JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. 

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the impugned judgment and final order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court), North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS (Comm) No 51 of 2022. The Trial Court has passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 38,73,000/- along with pendent lite and future interest at 9% in favour of the Respondent (i.e., plaintiff).

2. Learned counsel for the Appellants sets up the Appellants’ case as follows:

2.1. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of Late Mr Mohammad Shahid [‘deceased’], who was engaged in the cloth trading business and carried on business in the name and style of KGN Trading Company as its proprietor. Mr Mohammad Shahid expired due to COVID-19 in May, 2021. Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased. He states that Appellant No. 1, being a homemaker, was neither associated with the business of her deceased husband nor was aware of any alleged commercial transactions with the Respondent, who carries on business in the name and style of Pawan Garments.

2.2. He states that after the demise of the Late Mr Mohammad Shahid, the Respondent instituted the recovery suit for a sum of Rs. 38,73,000/- with interest at 18% per annum, based on unsubstantiated ledger entries, unaudited accounts and self-serving documents, without producing any purchase orders, delivery challans, acknowledgements or sale invoices to prove the alleged liability.

2.3. He states that the records of the firm of the late Mr Mohammad Shahid disclose no outstanding liability, and that the learned Trial Court erred in relying upon the GST records of the said firm, while rejecting the ledger, i.e., Ex. DW-1/1, which evidenced a credit balance of only Rs. 1,462/-.

2.4. He states that the onus to prove that no goods were delivered to the Respondent against the payment of Rs. 30 lakhs was on the Respondent (i.e., plaintiff in the suit); however, the Trial Court wrongfully shifted the onus on the Appellants to prove the delivery of goods. In this regard, reliance is placed on Soward v Leggatt, 7 CAR. & P. 613, Nirmal Kumar Nawlakha vs. Sant Lal Mahto, 16 P 622 : AIR 1937 PAT 563 and Stoney v. East Bourne R D Council, (1927) 1 CH 367, 395 to contend that such a burden could not have shifted upon the Appellant (i.e., defendant) unless the Respondent (i.e., plaintiff) had first led sufficient prima facie evidence to prove non-receipt of goods.

2.5. He states that the ledger, i.e., Ex.PW1/1 produced by the Respondent was neither certified nor authenticated by a Chartered Accountant or Auditor, which constitutes a critical procedural prerequisite for its admissibility and evidentiary credibility.

2.6. He states that no formal demand Notice was served either upon the late Mr Mohammad Shahid during his lifetime or upon Appellant No. 1 before institution of the suit. He states that Appellant No. 1 was not afforded an adequate opportunity to effectively challenge the Respondent's insufficient evidence, contrary to the principles of procedural fairness.

2.7. He states that the impugned judgment is contrary to the pleadings, evidence on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

3. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent relies upon the documentary evidence available on record to contend that the payment of an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs to Late Mr Mohammad Shahid is not in dispute and the Appellants failed to prove the delivery of any goods against the said amount. He states that no goods as alleged were delivered between 21.03.2021 and 28.03.2021. He refers to a legal notice dated 06.12.2021 (Ex. PW 1/4) served on the Appellant No. 1 before instituting the suit. He refers to the GST returns of the late Mr Mohammad Shahid to show that no alleged sales for March 2021 were declared with the concerned statutory authority.

4. This Court has heard the l