An appeal will be dismissed if the explanation for delay is vague. In commercial recovery suits, a defense of inferior quality or return of goods must be supported by cogent evidence; otherwise, ledger accounts are sufficient to establish the debt.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act’ 2015 with the delay of 136 days, for which, no plausible explanation has been offered in the application, inasmuch as, only this much is stated in paragraph No. ‘5’ therein that the reasons for delay in preferring the appeal is due to various factors, which were beyond the control of the applicant and that the applicant took some time in considering the options of legal remedies in preferring the appeal and also legal consultation and arrangement of funds took some time. This explanation, from any angle, cannot be accepted.

2. However, simultaneously, the matter was also heard on merits of the challenge to the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025, whereby the Commercial Civil Suit No.1189 of 2021 (old Summary Suit No.1665 of 2009) for an amount of Rs.4,90,412/- with a simple interest @ 9% per annum, has been decreed.

3. A perusal of the order passed by the trial court indicates that the suit was initially filed as a summary suit and after transfer and re-transfer, ultimately it was allotted to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

4. The original plaintiff / respondent herein being proprietor of the firm dealing with cloth goods, etc., pleaded that the defendant was having business relations with the plaintiff and had purchased goods, as mentioned in the bills on credit, from the plaintiff from time to time, with the condition to make payment at Ahmedabad within a stipulated time as per the statement of account.

5. The defendant No.2 is proprietor of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 is an agent. The defendant No.3 visited the plaintiff’s business place with defendant No.1 and informed the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 is a very good businessman and he required cloth goods in the name of defendant Nos.1 and that the defendant No.3 had accepted the responsibility and liability of payment by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

6. The claim put forth in the plaint was for an amount of Rs.6,29,582/- as principal due as on 01.04.2017 as per the statement of account and interest amount @ 18% on the due amount. It is also disclosed therein that the defendant made payment of Rs.2,59,170/- towards the total goods purchased worth Rs.6,29,582/- and after deducting the amount paid and calculating the interest over the remaining amount @ 18%, the total recovery would come to Rs.4,90,412/-.

7. It is noted in the judgment impugned that on appearance of the defendants, the leave to defend filed vide Exhibit ‘20’ by the defendants was unconditionally allowed by the Commercial Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 and the application of the plaintiff for summons for judgment was rejected. The defendants filed their reply vide Exhibit ‘25’ and denied all claims of the plaintiff. There was a reference of the criminal case filed by the plaintiff against the defendants and the dispute was raised with regard to the supply of goods.

8. It was contended by the defendants that, in fact, plaintiff had intentionally not produced relevant documents like delivery challan, GST particulars, receipts etc. and the amount already paid by the defendants had not been credited into its accounts, by the plaintiff. Nothing remained to be recovered from the defendants by the plaintiff. The suit was filed with suppression of material facts. The copy of the ledger account from the period from 01