Invoices and purchase orders constitute written contracts for liquidated amounts under Order XXXVII CPC, and a defendant is not entitled to leave to defend when raising frivolous defences without genuine triable issues.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.19476/2018 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No.19477/2018 (for condonation of delay)

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 111 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No.402/2018 and C.M. No.19475/2018 (stay)

3. By this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC), the defendant no.2 in the suit (which was filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC), impugns the judgment of the trial court dated 18.9.2017 by which trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/defendant no.2 and has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.89,50,244/- along with interest at 10% per annum. Moneys claimed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff are on account of the respondent no.1/plaintiff selling its goods being 200 tonnes of steel.

4. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that the appellant/defendant no.2 raised upon the respondent no.1/plaintiff two purchase orders for supply of 200 tonnes of steel. The purchase orders are dated 6.2.2015 and 20.3.2015. The steel which was sold to the appellant/defendant no.2 was on account of appellant/defendant no.2 being a contractor for the project owned by the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 being developed at plot no.1, Sector 143-B, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The name of the project of the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 was “MIST”, and for this project the appellant/defendant no.2 was the contractor for construction in terms of an agreement entered into between the appellant/defendant no.2 and the respondent no.2/defendant no.1. In terms of the purchase orders on the supply of goods being made, the respondent no.1/plaintiff issued invoices upon the appellant/defendant no.2. The details of these invoices are contained in para 7 of the plaint and this para 7 reads as under:-

"7. That the Plaintiff after supplying the steel, as per the above mentioned two purchase orders, to Defendant no.2, issued several bills/invoices in respect of the material supplied in accordance with the purchase orders generated by Defendant no.2. The details of bills/invoices raised by Plaintiff in respect of two purchase orders abovementioned are herein under:

The details of the bills/invoices that are raised against the purchase order no- POR/1415/00006381 dated-06.02.2015 are as under:

The details of the bills/invoices that are registered against the Purchase order no-POR/1415/00007279 dated-20.03.2015 are as under:

Original/Certified copy of invoices of Rs.89,50,244/- issued by the Plaintiff is being filed as a document along with the list of documents of the present suit."

5. In terms of the averments made in the plaint, the payment for the goods sold and supplied by the respondent no.1/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant no.2 was to be paid by the respondent no.2/defendant no.1. Respondent no.2/defendant no.1 is said to have issued two cheques in part-payment of Rs.14,72,269/- and Rs.13,34,319/- drawn on Axis Bank, Sector-44 Noida Branch but the respondent no.2/defend