DREAM CREATIONS Vs. PALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No.353/2009, whereby the application filed by the appellant (defendant before trial court) for leave to defend was dismissed and the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs. 12,71,200/- along with pendente lite interest @ 9%, per annum in favour of the respondent (plaintiff before the trial court) and against the appellant herein.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present appeal are that vide an agreement/quotation of work dated 30.11.2007 the respondents were to supply fit and install stainless steel section for the appellants at the Picadilly Hotel New Delhi. The respondent filed a suit under the Provisions of Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for recovery for Rs. 12,71,200/-, against the appellants herein, is on the basis of three invoices bearing Nos.(i) 366 for Rs. 25,34237/-; (ii) 374 for Rs. 7,82,154/-; and (iii) 376 for Rs. 10,54,809/-, dated 14.6.2008, 29.07.2008 and 1.8.2008, respectively, and on the basis of statement of account for supply of stainless steel section, stainless steel railings and stainless steel flats to the appellant herein. The invoices/challan were duly received by the appellant in respect of the said material alongwith the material. Consequent to the summons being issued the appellant filed its memo of appearance and thereafter summons for judgment were issued. The appellant filed an application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the CPC. Learned trial court by a Judgment and decree dated 20.1.2010 rejected the application on the ground that no triable issue was raised by the appellant herein.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has relied upon various invoices, photocopies of which have been placed on record of this court and originals of which have been filed before the trial court along with statements, which suggest that the entire material has been accepted by the appellant without any protest or demur and admittedly not a single communication was addressed by the appellant to the respondent at any point of time making any grievance with regard to quality of material supplied. Counsel for the respondent further submits that complete silence on the part of the appellant would show that they were satisfied with the material, which had been supplied by the respondent to them. Counsel also submits that trial court has rightly considered the application for leave to defend and rejected the same.