The High Court under Article 227 exercises limited jurisdiction, primarily reviewing the propriety of lower court decisions rather than substituting its judgment, especially regarding document admissibility.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 12th December, 2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS No. 610504/2016 to the extent the order allows the application filed by the respondent (the plaintiff before the learned ADJ) under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. The aforesaid suit, at the instance of the plaintiff, sought recovery, from the petitioners (the defendant before the learned ADJ) of an amount of Rs. 50,98,710/-, against certain goods and services stated to have been supplied by the respondent to Petitioner 1.

3. In the written statement filed by them, the petitioners contended that no amounts were due or payable by them to the respondent and that in fact all payments due to the respondent had been made by the petitioners. Para 8 of the written statement filed by the petitioners, which so avers, reads thus:

"8. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the alleged bills are pertaining to the period 28.10.2013 to 19.06.2014 and are to the tune of Rs.44,12,775/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Only). It is submitted that for the said period, i.e. from 28.10.2013 onwards, the Defendant No.1 has made total payments of more than the alleged outstanding dues of Rs.44,12,775/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Only) to the Plaintiff Company on on-account basis immediately after the bills were raised."

Details of the payments made by Defendant No.1 are as follows:

A bare perusal of the above table makes it evident that the Defendant No.1 Company has consistently paid the alleged outstanding invoices shortly after the invoices were raised and have to some extent made excess payments. Thus, there are no outstanding dues and the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone."

4. Ms. Bharti Chawla, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn my attention to the corresponding paragraph in the replication filed by the respondent, which reads as under:

"6. That in reply to para 8 of preliminary objections & submissions of written statement it is submitted that defendant asked plaintiff to reconcile the ledger account which plaintiff served upon them and subsequently defendants reconciled their statement and acknowledged the said liability by sending plaintiff's ledger account maintained in their own books of accounts to the plaintiff with-a remark "we confirm the same" along with their rubber stamp seal. The defendants confirmed that amount of Rs. 46,76,148/- is payab