% HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA 86/2008 & CM 5221/2008 Date of decision : July 16, 2009 M/S. BHAN TEXTILES PVT. LTD Appellant Through : Mr. AmitTrikha, Advocate Versus M/S RIDHIMA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD Respondents Through : Mr. Manmohan Singh Sethi, Advocate CORAM: HON BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? I U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH. I. (Oral) 1. Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.86,400/- against the respondent (defendant) under the summary provisions of Order 37 CPC. The trial court, in view of its findings on issues No.l RSA 86/2008 Page 1 of5 2 Signing Date:24.07.2024 17:12:49 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified and 2, was pleased to decree the suit of the appellant against the respondent for a sum of Rs.61,400/- with costs and interest @8 per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of the filing of the suit till its realization, vide judgment and decree dated 9.8.2005. This judgment and decree was impugned by the respondent. 2. The appellate court, vide its judgment and decree dated 4.12.2007, was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the civil judge dated 9.8.2005. Assailing the said judgment and decree of the appellate court, this appeal has been filed. 3. Parties to the suit were having business dealings. Respondent placed a purchase order dated 20.4.2000 quoting the prices in the said purchase order. Respondent company handed over 1260 pieces for computer embroidery work to the appellant. 535 pieces were collected by the respondent within the stipulated period. Appellant raised bills No.55 dated 26.4.2000 and 61 dated 2.5.2000 for a sum of Rs.42,800/- and Rs.58,000/- RSA 86/2008 Page 2 of5 e respectively totalling to Rs.1,00,800/-. Against this payment, respondent paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of picking up of first lot of 535 pieces with an undertaking to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.75,800/-, after lifting second lot of 725 pieces from the factory of the appellant. However, respondent allegedly failed to make the payment as promised. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed. Respondent never received the remaining 725 pieces after embroidery work was done. 4. Respondent contested the suit of the appellant on various grounds and took a plea that time was the essence of the contract and appellant had failed to deliver the computer embroidered pieces within the stipulated period. After assessing the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the parties produced on record, the trial court was pleased to pass a decree for Rs.61,400/- with costs and interest in favour of the appellant. 5. The appellate court assessed the same evidence and came to a different conclusion holding that time was essence of the contract and since appellant had RSA 86/2008 Page 3 of5 1 8. failed to deliver the computer embroidered pieces within the stipulated period, it had committed breach of the contract and was not entitled to the amount as claimed. The appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The entire claim of the parties was based on business transactions inter se them. No question of law was involved before the courts below which needed any adjudication. The judgment of the appellate court when read, clearly indicate that the appeal was allowed on the basis of fact finding of the case. Appellant has suggested formulation of substantial questions of law in para 14 of the appeal. Perusal of these questions clearly indicate that they all arise out of the findings of the courts below on facts. Under these circumstances, when the impugned judgment of the appellate court is only on the basis of fact finding, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, I find no merits in the appeal as no substantial question of law is required to be RSA 86/2008 Page 4 of5 formulated. Hence the same is hereby dismissed. July 16, 2009 jk RSA 86/2008 (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE \Jj. i-fAi')')- ' 8-vJ^ . Page 5 of5