Shekhar Arora v. Ram Kripal Yadav

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 'gsr'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 26th September, 2018 + RSA No.143/2018 SHEKHAR ARORA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava & Mr. Arvind Pandey, Advs. Versus RAM KRIPAL YADAV ...Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.39756/2018 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. RSA No.143/2018, CM No.39755/2018 (for stay) and CM No.39757/2018 (for condonation of delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeal) 3. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 8th March, 2018 in RCA No.61853/2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-06, Central] only partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant / defendant against the judgment and decree [dated 30th April, 2016 in Civil Suit No.45/2013 of the Court of Civil Judge-04, Central] allowing the suit of the respondent / plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.2,76,178/- from the appellant / defendant, in the sum of Rs.2,61,238/- along with interest pendente lite and future at 10% per annum. 4. The First Appellate Court has partly reversed the judgment of the Suit Court and held that the appellant / defendant "shall not be liable to pay any dues arising out of the ledger entries Ex.PW1/9, towards alleged supply of goods on credit by plaintiff to defendant" and sustained the rest of the decree of the Suit Court. 5. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay of 50 days in re-filing thereof. However the question of considering the said application would arise only if it were to be found that this Second Appeal entails any substantial question of law. 6. The counsel for the appellant / defendant has been heard and the copies of the trial court record appended to the memorandum of appeal as well as shown by the counsel for the appellant / defendant during the hearing have been perused. 7. The respondent / plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this appeal arises, pleading that (i) the respondent / plaintiff is running a shop selling domestic articles on the ground floor of his house at No.7, Main Masjid Road, Opp. Ram Ghat, Wazirabad Village, Delhi-110084; (ii) the appellant / defendant approached the respondent / plaintiff for taking the first floor of the said building on rent and the said first floor was let out by the respondent / plaintiff to the appellant / defendant from 1st November, 2008, for a period of 11 months and an Agreement Deed of Rent dated 15th December, 2008 was executed; (iii) the appellant / defendant ran a welfare society in which he kept some old persons and servants to look after the old persons and the appellant / defendant, after taking the premises on rent from the respondent / plaintiff, started living in the premises along with servants and cooks; (iv) as per Rent Agreement dated 15th December, 2008, the appellant / defendant had to pay rent of Rs.15,000/- per month excluding electricity and water charges; (v) the appellant / defendant also requested the respondent / plaintiff to supply domestic materials for day-to-day requirements from the shop of the respondent / plaintiff, on credit and the respondent / plaintiff, from time to time, supplied the said goods to the appellant / defendant; (vi) the appellant / defendant was not regular in payment of rent and / or in payment of price of the domestic articles purchased; (vii) an amount of Rs.1,45,000/-was in arrears towards rent and the appellant / defendant was also liable to pay electricity charges of Rs.14,990/- and all of which the appellant / defendant assured the respondent/plaintiff that he will pay; (viii) the appellant / defendant also purchased domestic articles of the value of Rs.1,16,238/- from the respondent / plaintiff and the price whereof also had not been paid; (ix) a total amount of Rs.2,76,178/- was thus due from the appel