1. This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court no.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case no.12/2022 (NCV No.53/2021) ‘M/s. Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.’ may kindly be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed.

Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant are that the respondent-plaintiff is a private limited company, having its registered office at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and the factory premises are situated at Pipaliya Kala, District Pali, Rajasthan. The respondent-plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and import-export of aluminum, conductors and steel reinforcement.

2.1. The appellant-defendant having registered office in Hyderabad and the respondent-plaintiff claimed to have supplied the material goods to the appellant-defendant and prepared various bill invoices i.e. amount totalling Rs.37,64,383/-, and Rs.6,950 towards previous due payment, which was not duly paid by the appellant-defendant, even after giving notice to this effect by the respondent-plaintiff.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for money recovery with interest of 12% p.a., in total Rs.44,39,644/- against the appellant-defendant before the Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur (Civil Main Suit No. 12/2022). During the suit proceedings, the respondent-plaintiff without giving any evidence, filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC averring that the documents on the basis of which the suit in question was filed, the same were admitted in writing by the appellant-defendant, and thus, on that basis the suit in question deserves to be decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The appellant-defendant filed reply to the said application and though admitted the documents of the respondent-plaintiff, but raised an objection regarding jurisdiction, as well as claim of interest @ 12% p.a.

3. The learned Court below framed four issues and after considering all the aspects of the case passed the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023 as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and directed the appellant-defendant to pay to the respondent-plaintiff an amount of Rs. 44,39,644/- in total.

4. Thus, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.08.2023, the appellant-defendant preferred the present appeal claiming the aforequoted relief.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the appellant-defendant only admitted the invoices and raised the objection in respect of jurisdiction of the learned Court below to adjudicate the matter in question, and therefore, the learned Court below has committed jurisdictional error in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on the basis of application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below decided the issue nos.1 & 2 in favour of the respodent- plaintiff only on the basis that the appellant-defendant admitted the invoices, but the appellant-defendant did not fully admit the invoices, and took specific objection that the invoices were not prepared properly (i.e. not tallying with the E-way Bill). It was also submitted that the learned Court below did not even examine the matter and decided issues nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the respondent- plaintiff, which resulted into complete miscarriage of justice.

5.2. It was further submitted that the learned Court below in issue no.3 granted total 12% p.a. interest while observing that it is the market trend, but there is nothing on record which could show the market rate so as to warrant award of interest @ 12% p.a., and therefore, the issue no.3 is also not decided properly. It was also submitted that the appellant-defendant’s office is in Hyderabad and goods were supplied at Hyderabad as well, but the learned Court below, while deciding issue no.4 did not consider the ground regarding jurisdiction and passed the impugned judgment, which is not justified in law.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent- plaintiff opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-defendant, while submitting that the appellant- defendant had admitted all the documents, including invoices, e- way bill etc., and in such circumstances, no further determination was required to be made by the learned Court below, because the due amount had been unconditionally admitted by the appellant- defendant, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment in accordance with Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

7.1. It was further submitted that the goods have been admittedly supplied to the appellant-defendant at its office i.e. plot no.23, Shriji Colony, Alok Lane, Post Dhoinda, District Rajsamand and on their behalf, the goods had been delivered to Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. at its Udaipur and Rajsamand Office. It was also submitted that the respondent-plaintiff is manufacturing the said goods at its factory which situated at Pipalia Kala, District Pali, and all the aforesaid three offices are registered with Rajasthan GST Department, and therefore, the learned Court below rightly decided the issue pertaining to jurisdiction.

7.2. It was further submitted that the entire cause of action arose in Rajasthan only, though the appellant-defendant’s registered office is at Hyderabad. It was also submitted that as per Section 20 CPC, since the whole cause of action arose in the State of Rajasthan, therefore, then the learned Court below was having jurisdiction to decide the controversy in question, which has been rightly done vide the impugned judgment.

7.3. It was thus submitted that the respondent-plaintiff is lawfully entitled to receive the complete due amount, which is clearly admitted by the appellant-defendant, and recorded in the impugned judgment.

7.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

"(a) Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120;

(b) Patel Roadways Ltd.,Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 270;

(c) AK Hab Europe Bv Vs. Whitefields International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (CS (OS) No. 1724/2009, decided on 25.04.2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi);

(d) Easun Reyrolle Ltd. Vs. Sav Engineers (CM (M) No. 923/2016, decided on 27.03.2017 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi);

(e) M/s Empee Distilleries Ltd. Vs. M/s S.S. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (RFA No. 534/2004, decided on 25.07.2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi); and

(f) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. New Moga Transport Co. & Ors. (Civil Revision No. 4602 of 2000, decided on 17.02.2003 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana)."

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

9. This Court observes that the respondent-plaintiff supplied the goods to the appellant-defendant and prepared various bill invoices, but the payment towards the same was not made by the appellant-defendant. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for money recovery with interest of 12% p.a., in total Rs.44,39,644/-, against the appellant-defendant before the learned Commercial Court. During the trial, the respondent- plaintiff application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC with an averment that the documents on the basis of which the suit in question was filed, the same were admitted in writing by the appellant-defendant, and thus, on that basis the suit in question deserves to be decreed in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. The appellant-defendant filed reply to the said application and though admitted the documents of the respondent-plaintiff, but raised an objection regarding jurisdiction, as well as claim of interest @ 12% p.a. The learned Court below after considering all the aspects of the case passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023.

10. This Court further observes that the learned Court below framed the following four issues for adjudication of the case before it :

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

11. This Court also observes that the respondent-plaintiff through its factory situated in District Pali, Rajasthan supplied the goods to the Executive Engineer (DDUGJY), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam as instructed by the appellant-defendant and prepared invoices and e-bills accordingly. The details of the said invoices and e-bills are reproduced as hereunder:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

11.1. The aforesaid invoices and e-bills were admitted by the appellant-defendant in para 4 of reply before learned Court below and the same was recorded by the learned Court below. This Court further observes that the appellant-defendant admitted the invoices and e-bills at the stage of Order 11 Rule 4 CPC. Therefore, the learned Court below rightly decided the issue nos. 1 & 2.

12. This Court further observes that once the invoices and e-bills were admitted by the appellant-defendant, the learned Court below, was justified in deciding issue no.3, awarding interest @ 12% p.a. on the due amount, in accordance with the market rate, and such determination, in the given circumstances, does not warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal.

13. This Court also observes that the learned Court below decided the jurisdictional issue vide issue no.4, observing that the respondent-plaintiff was having its factory premises situated in the Pali District and supply of goods was made through the said factory, and the appellant-defendant did not raise any objection to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff was not having the factory in Pali District. This Court further observes that the office order issued by the appellant-defendant in the name of M/s Prem Cable Pvt. Ltd., Pipalayi Kala, District Pali, and the invoices and e-way bills have also mentioned the goods being supplied from the factory in Pali District. Thus, only on the basis that the appellant- defendant was having its registered office at Hyderabad, the same could not have prevented the learned Court below from exercising its jurisdiction over the matter in question, and therefore, the learned Court below has rightly decided the issue no.4 also in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

14. In light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant-defendant in the present appeal.

15. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.