was not the case on behalf of appellant that he had already paid for the goods, for which suit had been filed by respondent. However, appellant utterly failed to establish the plea raised by him that goods supplied by respondent pertaining to invoice nos. 023 and 024 were either of inferior quality or that the said goods were returned back by appellant to respondent.

6. Appellant had examined himself as DW-1 before the Trial Court. In his evidence as DW-1, appellant had testified that the goods/PVC compound were supplied by respondent to appellant on 11th September, 2019 and 15th September, 2019. The said goods were stated to be of low/poor quality. He further testified that Sh. Javed, driver of respondent took back the entire lot of PVC compound which had been delivered by respondent on 11th September, 2019 and 15th September, 2019 in the presence of his labour from the factory of the respondent. However, during cross-examination, appellant categorically admitted that he never issued either any debit note or e-way bill or any related documents regarding returning of the said goods/PVC compound to appellant.

7. Appellant also produced his quality checker/machine operator, namely, Sh. Gaurav as DW-2, who testified that he checked the quality of the PVC compound which were delivered by respondent vide invoice nos. 023 and 024 on 11th September, 2019 and 15th September, 2019 respectively and that they were found to be of low/inferior quality. Hence, the same could not be used for making the electricity cables/wires. He also deposed that Sh. Javed, driver of respondent came and took back the said PVC compound in his presence. During cr