Defendant stand that nothing is outstanding led to dismissal of recovery suit.
Defendant stand that nothing is outstanding led to dismissal of recovery suit.
Plaintiff ran its business of transportation. defendant availed its services. Plaintiff raised timely bills. Defendant failed to make payment due for which it signed cheque in favor of plaintiff. On filling of suit. Court held, Plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled to suit amount, more so when defendant has taken a categorical stand in written statement that nothing is due & outstanding against defendant. Hence, recovery suit was dismissed.-500299
Facts in brief:
1. Plaintiff ran its business of transportation under the name and style of M/s Chetak Logistic Ltd.
2. The defendant time to time availed the services of transportation of plaintiff and transported goods through plaintiff from Delhi to different places and from different places to Delhi vide GRs on different dates.
3. The plaintiff time to time also raised bills of transportation charges against the GRs and maintained account in the name of the defendant during the course of its business showing the details of goods of the defendant transported by the plaintiff against GRs and the payment received against the bills.
4. Defendant failed to make the payment due for which it signed the cheque in the favor of plaintiff.
5. Hence, the plaintiff being aggrieved by the same filed present suit for recovery.
HC held as under:
Question for consideration:
Whether in the absence of any documentary evidence, is there any oral evidence or admission which would prove that defendant used to make on account payment and there was running account between the parties
Under facts & circumstances of case,
6. There is no other evidence to prove that there was running account between the parties and defendant was making on account payment. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus to prove that there was running account between the parties and last payment having been made by the defendant, the suit was within limitation.
7. Cannot be said that present suit has been filed CS No. 470/12 within limitation and it is held that present suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
8. It cannot be said that Sh. Jai Shankar Pandey is not authorized person to file the present suit. No contrary evidence has been led by the defendant to show that said Sh. Jai Shankar Pandey is not authorized person to file present suit on behalf of Plaintiff Company. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant.
9. Plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled to the suit amount, more so when the defendant has taken a categorical stand in the written statement that nothing is due and outstanding against the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
10. As a sequel to my findings under Issue No. 1 and 2, the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Case Reference-M/S Chetak Logistic Ltd vs M/S Quippo Construction
IN THE COURT OF SH BALWANT RAI BANSAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
×
