* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 10th November 2025

Pronounced on : 28th November 2025

Uploaded on : 28th November 2025

+ RFA(COMM) 603/2025 & CM APPL. 67281/2025, CM APPL. 67282/2025

DEVENDER KUMAR SHARMA

S/O LATE SH. CHAND RAM SHARMA

6/189, SECTOR-2, RAJENDER NAGAR,

SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD, U.P .....Appellant

Through: Mr. S.P. Gairala and Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advs.

versus

RAMESH ARORA

3404, GALI LALLU MISSAR

QUTAB ROAD, SADAR BAZAR

DELHI - 110006 .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal assails the impugned judgment and decree dated 25th April 2024, passed by the District Judge, Commercial Court, Tis Hazri Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 535/2023, by which the suit filed by respondent [original plaintiff] was decreed for Rs. 7,48,850/- against the appellant [original defendant] with simple interest @ 9 % per annum from 15th July 2022 till realization, along with costs.

2. Decree was passed by the Trial Court ex parte, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. Pursuant to which appellant/defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) on 03rd June 2025, for restoring the original suit and setting aside ex parte decree. Vide order dated 5th August 2025 [Misc.DJ No.470/2025], the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was dismissed.

Factual Background

3. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 7,48,850/- along with interest of Rs. 2,17,152/- calculated at 12% per annum w.e.f. 16th October 2023 up to 15th March 2023 and legal notice charges at Rs. 6000/-, thus totaling to Rs. 9,72,000/-.

4. Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be dealing in ferrous and non-ferrous metals scrap and doing business under the name and style of “M/s Nav Durga Metals”, a sole proprietorship. During course of business, appellant/defendant approached respondent/plaintiff at Delhi and started purchasing aluminum scrap and had trade transactions with respondent/plaintiff for more than fifteen years.

5. Goods were sold to appellant/defendant on credit basis and a running account was maintained by respondent/plaintiff. As and when appellant/defendant purchased material, invoices were debited in the account and as and when the appellant/defendant made any payment, same were duly credited to the same account.

6. As per the accounts maintained by respondent/plaintiff, last payment made by appellant/defendant was a part payment of Rs. 1 lakh on 13th October 2020, leaving a balance outstanding of Rs. 7,48,850/- which appellant/defendant failed to pay to respondent/plaintiff despite repeated requests.

7. As per respondent/plaintiff, appellant/defendant put off payment of the outstanding balance despite demands and visits and being provided sufficient time and opportunity. A legal notice was served on 13th July 2022 which was duly ‘served’. No reply was preferred by appellant/defendant.

8. Evidence filed by respondent/plaintiff included bills raised on appellant/defendant as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/4 and two e-way bills Ex. PW1/5 Ex. PW1/6. Statement of account was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7, legal notice as Ex. PW-1/8, postal receipts as Ex. PW-1/9, internet generated tracking reports as Ex. PW-1/10 and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/11.

9. On 10th July 2023, summons were issued through all prescribed modes returnable for 5th October 2023. On 5th October 2023, it was noted by the Trial Court that summons served through ordinary process on Jhilmil address had been received back ‘unserved’ with the report stating that “no such firm was on the given address”. Summons issued to appellant/defendant through speed post were also received back with the note that the “Factory had been demolished, and no one