Synopsis

The appellant (defendant in the suit) appealed against a commercial court decree that granted the respondent/plaintiff recovery of Rs. 1,43,030/-. The respondent had supplied electronic goods to the appellant’s firm. The trial court accepted that the appellant had paid Rs. 1,80,000/- (through the respondent’s driver) but rejected proof of another payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (allegedly made to the respondent’s nephew, Jasvinder Singh @ Lucky), on the ground that the original account register was not produced and no affidavit deposed to the signature. The High Court examined the cross-examination record and found that the original register was indeed produced and shown to the witness. The exhibit clearly showed Lucky’s signature acknowledging receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The High Court held the trial court’s finding perverse, set aside the decree, and dismissed the suit, noting also that the respondent had stopped appearing in the appeal.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Date of Judgment: 2nd April 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:2780-DB

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 (appeals from original decrees), Order XLI Rule 31 (duty of appellate court)

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13 (appeals from commercial courts)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 3 (proof of facts), 45 (opinion of expert), 58 (admission by party)

Key legal principles applied

• Appellate court’s power to reappreciate evidence: In a first appeal, the High Court can re‑evaluate the evidence on record, especially when the trial court’s finding is based on a misreading or omission of material evidence.

• Proof of pa

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.