([CASE NUMBER]) IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY], ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE-14, (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. CS-735/16 CSDJ-9755/16 M/s.[ENTITY]. Through: Shri [ENTITY], (Proprietor) Previously at: 9035, Street No. 1, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055. Plaintif Versus 1- M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. 2- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. 3- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 1 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) 4- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. 5- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. 6- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. 7- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 2 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) 8- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. 9- Mr. [ENTITY] (Partner) M/s. [ENTITY], Partnership firm, C-1483, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003. Also at: BD-8, Pitampura, New Delhi. Defendants Date of Institution of suit: 15.12.2010 Date when reserved for judgment: 03.11.2016 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 00.11.2016 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 8,95,670/- (Rs.5,20,744 towards Principal & Rs.3,74,936 towars interest) JUDGMENT:
1. Plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.8,95,670/- (i.e. Rs.5,20,744 towards Principal & Rs.3,74,936 towards interest) together with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
(M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 3 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER])
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff is a proprietary concern and engaged in the business of Plywood. The Defendant No.1, through its partners i.e. Defendants No.2 to 9, approached the Plaintiff and purchased certain goods from the Plaintiff on credit basis on various dates and as per the books of accounts of the Plaintiff, there was an outstanding of Rs.11,73,422/- payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff on 05.07.2007. The Defendants made part payment of the sale consideration as detailed hereunder:
Sl.No. Date Cheque No/Cash Amount in (Rs.)
1. 18.04.2007 Cheque 33,569.00
2. 11.06.2007 Cheque 4,58,530.00
3. 19.12.2007 Cheque 1,10,579.00 Total 6,02,678.00
3. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that an outstanding amount of Rs.5,70,744/- was payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff as on 19.12.2007. Despite repeated requests, the outstandings were not cleared by the Defendants.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff himself visited the Defendants in the month of April, 2010 and requested to clear all the outstanding of the Plaintiff. The Defendants agreed to make payment of all the outstanding of the Plaintiff in monthly installment of Rs.25,000/- each under the pretext that they were in a financial difficulty. In terms of the settlement the Defendants made part payment of balance sale (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 4 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) consideration as per details as under:
Sl. No. Date Amount (in Rs.) 1. 15.04.2010 15,000/- in cash 2. 26.04.2010 10,000/- in cash 3. 15.05.2010 15,000/- in cash 4. 26.05.2010 10,000/- in cash TOTAL 50,000/-
5. The Plaintiff has further alleged that after making payment of two monthly instalments, the Defendants again stopped making payments. When despite assurances no payments were made by the Defendants, the Defendants were served a legal notice dated 20.11.2010 vide speed post on 22.11.2010. Despite receipt of the legal notice, the Defendants did not make the payment of outstanding amount to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was accordingly constrained to file the instant suit.
6. In the Written Statement, the Defendants have stated that the suit is time barred. It is stated that no cash payment has been made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has pleaded cash payments with a view to bring the present matter within the period of limitation. The present suit is also stated to be bad for misjoinder of Defendants No.8 and 9 as there are no partners in the Defendant firm by the names of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
7. On merits, the Defendants have denied that there was alleged outstanding payable by the Defendants to the (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 5 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) Plaintiff. It is averred that as a matter of fact, the payment has been made bill to bill and there is no amount due whatsoever. It is averred that the Plaintiff is trying to make out a case of running account which not factually correct and entire account prior to 18.04.2007 has been settled and thereafter, the payment bill-wise has already been made to the Plaintiff and accordingly, no payment whatsoever is payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. It is denied that a monthly installment of Rs.25,000/- was fixed. The service of legal notice has also been denied.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 25.02.2013:
1. Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is within limitation?
OP Plaintiff;
2. Whether the Defendant has made cash payment to the Plaintiff as claimed by the Plaintiff in para 9 of the Plaint ? OP Plaintiff;
3. Whether the Defendant has paid price of all the goods received with respect to each bill as claimed in para 3 of the written statement ? OP Plaintiff;
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable for mis-joinder of the Defendants claimed in para 6 of the WS ? OP Defendant;
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.8,95,670/- ? OP Plaintiff.
6. If answer to the last mentioned issue is in affirmative, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest and if yes, at what rate and for which (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 6 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) period ? OP Plaintiff.
7. Relief.
9. In order to prove its case, Plaintiff examined PW1 Shri [ENTITY], Proprietor of the Plaintiff. He led the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW1 has exhibited the bills dated 31.05.2005, 12.07.2005, 01.08.2005, 11.08.2005, 26.08.2005, 01.10.2005, 29.11.2005, 15.05.2006, 17.08.2006, 21.08.2006 and 20.03.2007 as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 and copies of bills dated 16.05.2005, 11.10.2005, 22.11.2005, 15.05.2006 and 13.12.2006 have been marked as Mark A to F respectively. The extract of ledger for the period from 01.04.2006 to 15.11.2006 was exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 (colly.) and two C- Forms both dated 29.09.2006 have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/13 and Ex.PW1/14. Copy of Bank statement has been marked as Mark-G (Colly.) Copy of legal notice dated 20.11.2010 has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/15 and postal receipts dated 22.11.2010 as Ex.PW1/16 to Ex.PW1/24.
10. On behalf of the Defendants Shri [ENTITY], Partner of the Defendant No.1 was examined as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. No documents were exhibited.
11. Arguments heard and record perused. Before adverting to the issuewise findings, the objections as regards the maintainability of the suit raised by the Defendants, is dealt with for complete adjudication of the matter, though no issue was framed as regards the said objection raised (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 7 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) by the Defendants and the same has been raised only at the stage of final arguments.
12. It is contended by the Defendants that the instant suit has been instituted by M/s. Aggarwal Plywood Company which is the proprietary concern, through its Proprietor, namely Shri [ENTITY]. It is stated that since a Proprietary concern does not have any legal entity, therefore, the suit as instituted in the name of M/s. Aggarwal Plywood Company, is not maintainable and the same ought to have been instituted in the name of Shri [ENTITY].
13. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] are applicable to a proprietary concern. It was observed that a proprietary concern is only the business name in which the Proprietor of the Business carries on the business. A suit by or against a proprietary concern is by or against the Proprietor of the business. It was further observed that the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] enable the Proprietor of a proprietary business to be sued in the business names of his proprietary concern. The real party who is being sued is the Proprietor of the said business.
14. In light of the aforesaid, it is amply clear that the suit instituted in the name of M/s. Aggarwal Plywood Company through Shri [ENTITY], Proprietor, is a duly instituted suit and there is no impediment in the suit being instituted in the name of proprietorship concern. There is accordingly no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 8 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) for the Defendants.
15. The issues as framed are now being dealt with as under:
ISSUE No.1:
"1. Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is within limitation ? OP Plaintiff."
16. Onus to prove this issue is upon the Plaintiff. PW1 has deposed that on 19.12.2007, payment was received by the Plaintiff vide a Cheque for Rs.1,10,579/-, thereafter, Defendants made part payments in April/May 2010 amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is however, deposed by DW1 that the alleged outstanding relate to the transaction in the period between 01.04.2005 to 30.03.2006 and the suit has been filed on 15-12-2010 and is, therefore, barred by time. The Defendants have also averred that the Plaintiff has averred that the Defendants made cash payments as indicated above, only with a view to bring the suit within limitation when no such cash payments were in fact made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. The Defendants have also averred that the Plaintiff is trying to make out a case of running account whereas the bill-to bill payments were made to the plaintiff and no payment is due and payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
17. In this connection, It is relevant to note that in its cross-
examination, the DW1 has stated that no proof regarding payments made according to the Bills raised by the Plaintiff has been placed on record. DW1 has also (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 9 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) deposed that he has not placed on record copy of policy of Defendant No.1 to make the payment according to the Bills. It is thus evident that the Defendants have not been able to prove that the Defendants were making Bill-wise payments to the Plaintiff.
18. The DW1 has admitted that three cheques dated 18.04.2007. 11.04.2007 and 19.12.2007 for a sum of Rs.33,569/-, Rs.4,58,530/- and Rs.1,10,579/- respectively were issued by DW1. Accordingly, the DW1 has admitted that the last payment was made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff on 19.12.2007 and therefore the date of last payment as proved on record, is 19.12.2007 (even if the alleged cash payments are not taken into consideration) when the last payment was received by the Plaintiff by way of cheque. The Defendants have failed to prove that the payments were being made to the Plaintiff on bill to bill basis. The instant suit has been filed on 15.12.2010 i.e. within 3 years of the last payment received by the Plaintiff and is, therefore, within limitation.
19. ISSUE No.2:
"Whether the Defendant has made cash payment to the Plaintiff as claimed by the Plaintiff in para 9 of the Plaint ? OP Plaintiff".
20. The onus to prove the said issue is upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has averred in the plaint that it has received cash payment as detailed above in para 4, in April/May, 2010. The same is corroborated by the Statement of Account filed by the Plaintiff. During his cross-examination, PW1 (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 10 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) deposed that the original books of accounts are maintained by the Plaintiff in the computer in the form of sheets, which have been placed on record. However, no certificate under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been placed on record in support of the statement of the account. Accordingly, the entries in the statement of account filed as Ex.PW1/12 (colly.) cannot be looked into as evidence of cash transactions between the parties (discussed in detail in issue no 5). The Plaintiff has also not placed on record any receipt issued to prove the factum of receipt of payment by way of cash in the year, 2010. The Plaintiff has accordingly failed to prove the receipt of cash payments from the Defendants. Issue No.2 is accordingly decided against the Plaintiff.
21. ISSUE NO.3:
"Whether the Defendant has paid price of all the goods received with respect to each bill as claimed in para 3 of the Written Statement ? OP Plaintiff."
22. Onus to prove this issue is upon the Defendants. The Defendants have averred in para No.3 of the Written Statement that the Defendants have made payment to the Plaintiff on bill to bill basis and there is no amount due whatsoever. In Para 3 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff had asserted that the Defendant made only part payment of sale consideration of the goods and amount of Rs.6,02,678/- had been paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff till 19.12.2007. In its Affidavit of Evidence, DW1 (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 11 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) has deposed that the Plaintiff has settled the entire dues prior to 18.04.2007 and thereafter, bill-wise payment has already been made to the Plaintiff and accordingly, no payment, whatsoever is payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. It is relevant to note that the Defendants have not filed even a single document in support of its assertion. In its cross-examination DW1 has deposed that no record or proof regarding payments made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff according to the Bills raised by the Plaintiff, have been placed on record by the Defendants. In absence of any evidence in support of its plea, the Defendants have failed to prove that the Defendants have paid price of all the goods received with respect to each bill as claimed in para 3 of the Written Statement.
Issue No.3 is, therefore, decided against the Defendants.
23. ISSUE NO.4:
"Whether the suit is not maintainable for mis- joinder of the Defendants claimed in para 6 of the WS ? OP Defendant."
24. The onus to prove the above issue is upon the Defendant.
It is averred by the Defendants in para 6 of the Written Statement that the instant suit is bad for mis-joinder of Defendants No. 8 & 9 since there are no individuals with the name of Shri [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], who have been arrayed as Defendants No.8 & 9 in the instant suit and their names have been wrongly shown as Partners and, therefore, the suit is bad for misjoinder.
(M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 12 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER])
25. In this regard, the provisions of [SECTION] of [ACT] may be referred to. [SECTION] [ACT] provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of the party and the Court may in every suit, deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the right and interests of the parties actually before it.
26. Therefore, mis-joinder of a party is no ground for rejecting/ dismissal of the suit, and the court has been enjoined with the duty to decide the matter as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Hence, it cannot be held that the instant suit is not maintainable for mis- joinder of the parties as claimed in para 6 of the Written Statement.
Issue No.4 is, therefore, decided against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiff.
27. ISSUE NO.5:
"Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.8,95,670/- ? OP Plaintiff."
28. The onus to prove the said issue is upon the Plaintiff. PW1 has deposed that the Defendants approached the Plaintiff for supply of goods on credit basis on various dates and the goods were supplied to the Defendants vide invoices Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 and other invoices marked as Mark-A to Mark-F. It is averred that the Defendants made part payment of sale consideration of the goods vide three cheques dated 18.04.2007, 18.06.2007 and 19.12.2007, for an amount of Rs.33,569/-, Rs.4,58,530/- and (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 13 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) Rs.1,10,579/- respectively, (total amounting to Rs.6,02,678/-).
29. The Plaintiff has also filed extract of ledger for the period from 01.04.2006 to 15.11.2010 exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 (colly.) and two C-forms dated 29.09.2006 exhibited as Ex.PW1/13 and Ex.PW1/14. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that the Bills in respect of which the C- form have been issued are not on record and, therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to explain as to how it is seeking recovery of Rs.8,95,670/- [Rs.5,20,744/- plus (+) interest @24% per annum] from the Defendants. It is also stated by the Defendants that the payments were made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff on bill to bill basis and there was no running account, maintained by the Plaintiff qua the Defendants.
30. PW-1 deposed that the original accounts book were placed on record as Ex. PW-1/12. He further stated that the account books were maintained in the computer in the form of sheets. He also deposed that he could not tell without looking into the record if the Defendants had made and cleared the entire payment for which the C- Forms Ex. PW-1/13 and Ex. PW-1/14 had been issued. PW- 1 also denied that the firm was not maintaining proper books of accounts. PW-1 failed to produce the account books for the period 01.04.2005 to 30.03.2006 which were stated to be not traceable.
31. It is thus born out on record that the account books of the Plaintiff used to be maintained in the computer. The (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 14 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) Ledger/ Statement of account of the Defendants as maintained by the plaintiff in its computer has been placed on record as Exhibit PW1/12(colly).
32. In [PRECEDENT] in para-10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. Only if the electronic record is dul produced in terms of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to [SECTION] opinion of examiner of electronic evidence."
33. It further held in Para 15 that:-
"An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under [SECTION] are satisfied. Thus, in case of CD,VCD, chip, etc. the same shall be accompanied by thecertificate in terms of [SECTION] obtained at the time oftaking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record is inadmissible."
34. In light of the aforesaid an electronic record can be treated as a document only if a certificate under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is filed. The said statement of account Ex.PW1/12 (coly.) is a computer generated document which can be treated as evidence only if a certificate under [SECTION] of [ACT] is filed in support thereof. The Plaintiff has however, not filed (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 15 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) the said certificate in support of the statement of Account Ex. PW-1/12 (colly). Accordingly, the statement of account Ex. PW-1/12 colly cannot be treated as document and is therefore inadmissible in evidence.
35. The Defendants in pursuance of the transaction between the parties have also issued two C-Forms dated 29.09.2006 to the Plaintiff being Ex PW1/13 and Ex PW1/14. Issuance of C-Forms is a proof of Sale of Goods having been affected by the seller to the buyer and also indicate that the goods were accepted without a demur. C- Forms can therefore be treated as an acknowledgement of goods received under contract for supply of goods and the price fixed to be paid for them ([PRECEDENT] referred to).
36. The Defendants have issued C-Forms for goods supplied by the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 4,18,193/- ( C-Forms Sl. no. 2518554 (Ex. PW-1/13) + Rs. 11,01,809/- C-Forms Sl. no. 2518553(Ex. PW-1/14) totaling to Rs 15,20,002/- .
37. The said amount of Rs.15,20,002/- pertains to invoices No.92, 93, 144, 22, 30, 36, 45, 60, 66 and 76. The Plaintiff has filed the said invoices in original except invoice nos 22,30,36,90,93,144 which are also on record as Photocopies. However, since the same are duly reflected in the C-Forms issue by the Plaintiff and the amount as reflected in the C-forms is the same as indicated on the photocopies of the said invoices, therefore, the said (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 16 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) invoices stand duly corroborated by the C Forms. The said invoices accordingly stand proved.
38. C Forms being a proof of Sale of Goods having been affected by the seller to the buyer accordingly, the Plaintiff has admittedly supplied goods worth Rs.15,20,002/- as reflected in the C forms, Ex PW1/13 and Ex PW1/14, to the Defendants. The Plaintiff has accordingly proven on record that goods worth Rs.15,20,002/- were supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant against the invoices mentioned therein.
39. It is deposed by the Plaintiff that as on 05.07.2007, as per the books of account maintained by the Plaintiff, Rs.11,73,422/- was payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and thereafter it recieved payments by cheque as well as cash as detailed above and after the payments received by it a balance of Rs.5,20,744/-was due against the Defendants.
40. The plaintiff has accordingly claimed the recovery of Rs.
5,20,744/- as the principal outstanding against the defendant stating that the remaining amount stood paid by the Defendant. DW-1 has deposed that he had not placed on record any proof regarding the payment made by the Defendant according to the bills raised by the plaintiff. In light of the findings in issue no 3 the Defendants have failed to prove that billwise payments were made to the Plaintiff. DW1 also denied that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in April/ May, 2010. The Defendant have not (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 17 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) placed anything on record to show that the payments were made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in respect of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, though the Defendants have denied that the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 5,20,744/-.
41. The plaintiff has accordingly been able to prove that it had supplied goods worth Rs.15,20,002/- to the defendant. The Defendants on the other hand have failed to prove any payments made by the defendants in respect of the goods supplied by the plaintiff. As per [SECTION] of the [ACT], the burden of proof would lie upon person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on the either side. As regards the amount outstanding against the Defendants, the statement of accounts filed by the plaintiff cannot be read in evidence as explained hereinabove. However, the plaintiff has been able to prove the delivery of the goods of an amount of Rs.15,20,002/-. On the other hand, the defendants have not been able to prove any single payment made to the Plaintiff and have not led any evidence in support of their assertion that the goods as reflected in form C were paid for. In such circumstances, since the Defendants have failed to lead any evidence to prove payment of the goods therefore, the statement of the claim of plaintiff that a principal amount of Rs. 5,20,744/- as on 26.05.2010, is outstanding against the defendants, is treated as proved as against the Defendants. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs. 5,20,744/-
(M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 18 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) from the Defendants.
42. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is decided in favour of Plaintiff to the extent that the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.5,20,744/-.
43. ISSUE NO. 6:
"If answer to the last mentioned issue is in affirmative, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest and if yes, at what rate and for which period ? OP Plaintiff."
44. Since issue No. 5 has been decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants and it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 5,20,744/-, therefore, the Plaintiff is also entitled to the interest. Keeping in view the fact that the nature of transaction between the parties is a commercial one and considering the prevailing rate of interest, the end of justice would be met if the Plaintiff is granted simple interest @ 9 % p.a from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
RELIEF:
In view of the foregoing, the suit filed by the Plaintiff is decreed. A Decree of recovery of Rs. 5,20,744/- is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants alongwith interest @ 9 % p.a (simple) from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 19 of 20) ([CASE NUMBER]) Announced in open court on 07.11.2016.
([ENTITY]) Addl. District Judge-14 (Central)/ THC /Delhi (M/s.Aggarwal Plywood Co. v. M/s.[ENTITY].) (Page No. 20 of 20)