M/S HARI DASHAN SEVASHRAM PVT. LTD. v. M/S PAUL SALES PVT. LTD.

1. The applicant in the instant application prays for the following reliefs:- KUMAR KAURAV “(a) Allow the present application and decide the present suit in terms of provision of Order 13 A of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequentially pass a decree of Rs 3,15,83,541.41p in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendant with interest as prayed for in the suit. (b) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts of the Present case.”

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties on the instant application.

3. The instant application is based on the ground that, insofar as the amount due up to 31.08.2017 against the defendant is concerned, the same stands admitted in the ledger maintained by the defendant itself.

4. Accordingly, Mr. Mahajan submits that, if the ledger is taken into consideration, it would reflect that as of 31.08.2017, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4.57 Crores. He further submits that thereafter, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1.[5] Crores, and hence, the remaining amount the plaintiff is entitled to as of 31.08.2017 is Rs. 3.15 Crores. He therefore contends that, as far as the decree to the extent of Rs. 3.15 Crores is concerned, the defendant does not have any case to succeed. Accordingly, the Court may consider passing a partial decree and relegate the parties to trial with respect to the remaining claim.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff draws the attention of this Court to order dated 17.02.2020 to indicate that the entire defence of the defendant is rested on the purported counter claim, which has been filed by the defendant and this Court vide order dated 17.02.2020 has rejected the said contention and clarified that the aforesaid counter claim has no bearing under the facts of the present case. He also submits that even the application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the defendant, has also been rejected vide the said order.

6. The aforesaid contentions are strongly opposed by Mr Endlaw, learned counsel for the defendant. He argues this that vide order dated 23.02.2024. He draws attention of the Court to paragraphs 52 and 58 to 60 thereof. He contends that, on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court categorically found that the ledger in question is not complete and hence cannot be relied upon for accepting the plaintiff’s submissions. He therefore contends that the aforesaid findings bind the plaintiff and operate as res judicata in the same matter between the same parties. He further submits that if the provisions of Order XIII-A of the CPC are considered correctly, it clearly indicates that summary judgment can only be granted once the Court is fully satisfied that the defendant has no case.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the record.

8. This Court in the case of “ABB INDIA.LTD vs.

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR.”1 in paragraph nos.48 and 49 has held that Order XIII-A is meant to deal with cases, where, there is no necessity for leading oral evidence. The documents relied upon by the parties are sufficient to bring out the real dispute between them. It requires both parties to enlist the documents sought to be relied upon, as well as to place them on record, so as to arrive at a final assessment of the issues. If, on an examination of the documents sought to be relied upon by the parties, the Court finds that the contesting party has ‘no real prospect‟ of defending the claim, it may dispense with the oral evidence and proceed to pass a summary judgment on the basis of documents. However, if the documents relied upon by the parties are susceptible to conflicting interpretations and require judicial construction, it would not be prudent to decide the claim on the basis of such documents or pleadings.

9. Paragraph nos. 48 to 50 of the said decision are extracted as under:-

10. In the instant case, the Court vide order dated 23.02.2024 has rendered following findings:-

CS(COMM) 648/2021 applicant/plaintiff after which there have been transactions of the amount Rs. 1,17,21,173/- and that the sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- has been received from the defendant.

60. The averments made by the applicant/plaintiff itself shows that the Ledger Account was a running and current Account, as has been claimed by the defendant. There being no finality to the Ledger Account and the business having been continued inter se the parties, the plaintiff cannot rely on some entry in the Ledger Account filed by the defendant which is asserted to be an incomplete Statement of Account, to claim that there is an admission of any amount. From the averments of the applicant/plaintiff itself, it is evident that there is a continuing business that there are continuing business transitions and thus, reliance cannot place on one entry after which the business has continued, to say that it is ah admitted amount. 61. For the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the present”