SANJEEV BEHL Vs. SILVERTONE MOTORS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.28,74,316.24p.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he has been selling material to the defendant, on credit, since 2nd August, 2003 and the defendant company has been making payment in account to him. A sum of Rs.25,84,708.14p is alleged to be due from the defendant company towards balance price of the goods sold to it by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that amount from the defendant along with interest thereon @12% p.a. amounting to Rs.2,89,608.10p. 2. Before filing this suit, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant before the learned District Judge, Delhi for recovery of price of the goods sold by him to the defendant during the period from 20th March, 2008 to 29th June, 2009. The case of the defendant is that since the present suit is based on invoices for the period from 2nd August, 2003 to 30th June, 2009, it is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. It is further alleged that the amount alleged to be overdue since the years 2003-04 to 2006-07 is barred by limitation since Article 14 of the Limitation Act provides a limitation of 3 years from the date of delivery of the goods.

(3.) The application has been opposed by the plaintiff. It is alleged in the reply that the suit filed before the learned District Judge was with respect to price of the goods supplied to the defendant at its Gurgaon (Haryana) unit/showroom whereas the present suit pertains to price of the goods supplied to the defendant at their Okhla unit. It is also alleged that the dealings between the parties with respect to Okhla and Gurgaon units were distinct, separate and independent, orders on the plaintiff used to be placed by Gurgaon office as well as by Okhla office and separate accounts were maintained by him with respect to the supply made to Gurgaon office and the supply made to Okhla office. As regards limitation, it is alleged that there was a running account between the parties and in any case, part payment or payment in account was also made by the defendant to the plaintiff, which saves the period of limitation.