CM(M) 114/2021

Page 1 of 7

$~15 (Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 114/2021

ADS HI-TECH POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Ms. Bharti Chawla, Adv. for

Petitioners 2 and 3

versus

M/S D R POLYMERS LTD

..... Respondent

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

%

28.04.2022

1.

This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

assails the order dated 12^th December, 2019, passed by the learned

Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS No. 610504/2016 to

the extent the order allows the application filed by the respondent (the

plaintiff before the learned ADJ) under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2.

The aforesaid suit, at the instance of the plaintiff, sought

recovery, from the petitioners (the defendant before the learned ADJ)

of an amount of ₹ 50,98,710/-, against certain goods and services

stated to have been supplied by the respondent to Petitioner 1.

3.

In the written statement filed by them, the petitioners contended

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001664

CM(M) 114/2021

Page 2 of 7

that no amounts were due or payable by them to the respondent and

that in fact all payments due to the respondent had been made by the

petitioners. Para 8 of the written statement filed by the petitioners,

which so avers, reads thus:

“8.

Without prejudice, it is submitted that the alleged bills

are pertaining to the period 28.10.2013 to 19.06.2014 and are

to the tune of Rs.44,12,775/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve

Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Only). It is

submitted that for the said period, i.e. from 28.10.2013

onwards, the Defendant No.1 has made total payments of

more than the alleged outstanding dues of Rs.44,12,775/-

(Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred

and Seventy Five Only) to the Plaintiff Company on on-

account basis immediately after the bills were raised.”

Details of the payments made by Defendant No.1 are as

follows:

Alleged outstanding Bills

Payment

made

by

defendant no.1 company

S.

No.

Date

Amount

Date

Amount

1. 28.10.2013 ₹ 3,18,2401/- 30.10.2013 ₹ 2,00,000/-

2. 28.10.2013 ₹ 30,600/-

07.11.2013 ₹ 1,50,000/-

3. 07.11.2013 ₹ 3,12,120/-

09.11.2013 ₹ 3,00,000/-

4. 12.11.2013 ₹ 3,04,317/-

20.11.2013

21.11.2013

₹ 1,10,000/-

₹ 2,00,000/-

5. 21.11.2013 ₹ 2,34,090/-

25.11.2013 ₹ 3,50,000/-

6. 26.11.2013

27.11.2013

₹ 78,030/-

₹ 3,12,120/-

04.12.2013 ₹ 4,25,000/-

7. 05.12.2013 ₹ 4,68,180/-

11.12.2013 ₹ 5,20,000/-

8. 13.12.2013 ₹ 3,12,120/-

21.01.2014 ₹ 3,60,000/-

9. 21.01.2014 ₹ 3,12,120/-

24.01.2014 ₹ 3,50,000/-

10. 24.01.2014 ₹ 3,12,120/-

31.01.2014 ₹ 3,50,000/-

11. 01.02.2014 ₹ 3,12,120/-

04.02.2014 ₹ 3,50,000/-

12. 04.02.2014 ₹ 3,12,120/-

03.03.2014 ₹ 3,50,000/-

13. 04.03.2014 ₹ 2,02,878/-

26.03.2014 ₹ 2,60,000/-

14. 11.06.2014 ₹ 2,95,800/-

11.06.2014 ₹ 3,30,000/-

15. 19.06.2014 ₹ 2,95,800/-

19.06.2014

16.01.2015

₹ 3,30,000/-

₹ 3,20,000/-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001664

CM(M) 114/2021

Page 3 of 7

A bare perusal of the above table makes it evident that the

Defendant No.1 Company has consistently paid the alleged

outstanding invoices shortly after the invoices were raised and have

to some extent made excess payments. Thus, there are no

outstanding dues and the present suit is liable to be dismissed on

this ground alone.”

4.

Ms. Bharti Chawla, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also

drawn my attention to the corresponding paragraph in the replication

filed by the respondent, which reads as under:

“6.

That in reply to para 8 of preliminary objections &

submissions of written statement it is submitted that defendant

asked plaintiff to reconcile the ledger account which plaintiff

served upon them and subsequently defendants reconciled

their statement and acknowledged t