$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 458/2025, CM APPL. 30939/2025 (stay)

RIMJHIM STAINLESS LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Counsel for Appellant (appearance not given)

versus MUKESH SINGHAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Relan Adv & Mr. Shourya Relan, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 04.02.2026

1. First Regular Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, to challenge the Impugned Judgment/Order dated 01.03.2025 whereby the Learned District Judge-03 Delhi, has Decreed the Suit for Recovery in the sum of Rs.6,91,000/- along with the Pendente Lite and Future Interest @ 6% p.a., in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

2. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiff/Respondent, who is the Sole Proprietor of Arpit Enterprises, was dealing in Petroleum Products. On being approached by the Appellant/Defendant, the Plaintiff made the supplies between 07.07.2012 to 26.07.2012, which are as under:

Last Payment on 2-2-13 6,90,000/-

3. The Defendant made part payments towards the goods supplied. The Plaintiff maintained a Ledger Account of the Defendant Company as per which, the amount of Rs. 6,90,000/- was remitted by the Defendant on 02.02.2013, on account of the various supplies. After giving due credit for the payment received from the Defendant and other Credit Notes, there remained an outstanding amount of Rs. 6,91,000/-, which was not paid by the Defendant.

4. The Suit for Recovery of Rs. 6,91,000/- along with the interest @ 24% p.a. amounting to Rs. 6,53,218.48/- adding upto Rs. 13,44,320.48/- was filed by the Plaintiff with future and Pendente Lite interest @ 24% p.a.

5. The Suit was contested by the Defendant/Appellant, who in his Written Statement took the Preliminary Objection that the Suit was liable to be dismissed for the Plaintiff being guilty of supreso veri, as material facts had been concealed from the Court. The goods supplied by the Plaintiff, were of very poor quality and of no use.

6. The Defendant communicated to the Plaintiff a number of times about the material being of inferior quality and to lift the same from the factory of the Defendant, but to no avail. Thereafter, the Defendant was constrained to write Letters dated 02.02.2013 and 10.04.2013, thereby making a request to the Plaintiff, to lift the material from the factory. The Plaintiff was also intimated about the leakage, pilferage of material and that the same shall be borne by the Plaintiff himself and the Defendant would have no concern with the same. It was further intimated that the storage charges which were being incurred by the Defendant for the storage of such inferior quality material, shall also be the responsibility of the Plaintiff.

7. Despite repeated assurances by the Plaintiff that they would lift the material and settle the account, nothing was done; instead, the present Suit was filed. It was further asserted that the Suit was barred by Limitation. As per the documents filed by the Plaintiff, the goods were last supplied on 26.07.2012, while the Suit has been filed in March, 2016, which is beyond the period of Limitation.

8. It was further asserted that there was no cause of action as the goods were supplied to the Defendant in the year 2012, and the alleged cause of action, if any, arose, till the year 2015 and the Plaintiff has wrongly claimed that the cause of action arose on 10.12.2014 i.e. the date of sending of the Legal Notice. The same defence of the goods supplied being of inferior quality, was reiterated. It was stated that the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. The Plaintiff in the Replication, reiterated the assertions made in the Plaint.

10. The Issues were framed on 16.01.2017, as under:

“ (1) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP.

(2) Whether the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective? If so, its effect? OPD.

(3) Whether