JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal (for short to be referred as “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellants-respondents to impugn the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2025 rendered by the learned Additional District Faridabad, whereby the findings of the learned Trial Court were unequivocally affirmed. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 23.01.2019 passed by the learned learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad had decreed the suit with costs instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking decree for recovery of Rs.7,84,947/-. The appellants now challenges the concurrent findings of both Courts below as being legally unsustainable and factually erroneous.

2. The foundational facts, as culled from the plaint, may be delineated thus:-

“The plaintiff, a proprietorship concern having its registered office at NIT, Faridabad, is represented through its sole proprietor, Sh. Kundan Verma, who is duly competent to institute the present proceedings. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading rubber, chemical components, and allied materials. Defendant No. 2, being the proprietor of Defendant No. 1, had been procuring rubber and chemical components from the plaintiff from time to time, against which the plaintiff regularly raised invoices that were duly acknowledged and debited in the defendants’ account. As on 01.04.2013, the opening balance standing in favour of the plaintiff was Rs.14,99,412/-. Thereafter, between 01.04.2013 and 11.12.2013, the plaintiff supplied additional goods worth Rs.13,43,023/- on a credit basis, as reflected in the statement of account for the financial years 2013–2016.

The defendants made part-payments totaling Rs.20,57,488/- through NEFT on various dates, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.7,84,947/-. Acknowledging their subsisting and legally enforceable liability, the defendants issued fifteen account-payee cheques, as detailed in paragraph 3 of the plaint, aggregating to Rs.7,80,005/-, drawn on Dena Bank, Faridabad Branch. However, the plaintiff refrained from presenting the said cheques upon being informed by the defendants that they were undergoing severe financial distress, as a result of which the statutory period for presentation expired.

Subsequently, despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding amount and ultimately refused, in November 2016, to honour their admitted liability. The plaintiff thereafter issued a legal notice dated 15.11.2016 through registered post, calling upon the defendants to pay Rs.7,84,947/- along with interest. As the defendants failed to comply, the present suit came to be instituted.”

3. Upon due issuance, service, and return of summons, the defendants caused their appearance to be entered on record and thereafter proceeded to tender their written statement, wherein they have impugned the maintainability of the suit on an array of preliminary objections of both law and fact, which is as under:-

“They questioned its maintainability, the plaintiff’s locus standi, the existence of any cause of action, and further contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and vitiated by suppression of material facts. The defendants averred that the cheques referred to in paragraph 3 of the plaint were merely security instruments, alleged to have been handed over in blank, and this, according to them, stands corroborated by the statement of account wherein payments of Rs.46,921/-, Rs.48,912/- (both on 16.12.2013), Rs.20,000/- (on 28.01.2014), and Rs.50,000/- (on 10.02.2014) are reflected. They contend that if such payments were indeed made during December 2013 to February 2014, there was no justification for issuance of the purported cheques, nor any reason why the plaintiff would refrain from presenting them if sufficient funds were available. They submit that payments were routinely made through cash and NEFT, undermining the plaintiff’s narrative of liability.

It is further u