* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 06^th August, 2025.

Pronounced on: 19^th August 2025.

+ RFA(COMM) 462/2025 & CM APPL. 48144/2025, CM APPL.

48145/2025, CM APPL. 48146/2025, CM APPL. 48147/2025 M/S JANNAT TEXTILES .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Harish Pandey & Mr. Anshuman Tiwari, Advocates.

versus ANIL KHAJANCHI .....RESPONDENT Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal seeks setting aside of impugned order and decree dated 30^th April 2025, passed by the District Judge (Comm.), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM.) No.14/2018 (‘suit’). The suit was decreed in favour of respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) for a sum of Rs.25,30,028/- along with cost and pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realization against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’). The aforesaid suit was filed under Order XXXVII of Code of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 462/2025 1/9 Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for recovery of the said amount with pendente lite interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

Brief factual background

2. Plaintiff had filed the said suit claiming amounts due from defendant arising out of business transactions between them. Plaintiff is engaged in the wholesale business of fabrics under the name and style of M/s Shree Shyam Textiles, having its office at 10/233, Gali. No., Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. According to the plaintiff, defendant was one of its clients, and they had been doing regular business for many years. The defendant used to make payments upon delivery of fabrics to his place and thereafter bills were raised, which bore the receiving of defendant.

3. On 01^st March 2016, as per the plaintiff, defendant had approached them for purchase of fabrics, but stated that, due to cash crunch, payments would be made after two months. Considering there was a prior existing relationship with the defendant, plaintiff agreed to supply the fabrics on credit. Subsequently, the defendant purchased fabrics for sum of Rs.25,30,028/-, for which plaintiff raised bills which were duly received and acknowledged. The dates of the bills were as under:

“09.03.2016, 10.03.2016, 12.03.2016, 16.03.2016, 20.03.2016, 22.03.2016, 26.03.2016, 30.03.2016, 09.04.2016, 10.04.2016, 12.04.2016, 14.04.2016, 17.04.2016, 21.04.2016, 28.04.2016, 01.05.2016, 03.05.2016, 08.05.2016, 11.05.2016, 15.05.2016, 17.05.2016, 18.05.2016, 21.05.2016, 22.05.2016, 24.05.2016, 26.05.2016, 28.05.2016, 29.05.2016, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 462/2025 2/9

31.05.2016, 02.06.2016, 04.06.2016, 09.06.2016, 12.06.2016.”

4. Plaintiff alleged that after expiry of two months, he requested defendant to clear the outstanding payment, which defendant assured that he would do soon. However, after waiting for another two months, the plaintiff again contacted the defendant, who issued a cheque bearing No.118944 dated 15^th July 2016 amounting to Rs.25,30,028/-, assuring that the cheque would be honoured. On presenting the cheque on 15^th July 2016, the cheque got dishonoured and was returned by the bank with remarks ‘funds insufficient’.

5. Thereafter, plaintiff made attempts to contact defendant; defendant sent some commonly known persons to give assurance that the outstanding payment would be cleared. However, the said amounts remained outstanding, and the plaintiff filed the said suit.

6. Defendant entered appearance stating that court summons were served on 19^th November 2018. Application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of CPC was filed by plaintiff for issuance of summary judgment, claiming that no triable issues arose in the said suit. Summons were issued to defendant by the District Court on 3^rd September 2019, and the matter was fixed for 12^th September 2019.

7. In the meantime, application was filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC by the defendant for grant of leave to defend. Defendant claimed