Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th July, 2026
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA .....APPELLANT
Through: Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Mr. Surender Gupta and Mr. Deepak Rana, Advs.
Through: Mr. Mohd. Tariq, Adv.
13.07.2026
ORDER
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 34928/2025 (condonation of delay)
2. The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 209 days in filing the appeal.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 209 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The application is allowed and disposed of.
5. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment dated 30th August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by ld. District Judge (Commercial Court), North East, Karkardooma Court in CS (Comm) No. 27/2024. Vide the impugned judgment, the suit is decreed against the Appellant in the following terms:
6. The appeal arises out of a commercial suit filed by the Respondent seeking recovery of Rs. 4,21,800/-. The case of the Respondent/Plaintiff is that he had supplied certain goods against delivery challans and the amount was not re-paid by the Appellant/Defendant.
7. Summons was issued in the present suit on 29th February 2024 and the Appellant/Defendant was served on 14th March, 2024. However, according to the Appellant/Defendant, he had engaged a Counsel, as there were multiple cases between him and the Respondent. As per the Appellant, in this particular suit i.e., CS (COMM.) 27/2024, for some inexplicable reason, the Counsel did not appear and the Appellant was proceeded ex-parte on 25th April, 2024.
8. After the suit proceeded ex-parte, evidence of one witness PW-1, was led by the Respondent/Plaintiff. No cross-examination was done by the Appellant/Defendant, and thereafter the impugned judgement was rendered by the Commercial Court.
9. An execution petition was also filed by the Respondent before the Executing Court in which notice was issued. At that stage, the Appellant/Defendant claims that he came to know that the suit has been decreed against him and has then filed the present appeal.
10. Vide order dated 29th May, 2025 passed by this Court, it was recorded that the Appellant/Defendant is willing to deposit the entire decretal amount before the Executing Court. Accordingly, the Appellant/Defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.4,21,800/- before the concerned Executing Court.
11. Today, the matter has been heard and the record has been perused.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant submits that the only basis on which the suit is being decreed are the delivery challans, which according to the Appellant/Defendant are forged and fabricated. Moreover, an application for leave to defend was filed by the Appellant/Defendant in another suit between these parties has been shown to this Court in which the Appellant/Defendant had taken a stand that these were concocted, forged and fabricated.
13. In any event, the case of the Appellant/Defendant was that the amounts were paid qua these purchases in cash, however, the Respondent/Plaintiff has incorrectly sued the Appellant/Defendant for recovery, by making use of the blank cheques, which were issued.
14. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, this appears to be a case where one opportunity deserves to be given to the Appellant/Defendant to cross-examine the witness of the Respondent/Plaintiff as admittedly there is no written statement which has been filed. The stand of the Appellant/Defendant that there are multiple proceedings between the same parties is not doubted. In fact on the very same day when this suit was listed, the Court is informed that in the neighbouring court, another suit was also listed between the same parties, where the Appellant/Defendant was appearing. In the said suit, the same counsel who is stated to have been engaged for this case was also also engaged by the Appellant/Defendant. There appears to have been some genuine confusion due to which the Appellant/Defendant has suffered the impugned decree. Moreover, in such cases, no opportunity for filing of written statement can be given. The only window available is an opportunity to cross examine PW-1, as to the genuinity and credibility of the delivery challans. Further, the litigant ought not to be made to suffer irreparably, for any fault on behalf of the counsel.
15. The argument that the delivery challans are forged and fabricated obviously has not been considered by the Trial Court which has decreed the suit on the basis of the unrebutted Respondent/Plaintiff’s evidence.
16. The decretal principal amount of Rs. 4,21,800/- having been deposited, the interest of the Respondent/Plaintiff is fully secured. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to give one opportunity to the Appellant/Defendant to cross-examine the Respondent/Plaintiff’s witness and thereafter, the matter can be adjudicated on merits.
17. In these circumstances and facts, the following directions are issued:
(i) The impugned judgment dated 30th August, 2024 is set aside;
(ii) The decretal amount lying deposited with the Executing Court of
(iii) The parties shall appear before the Commercial Court on 27th July, 2026. The Appellant/Defendant shall be permitted to crossexamine PW-1 and thereafter, make submissions before the Commercial Court.
18. The amount lying deposited with the Executing Court shall be adjusted with the final order that may be passed in the present suit.
19. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
20. Parties to appear before the concerned Commercial Court on 27th July,
2026.
21. The concerned Commercial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit within three months
22. Copy of this order be communicated to the ld. Principal District and Session Judge, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by the Registry for necessary information and compliance.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 13, 2026 dss/Ck