SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

That the appellant is preferring the present Appeal arises from the
Judgment dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Dr. Jagminder Singh,
Learned Additional District Judge, Dwarka Court, New Delhi Courts,
Delhi in Suit No. 515911/2016 titled “Artisan’s Guild vs M/s. Tirupati
Constwell Private Limited”, whereby the learned Additional District
Judge was pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.

It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned

judgment dated 03.01.2022 gone beyond the pleading and evidence

before it and has replaced the pleading and evidence with the opinion

which is not supported by the documents. It is submitted that the Ld.

Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 03.01.2022

has failed to deal with the aspect that the bills raised by the plaintiff

and receiving on them is a work of forgery and the same is apparent

from the bare perusal of the bills. It is submitted that the forgery is

clear from the fact that the bill dated 10.03.2011 bears the receiving of

22.11.2010. It is submitted that the bill dated 05.01.2012, clearly

provides that only bill was received and not the material stated in the

bill. It is submitted that the said bills does not even bears the stamp of

the defendant company and therefore there the Ld. Trial Court ought to

not have relied upon the same. It is submitted that the signature of the

AR and seal of the company binds the company and in the present case

neither the receiving were given by the AR nor it bears the stamp of the

company. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court fails to consider that
initially the plaintiff had tried to distance itself from the signatures on

the vouchers and it is only after the defendant had examined the

Expert Witness and had filed the original documents, the plaintiff had

changed its story and created a false and fabricated story of the doing

menial jobs for Rs. 20,000/- on multiple occasions which is also not

supported by any evidence.

It is submitted that the

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO. _______ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

TIRUPATI CONSTWELL PRIVATE LIMITED ….APPELLANT

VERSUS

ARTISAN’S GUILD ….RESPONDENT

URGENT APPLICATION

The Deputy Registrar

High Court of Delhi
New Delhi.

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying Appeal as urgent as per

the rules and regulations of this Hon’ble Court. The grounds of the
urgency are same as prayed for.

FILED BY:

DATE: ___.___.2022 (VIJAY KASANA/CHETNA SINGH)

NEW DELHI ADVOCATES
J-35/LEFT, LGF, LAJPAT NAGAR - III,
NEW DELHI – 110024
Contact: +91 98 73 41 6665
Email: vijaydkasana@[Link]
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO. ________OF 2016

(Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 against the Judgment dated 03.01.2022 passed by Dr. Jagminder
Singh, Additional District Judge. - 03, South West, Dwarka, Delhi in the
Suit bearing C.S. No. 515911/2016 titled “Artisan Guild vs. Tirupati
Constwell Private Limited”)

MEMO OF PARTIES

TIRUPATI CONSTWELL PRIVATE LIMITED

Through: It’s Director/AR
O/a: Plot No. 3, District Center, Dwarka,
Sector – 10, New Delhi - 110075 …APPELLANT

VERSUS

ARTISAN’S GUILD
Through its Partners
Plot No. – 57, Suraj Vihar,
Old Palam Road, Kakrola More,
New Delhi ….RESPONDENT

Appellant
Through

DATE: ___.___.2022 (VIJAY KASANA/CHETNA SINGH)

NEW DELHI ADVOCATES
J-35/LEFT, LGF, LAJPAT NAGAR - III,
NEW DELHI – 110024
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO. _______ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

TIRUPATI CONSTWELL PRIVATE LIMITED ….APPELLANT

VERSUS

ARTISAN’S GUILD ….RESPONDENT

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
03.01.2022 PASSED BY DR. JAGMINDER SINGH, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE. - 03, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA, DELHI IN THE SUIT
BEARING C.S. NO. 515911/2016 TITLED “ARTISAN GUILD VS.
TIRUPATI CONSTWELL PRIVATE LIMITED”

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Appeal arises from the Judgment dated

03.01.2022 passed by the Dr. Jagminder Singh, Learned
Additional District Judge, Dwarka Court, New Delhi Courts, Delhi
in Suit No. 515911/2016 titled “Artisan’s Guild vs M/s. Tirupati
Constwell Private Limited”, whereby the learned Additional
District Judge was pleased to decree the suit of the
plaintiff/respondent. The true copy of the impugned judgment
dated 03.01.22 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P1.
2. That the brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal are
as follows:

(i) That the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as

the “Plaintiff”) herein filed a Summary Suit against the
Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the
“Appellant”) seeking following reliefs:

a). Pass a decree for recovery of money in favour of

the plaintiff and against the Defendant for the
amount of Rs. 42,19,660/- ( Rupees Forty Two
Lac Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty
only) along with 18% interest pendent elite, and /
or

b). Pass a decree for recovery of the delayed payment

pre suit interest calculated up to 25.08.2012 of Rs.
8,79,943/- ( Rs. Eight lac seventy nine thousand
and nine hundred and forty three only)@ 18%
interest as is shown in schedule-IJ hereto marked
and annexed, and / or

c). Award cost of the present suit in favour of the

Plaintiff and against the Defendant, and / or

d). Pass any other Order / Directions that this

Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice and on the basis of above stated
facts and circumstances

(ii) That it is the case of the Plaintiff that the plaintiff is a

registered partnership firm under the name and style
M/s. Artisan’s Guild having its registered office at Plot No
 57, Suraj Vihar, Old Patam Road, Kakrola More, New
Delhi-110078. It was stated that the firm is engaged in the
business of manufacturing and trading of exclusive
furniture goods and also works as Interior Decoration
Consultant.

(iii) That it was stated in the suit that the Defendant company
through its Director Mr. Subhash Chander Dabas engaged
the Plaintiff firm for supply of exclusive kind of furniture
to the Defendant company for Indus Hotel, presently
name is changed to Lebua Hotel being constructed at
Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi. The rates and payment
terms were verbally negotiated and decided by Sh.
Rakesh Kumar on behalf of the Plaintiff firm and by Sh.
Subhash Chander Dabas, Managing Director on behalf of
the Defendant company.

(iv) That it was stated that as per the terms agreed upon the
Defendant shall place order over phone or in person to
the Plaintiff firm and the bills shall be raised after
delivery of goods and balance payments against the goods
delivered shall be made within seven days after delivery.

(v) That it was stated that the first purchase order for supply
of different kind of furniture items was placed by
Defendant Company on 12.10.2009 on the agreed upon
rates , terms and condition.

(vi) That it was stated in the suit that as the initial order was
of a large quantity, a part advance payment amounting to
Rs 22,73,000/- between the period of 11.11.2009 to
09.08.2010 was made to the Plaintiff in five different
 valued installments on and only after many physical
verifications of the progress of the manufacturing goods
as per the order by the Defendant time to time.

(vii) That since 11.11.2009 the Plaintiff is maintaining

continuous running account statement and time to time
has intimated the Defendant about the account status for
the reconciliation and as reminder of dues, which in
reciprocation has been acknowledged by the Defendant
by giving his side of account statement to the Plaintiff and
acknowledging the balance due amount as per his
account book which tally with the Plaintiff's statement of
account.

(viii) That the Plaintiff supplied all the orders as per the
specifications given by the Defendants from time to time
and Sh. Rakesh Kumar was in continuous touch with the
Managing Director Sh. Subhash Chander Dabas and
Accountant Mr. Ganesh by visiting their office and making
phone calls to them during the course of the business and
at the time of supply, payment and reconciliation of
accounts.

(ix) That the Defendant after 03.01.2011 started delaying the

payment on one pretext or the other. Sh. Subhash
Chander Dabas, Director always assured that the dues of
the Plaintiff firm will be paid soon and that they should
not worry for the same and cooperate with them in the
recession time of real estate business, and have faith on
him.
(x) That all the orders were verbal orders made by the
Defendant including all quality specifications either in
person or on phone corroborated by their inspection
visits during the course of the manufacturing and
assembly of the furniture time to time, up to the finalizing
and receiving the goods vide delivery challan
accompanied by the respective bills later on. It is also
pertinent to mention here that there was no quality or
any type of defect and complaint ever raised by the
Defendants after the delivery of the goods to them as they
themselves have inspected the goods in every respect at
their premises before the delivery stage and all the
deliveries has been made to them only after their due
satisfactions in all respect.

(xi) That Plaintiff always has raised a Tax Invoice including

VAT charges charged on the bill and duly deposited it
with the Tax authorities concerned. Each and every Bill of
Plaintiff clearly shows the VAT, Tin No. and C.S.T. No. of
the supplier and Buyer’s VAT/Sales Tax No for the Tax
claim.

(xii) That the Plaintiff has been requesting the Defendant

regularly for the realization of the due payments by
sending him reminders, meeting him personally and
telephonic talks and through emails however, the
Defendant either taking plea of the recession in the
market or any other cause always tried to mislead the
Plaintiff and gave only simple assurances to him and
never paid the due amount after 03.01.2011 and always
 making part payments on the pretext of financial
hardship.

(xiii) That the account book entries were always in the

negative balance side showing due payments on the part
of the Defendant since 03.01.2011. Whereas the
Defendant was always placing his exclusive orders to
Defendant with a due assurance that his money is in safe
hands and will be released soon always quoting his first
advance payment to the Plaintiff.

(xiv) That on 20.02.2012 the amount due was 42,19,660/- as

per the accounts maintained, duly acknowledged and
signed after reconciliation of the accounts on 31.03.2012
by both the parties.

(xv) That since 20.02.2012 after reconciliation of accounts and

acknowledging the dues of Rs. 42,19,660/- which is due
against the Bill no-12 dated 10.01.2011 out of total bill
amount of Rs. 12,07,462/-, only received 1,28,240/-
leaving balance of Rs.10,79,222/-, Bill no 5 dated
25.05.2011 of amount 1105313/-, Bill no-06 of
31.05.2011 of Rs.90,000/-, Bill no-07 of 30.08.2011 of
Rs.1168875/- and Bill no-14 dated 05.01.2012 amount
Rs.776250/- and acknowledgement of the receipts of Bill
no-12 vide Challan no. 24 of 29.09.2010, 29 of
13.10.2010, 31 of 19.10.2010, 32 of 23.10.2010, 35 of
16.11.2010; for Bill no 5 vide challan no-36 of 17.11.2010,
36A of 18.12.2010, challan no-37 dated 18.12.2010,
challan 6-38 of 18.11.2010, challan no-39 of 18.11.2010,
39A of 22.12.2010, challan no-48 of 03.01.2011, challan
no-49 of 03.01.2011; Bill no-6 vide challan no-29 dated
 13.11.2010,challn no-32 of 27.10.2010,challan no-nil Of
03.10.2010 Bill no-07 vide challan no-01 dated
17.04.2011,challan no-2 of 22.04.2011,challan no-03 of
28.04.2011,chllan no-8 of 05.05.2011and Bill no.14 vide
challan no-19 of 12.10.2011,challan no-20 of
13.10.2011,21 of [Link] 22 Of 04.12.2011
the Defendant has not paid any amount.

(xvi) That the Plaintiff has sent a Legal Demand Notice dated
10.04.2012 through his counsel to the Defendant and the
same was duly served upon the Defendant by speed post
and courier. However, the Defendants never replied the
same nor paid the pending amount to the Plaintiff which
clearly shows his malafide intentions not to pay the
Plaintiff the due amount.

(xvii) That by the above said Legal Notice the Plaintiff

demanded to make the due payment of the sum of the
equivalent to the face value of the aforesaid outstanding
amount along with the 18% interest demanded as
delayed payment interest and a sum of Rs 11,000/- for
the charge of the said Legal Notice, however the
Defendants never turned up to honor the notice and the
payment of the dues.

(xviii) That despite the service of the above said legal

notice of demand dated 10.04.2012 no reply to the
aforesaid legal notice of demand or any correspondence
been initiated by the Defendant in respect of the
outstanding amount. Hence failing to obtain the aforesaid
amount the Plaintiff is not left with any other option but
to file a suit for recovery Under Order XXXVII of CPC 1908
 against the above named Defendant to recover the
aforesaid outstanding amount along with the interest on
delayed payment calculated up to 25.08.2012.

(xix) That the Plaintiff had given ample time to the Defendant
to pay the aforesaid outstanding amount, where as the
Defendant has acted in a dishonest and fraudulent
manner and has never bothered to show up to the
Plaintiff and clear the dues against Defendant.

That the true copy of the suit filed by the plaintiff along
with documents are collectively annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-P2(COLLY.).

(xx) That the summons in the suit were issued to the

defendant and the defendant through its counsel had
entered appearance. The true copy of the application
under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) & 1 CPC filed by the
defendant is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P3.

(xxi) That thereafter the plaintiff had moved an application

under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC for serving summons for
judgment. The true copy of application under Order
XXXVII Rule 4 CPC for serving summons for judgment is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P4.

(xxii) That thereafter the defendant had moved an application

under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC for Grant Leave to
defend the suit. The true copy of application under Order
XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC for Grant Leave to defend the suit is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P5. The
true copies of documents filed along with leave to defend
 application is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P6.

(xxiii) That the plaintiff had filed reply to the leave to

defendant application. The true copy of the reply to leave
to defend application filed by the plaintiff is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P7.

(xxiv)That thereafter the defendant had filed rejoinder to the

reply to the leave to defend application. The true copy of
the rejoinder filed by the defendant to the reply filed by
the plaintiff to the leave to defend application of the
defendant is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P8.

(xxv) That thereafter arguments on the leave to defend

application were heard and this Hon’ble Court was
pleased to grant conditional leave to defend to the
defendant subject to the deposit of Rs. 35 Lakhs in the
court. The true copy of the order dated 02.03.2015 passed
by this Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P9.

(xxvi)That thereafter the defendant had complied with the

aforesaid order and filed written statement in the matter.
It is submitted that in the written statement and had
disputed the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the
defendant that the defendant had made an excess
payment of Rs. 23,60,340/- to the plaintiff as an advance
payment. That the defendant in the written statement had
also detailed the payment made to the plaintiff. It was
also pleaded that the plaintiff had not preformed the
 contracted work and had not supplied goods and
whatever goods were supplied, they were of the defective
quality.

The true copy of the written statement filed by the

defendant is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P10.

(xxvii) That thereafter on 05.12.2016 following issues

in the matter were framed:

i). Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum

of Rs. 42,19,660/-? OPP

ii). Whether plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of

delayed payment pre suit interest @ 8,79,943/-?
OPP

iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief for

the recovery of pendente-lite and future interest? If
Yes, at what rate? OPP

iv). Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material

facts? OPD

v). Whether defendant had paid the entire amount as

claimed by the plaintiff? OPD

vi). Relief.

(xxviii) That thereafter the matter was fixed for evidence. The
plaintiff had examined Shri Rakesh Kumar has PW-1. The
true copy of the list of witnesses, evidence affidavit and
deposition and cross examination of plaintiff witness are
 collectively annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P11(COLLY.).

(xxix)That thereafter the matter was fixed for defendant

evidence. It is submitted that the defendant had examined
two witness i.e. i. Shri Subhash Dabas, Director of the
Defendant company as DW-1 to prove its defense and ii).
Shri B N Srivastava, handwriting expert to prove
signatures of plaintiff’s partner on the cash receipts and
vouchers. The true copy of the list of witnesses, evidence
affidavit and deposition and cross examination of Shri
Subhash Dabas are collectively annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-P12(COLLY.). The true copy of
the Report prepared by the expert witness, photographs
taken for the purposes of examination, affidavit u/s 65B
of the Evidence Affidavit and deposition are collectively
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-
P13(COLLY.).

(xxx) That after examination of the witnesses, the final

arguments in the matter were heard on 18.12.2021 and
Ld. Trial Court was pleased to reserve the judgment. That
vide impugned judgment dated 03.01.2022, the Ld. Trial
Court was pleased to pass a decree in favour of the
plaintiff.

That the appellant has authorized its Director Shri

Subhash Dabas by Board Resolution to initiate and
represent the company in the present proceedings. The
copy of the Board Resolution in favor of Shri Subhash
Dabas is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-
P14.
3. That the aforesaid Judgment dated 03.01.2022 passed by Dr.
Jagminder Singh, Additional District Judge. - 03, South West,
Dwarka, Delhi is absolutely bad in law, illegal, wholly
unwarranted, without jurisdiction and highly unsustainable in
the eyes of law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside
on the following amongst other grounds.

GROUNDS

A. Because the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned

judgment dated 03.01.2022 gone beyond the pleading and

evidence before it and has replaced the pleading and

evidence with the opinion which is not supported by the

documents.

B. Because the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned

judgment dated 03.01.2022 has failed to deal with the

aspect that the bills raised by the plaintiff and receiving

on them is a work of forgery and the same is apparent

from the bare perusal of the bills. It is submitted that the

forgery is clear from the fact that the bill dated

10.03.2011 bears the receiving of 22.11.2010. It is

submitted that the bill dated 05.01.2012, clearly provides

that only bill was received and not the material stated in

the bill. It is submitted that the said bills does not even

bears the stamp of the defendant company and therefore

 there the Ld. Trial Court ought to not have relied upon the

same. It is submitted that the signature of the AR and seal

of the company binds the company and in the present

case neither the receiving were given by the AR nor it

bears the stamp of the company.

C. Because in the entire suit or pleadings, the plaintiff has

nowhere pleaded that he had entered into any contract

for doing menial work for which allegedly an of Rs.

20,000/- each was paid to them on 9 occasions. It is

submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has accepted the

version of the plaintiff without there being any pleading

or evidence with respect to that.

D. Because the Ld. Trial Court fails to consider that initially

the plaintiff had tried to distance itself from the

signatures on the vouchers and it is only after the

defendant had examined the Expert Witness and had filed

the original documents, the plaintiff had changed its story

and created a false and fabricated story of the doing

menial jobs for Rs. 20,000/- on multiple occasions which

is also not supported by any evidence.

E. Because the Ld. Trial Court has gone beyond pleadings

and evidence on record. It is submitted that the plaintiff

 had failed to lead evidence to alleged interpolation of

documents and despite that the Ld. Trial Court has given

finding against the defendant.

F. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

suggestion of interpolation was given for the first time

during cross examination of the defendant witness which

was duly denied and despite that the plaintiff had not led

any evidence in support of the same even in rebuttal also.

G. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

plaintiff was asking for ITR statements which were about

10 year old and were not available with the defendant.

H. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that quality

goods were to be supplied in accordance with the order

placed by the defendant company and its group

companies. It is submitted that in the year 2009, the

defendant and its group companies had started dealing

with the plaintiff. That vide agreement dated 10,04.2010,

the plaintiff company had provided certain furniture viz. a

viz. 88 chairs with arms, 22 table, 29 chairs without arms,

27 Tables, 3 Tables, 5 service station, 725 of MDF

Paneling and the price was negotiated to be Rs.

14,00,000/- the entire payment was made in cash to RK

 Sharma. It is submitted taht R K Sharma had received the

said money and signed the written acknowledgement

dated 10.04.2010 for receiving Rs. 14 Lakhs as full and

final consideration for the said material. That as against

the order for supply of Furniture, chairs in respect of

coffee shop are concerned, the plaintiff could not arrange

the fabric for chairs as agreed between the parties. Due to

the failure on the part of the plaintiff to arrange the fabric,

the defendant had arrange the same. That the defendant

company had provided the fabric to the plaintiff to

complete the order. That the material provided by the

plaintiff was of poor quality and was not usable for the 5

star Hotel. That the plaintiff had failed to return the excess

fabric arranged by the defendant for which the plaintiff is

liable to pay Rs. 5,60,340/-. That on numerous occasions,

the defendant had called the plaintiff to return the excess

fabric however, the plaintiff with the motive of undue

gain, never returned it.

I. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that

subsequently on 12.04.2010, the plaintiff company had

supplied furniture for the Indian Restaurant of the

defendant company. That the Director of the defendant

 and RK Sharma of the plaintiff company had negotiated

the price for supply of material and schedule of the

payment. That the price of the goods was fixed at Rs.

8,37,500. That R.K. Sharma had received Rs. 400,000/- in

cash as the advance payment and signed the written

acknowledgment of the receipt of the said amount. That

the 30% of the remaining amount was to be paid at the

time of delivery of goods and balance 20% was to be paid

at the time of installation of the goods. That the plaintiff

never completed the said agreement and did not deliver

the goods and therefore, the balance payment never

became due.

J. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

plaintiff with the purpose of cheating the defendant, had

deliberately not maintained proper book of accounts. That

the defendant has made an payment in excess of material

supplied to the defendant.

K. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that to

supply other furniture and products, the plaintiff had

collected huge amount in cash and cheques from the

defendant company, with an assurance that the furniture

and products as ordered will be supplied to the defendant.

 That against the material supplied over the period of time,

the plaintiff had collected Rs. 1,14,75,400/- in following

manner:

[Link]. DATE AMOUNT MODE

i. 10.11.2009 Rs. 5,00,000/- Cheque No. 886368

drawn at SBI Bank

ii. 08.12.2009 Rs. 5,00,000/- Cheque No. 886679

drawn at SBI Bank

iii. 20.01.2010 Rs. 2,73,000/- Cheque No. 051004

drawn at Nainital
Bank

iv. 10.04.2010 Rs. 14,00,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

v. 12.04.2010 Rs. 4,00,000/ In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

vi. 20.05.2010 Rs. 3,00,000/- Cheque No. 1385

drawn at Axis Bank
Ltd.

vii. 09.08..2010 Rs. 7,00,000/- Amount paid

through RTGS

viii. 09.08.2010 Rs. 8,00,000/- Cheque bearing No.

210515 drawn at
Axis Bank.

ix. 07.09.2010 Rs. 7,22,400/- Amount paid

through RTGS

x. 04.03.2010 Rs. 3,00,000/- Cheque No. 224559

 drawn at Axis Bank

xi. 06.04.2011 Rs. 3,00,000/- Cheque No. 224627

drawn at Axis Bank

xii. 13.09.2011 Rs. 5,00,000/- Cheque No. 225200

drawn at Axis Bank

xiii. 02.03.2012 Rs. 8,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xiv. 05.03.2012 Rs. 9,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xv. 08.03.2012 Rs. 9,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xvi. 12.03.2012 Rs. 1,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xvii. 14.03.2012 Rs. 1,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xviii. 17.03.2012 Rs. 9,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xix. 26.03.2012 Rs. 1,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xx. 30.03.2012 Rs. 1,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
Sharma

xxi. 04.04.2012 Rs. 7,20,000/- In cash against due

receipt from RK
 Sharma

Total Rs.
1,14,75,400/-

That the plaintiff had received sum of Rs. 1,14,75,400/- for

supply of furniture and as the advance payment. That the

advance payments were given for the furniture which was to be

supplied by the plaintiff however, the same was never supplied

and therefore the defendant is entitled for refund of money.

L. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that as

revealed by the book of accounts, the plaintiff is not entitled for

any payment from the defendant and on the contrary the

plaintiff is liable to refund an amount of Rs. 23,60,340/- to the

defendant.

M. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

plaintiff had failed to supply the contracted material, for which

huge amount of money was collected from the defendant and its

companies through Cheque, RTGS and cash.

N. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

plaintiff had deliberately not reflected the aforesaid payment of

Rs. 47.8 lakhs received in cash with the sole motive of filing the

present false and frivolous case.

O. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

plaintiff has deliberately not referred to the cash vouchers

which are signed by him. That the said cash vouchers confirms

the payment made in terms of the order placed by the

defendant. That the said cash vouchers are duly accounted for in

the book of accounts of the defendant.

P. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

defendant has never signed or acknowledged any alleged

statement of accounts or reconciliation on 31.03.2012.

Q. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the

signatures appearing on the statement of account does not in

any way acknowledge, accept or confirm any balance, or the

statement of account per se in any manner. That the that there is

no acceptance or acknowledgment of any amount due to the

plaintiff and the signature on the account statement are

simpliciter signatures of the accountant of the defendant

company who did not have any authority for the same. That

there is no cause of action against the defendant for the present

suit.

In view of the aforesaid grounds taken hereinabove and any

other ground(s) which may be taken at the time of hearing of

the Appeal with the leave of this Hon’ble Court, the impugned

Judgment dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional

 District Judge is liable to be set aside, and the Suit filed on behalf

of the Plaintiff is liable to be allowed.

4. That the Appellant has been subjected to grave miscarriage of

justice by virtue of the impugned Judgment dated 03.01.2022

and therefore, he has been left with no other alternative

efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of

the present Appeal.

5. That the Annexures annexed to the present Appeal are the true

copies of their respective originals and no additional

document/pleading other than the trial court record has been

filed

6. That the Appellant has not filed any other similar Petition or

Appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 03.01.2022,

except the present one. That the present petition is being filed

within a period of limitation.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased:

a) To set aside the impugned Judgment dated 03.01.2022 passed

by Dr. Jagminder Singh, Additional District Judge. - 03, South

 West, Dwarka, Delhi in the Suit bearing C.S. No. 515911/2016

titled “Artisan Guild vs. Tirupati Constwell Private Limited”

b) Any other order (s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be
also passed in favour of the Appellant and against the
Respondent.

APPELLANT
THROUGH

DATE: ___.___.2022 (VIJAY KASANA/CHETNA SINGH)

NEW DELHI ADVOCATES
J-35/LEFT, LGF, LAJPAT NAGAR - III,
NEW DELHI – 110024
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M. NO. ____________ OF 2022

IN
R.F.A. NO. _______ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

TIRUPATI CONSTWELL PRIVATE LIMITED ….APPELLANT

VERSUS

ARTISAN’S GUILD ….RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 5 READ WITH SECTION

151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT FOR STAY OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
03.01.2022 PASSED BY DR. JAGMINDER SINGH, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE. - 03, SOUTH WEST, DWARKA, DELHI

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

THE APPLICANT / APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the above-noted appeal is pending before this Hon’ble

Court for adjudication and the contents of the same may kindly

be read as part and parcel of the present application as for the

sake of brevity, the same are not repeated herein.

2. That the above-noted appeal has been preferred by the

appellant against the impugned Judgment dated 03.01.2022

passed by Dr. Jagminder Singh, Additional District Judge. - 03,

 South West, Dwarka, Delhi in the Suit bearing C.S. No.

515911/2016 titled “Artisan Guild vs. Tirupati Constwell Private

Limited”

3. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned order dated

03.01.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge is bad in law,

unsustainable, unwarranted and is, therefore, liable to be set

aside on the grounds set out in the accompanying appeal which

may be read as part and parcel of the present application. That

the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the appellant.

4. That the appellant has a strong prima facie case in his favour

and hopes to succeed in the same and therefore, in case the stay

of impugned judgment is not granted, the appellant shall suffer

irreparable loss and injury without any restitution therefrom.

5. That the present application is being moved bonafide and in

the interests of justice.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:

a) Pass ex-parte ad-interim directions thereby staying the effect of

the impugned Judgment dated 03.01.2022 passed by Dr.

Jagminder Singh, Additional District Judge. - 03, South West,

Dwarka, Delhi in the Suit bearing C.S. No. 515911/2016 titled

“Artisan Guild vs. Tirupati Constwell Private Limited”

c) Any other order (s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be
also passed in favour of the Appellant and against the
Respondent.

APPELLANT
THROUGH

DATE: ___.___.2022 (VIJAY KASANA/CHETNA SINGH)

NEW DELHI ADVOCATES
J-35/LEFT, LGF, LAJPAT NAGAR - III,
NEW DELHI – 110024