In a recovery suit, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the return of goods due to defects or that cheques were issued as security. Failure to produce original supporting documents, lack of specific details, and failure to confront witnesses during testimony renders such defenses unsubstantiated and meritless.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 1 - Section 96 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 62 - Recovery suit - Burden of proof regarding quality and return of goods - Mere assertion of returning defective goods without evidence of specific debit notes, dates, or acknowledgement is insufficient to discharge liability for supplied goods. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34)

(B) Evidence - Best evidence rule - Failure to produce original documents or prove authenticity of acknowledgments through reliable records justifies rejecting claims based on such documents. (Paras 37, 38, 39)

(C) Evidence - Cross-examination - Failure to confront an adverse witness with a crucial document during their testimony severely undermines its credibility and admissibility. (Paras 43, 44)

Facts of the case:
A suit for recovery of money for goods supplied was decreed by the trial court. The defendant contested the recovery amount on the grounds that the received materials were of inferior quality and had been returned via debit notes and that certain cheques mentioned by the plaintiff were issued merely as security. The trial court ruled against the defendant, leading to this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the defendant provided only vague allegations regarding the return of inferior goods without specific details such as dates, quantities, or invoices. Crucially, the debit notes relied upon were not produced in original form, and the purported acknowledgement by an employee went unproven. Furthermore, claims regarding the security nature of cheques were not supported by evidence or brought up during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness.

Issues: Whether the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding amount for goods supplied, and whether the defenses of defective goods and security-based cheques are substantiated by evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A party asserting that goods were returned due to defects must provide specific and admissible documentary evidence to discharge the burden of proof. Mere assertions without original documentation or the failure to confront relevant witnesses with evidence during trial renders such defenses unfounded and does not negate the liability arising from delivered goods.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. initiation of recovery suit based on outstanding payments for goods supplied. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. defendant asserts defenses regarding material quality, debit notes, and non-disclosure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. trial court process and rejection of unsubstantiated defensive claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. appellate grounds challenging the validity of the lower court judgment. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. burden of proof lies with the party asserting defective goods who fails to prove returns. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
6. unauthenticated settlement documents lack evidentiary value when not corroborated. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
7. the plea of security cheques requires documentary proof to displace payment obligations. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
8. dismissal of appeal and confirmation of liability for outstanding debt. (Para 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the Defendant/Appellant, M/s Adigear International against Judgment and Decree dated 11.09.2019, whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff / Respondent, Smt. Sunita Jain for Recovery has been decreed in her favour, by the learned Additional District Judge.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Suit bearing No. Civil DJ No. 608153/2016 for Recovery of Rs.16,95,769/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, against the Defendant.

3. The Brief Facts as narrated in the Plaint are that the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of trading cotton fabrics under the name of M/s Bharat Cottons and had earned tremendous reputation and goodwill in the market. She was approached by the Defendant through its partners, for purchase of cotton fabrics, whereafter, Plaintiff supplied the said material to the satisfaction of the Defendant, through various Invoices raised from time to time.

4. The Defendant made part payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the material supplied by the Plaintiff as well as acknowledged the receipt of the material supplied. No dispute was raised by the Defendant qua the quality and quantity of the material supplied.

5. Subsequently, the Defendant in order to discharge its liability, issued two cheques, one bearing No. 065639 dated 26.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No. 853782 dated 28.02.2014 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. However, on presentation, both the cheques were dishonoured.

6. The Plaintiff asserted that, as per the Statement of Accounts, an amount of Rs.16,95,769/- was due and payable by the Defendant towards the material supplied. It was further claimed that, despite various reminders and telephonic conversations, the Defendant failed to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the Plaintiff.

7. Consequently, the Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated 10.08.2014 to the Defendant, demanding payment of Rs.16,95,769/- along with said interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, the Defendant refused to receive the Legal Notice.

8. The Plaintiff thus, filed the Suit, for recovery of Rs.16,95,769/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

9. The Suit was contested by the Defendant, who in its Written Statement took the preliminary objection that the present Suit be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. It was further asserted that the Plaintiff had not valued the present Suit properly and proper Court Fee was not paid by the Plaintiff.

10. On merits, Defendant denied that the materials supplied by the Plaintiff, were to its satisfaction. It was asserted that the Plaintiff had concealed the fact that, the Defendant had returned the materials supplied, being of inferior quality, thereafter, the Defendant had various issued Debit Notes to the Plaintiff.

11. The Defendant further contended that as per the Balance Conformation letter dated 10.07.2014, an amount of Rs.60

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Del) 405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.M/s Adigear International - AppellantVersusSunita Jain,W/o Late Sh. Bharat Bhushan Jain - RespondentRFA 172 of 2020Decided On : 16-06-2026

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
M/s Adigear International - Appellant
Versus
Sunita Jain,W/o Late Sh. Bharat Bhushan Jain - Respondent
RFA 172 of 2020
Decided On : 16-06-2026