* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 20.02.2025 + RFA(COMM) 25/2025 M/S REGENT INTERNATIONAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhindra Tripathi, Adv.

versus PRATEEK DHAM .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

SHALINDER KAUR, J CM APPL. 2386/2025

1. Allowed, subject to all just exemption.

CM APPL. 2385/2025

2. The present application has been filed by the Appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), seeking permission to place additional documents on record.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and disposed of.

4. Consequently, the additional documents are taken on record.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA (COMM) 25/2025 Page 1 of 13 RFA(COMM) 25/2025, CM APPL. 2384/2025

5. This Regular First Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA’)read with Section 96 and 151 of the CPC has been filed to assail the Judgment and Decree dated 04.10.2024, passed by the Court of the District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, South-West District, Dwarka, New Delhi (Trial Court) in CS(COMM) 505/2023 titled Prateek Dham v. M/s Regent International (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’).

6. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Appellant seeking Leave to Defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 of the CPC, and decreed the Suit of the Respondent for a sum of Rs.8,85,808.13/- along with an interest at 9% per annum, with effect from 20.11.2021 till the date of its realization. Further, the cost of the Suit was also awarded in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant.

BRIEF FACTS:

7. The Respondent herein filed the aforementioned Commercial Suit before the learned Trial Court on 31.10.2023, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.11,47,249/- from the Appellant, along with pendente-lite and future interest at 15% per annum. In the plaint, it was alleged that the Respondent is the proprietor of M/s R.B Traders, a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of freight forwarding. The Appellant approached the Respondent in order to avail of his Firm’s services and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA (COMM) 25/2025 Page 2 of 13 the Respondent agreed to provide the same.

8. In pursuance thereof, the Respondent provided terminal handling services to the Appellant and raised the invoice No. RB/OE/2021/041 dated 31.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.4,65,382/-. Out of the said amount, the Appellant only paid a sum of Rs.3,92,852/- with an amount of Rs.72,350/- still pending. The Respondent, on 03.08.2021, raised another invoice No. RB/OE/2021/156 for an amount of Rs.1,70,941/- for the services provided, out of which no amount had been paid. Thereafter, a third invoice RB/OE/2021/204 for the amount of Rs.6,42,517/- was raised on 19.11.2021 for the freight services provided by the Respondent to the Appellant. Accordingly, it was alleged that the Appellant was liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.8,85,808/- along with an interest amount of Rs.2,61,441/- on the outstanding amount till the date of filing the Suit.

9. Upon receiving summons of the Suit, the Appellant entered his appearance before the learned Trial Court, and pursuant to receiving summons for Judgment on 17.02.2024, the Appellant, on 29.02.2024, filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC, along with supporting documents seeking for Leave to Defend.

10. In the Leave to Defend application, the Appellant alleged that as per the plaint, the Respondent has averred that a payment of Rs.3,92,852/- was made by the Appellant, however, the ledger account filed by the Respondent reflects no such payment. It was also averred that apart from being the proprietor of M/s R.B Traders, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA (COMM) 25/2025 Page 3 of 13 Re