Dismissed¶36

Nayab Raza (Proprietor of Nizami Garment) v. Nitish Jain (Proprietor of Veer Fabtex)

Delhi HC16 Dec 2025RFA(COMM)/350/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation refused - 140 days; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 object; Order XII Rule 6 CPC; Section 151 CPC recall application not bona fide; admission of liability; part-decree; appellant's ledger admitting Rs.2,49,905/-; garments/fabric supplied on credit basis against invoices; Rs.4,70,026/- claimed outstanding; legal notice 18.07.2023; mediation failed; alleged unaccounted cash payment of Rs.2 lakhs left to suit adjudication; appeal dismissed on limitation and merits; CM APPL. 36506/2025 dismissed; CM APPL. 36505/2025 infructuous; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The appellant did not make out any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal; hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. ¶26

Nayab Raza (Proprietor of Nizami Garment) Vs Nitish Jain (Proprietor of Veer Fabtex) — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 140 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal admitted notwithstanding limitation. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The appellant did not make out any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal; hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's prior application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking recall of the Impugned Order was not one of review, its maintainability before the learned Trial Court was doubted, and it appeared not to have been filed bona fidely but only to gain time.

¶20

Key takeaways

As the Impugned Order arises from a commercial dispute, condoning the delay on such pretentious grounds would defeat the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.ratio¶21
Whether the said amount has been paid in cash or not is a matter of dispute which shall be adjudicated in the Suit.ratio¶31
So long as the appellant had admitted the remaining amount as due and payable to the respondent, the part-decree was rightly passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent for the said amount; there is no infirmity in the Impugned Order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Navin Chawla & Madhu Jain, JJ.), RFA(COMM) 350/2025, decided 16.12.2025: Regular first appeal against the Order and Decree dated 27.02.2024 of the District Judge (Commercial Court-04), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, partly decreeing CS (COMM) No. 500/2023 (Nitish Jain, Prop. of Veer Fabtex v. Nayab Raza, Prop. of Nizami Garments) under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for Rs.2,49,905/-, the appellant's own ledger admitting that outstanding. The appeal, filed with a delay of 140 days, was dismissed on the ground of limitation alone: the grounds of financial loss/starvation and illiteracy were found insufficient, the appellant's earlier application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the Impugned Order (filed 24.09.2024, withdrawn 14.05.2025) was doubted as maintainable and viewed as not bona fide, filed only to gain time, and condonation was held to defeat the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. On merits, the appellant's contention that the respondent intentionally concealed receipt of Rs.2 lakhs in cash did not invalidate the part-decree: whether the amount was paid in cash is a matter of dispute to be adjudicated in the Suit, while the appellant stood admitted to the remaining amount as due and payable; no infirmity was found in the Impugned Order. Appeal dismissed on delay and merits; CM APPL. 36506/2025 dismissed; CM APPL. 36505/2025 disposed of as infructuous; no order as to costs.

¶1

$~6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 16.12.2025

¶4

RFA(COMM) 350/2025 & CM APPLs. 36505-06/2025 NAYAB RAZA (PROPRIETOR OF NIZAMI GARMENT)

¶5

.....Appellant Through: Mr.Vijay Datt Gahtori, Ms.Vidya Bisht, Mr. Rishabh Rai, Mr.Shivam Gautam, Mr.Nitesh Kumar, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

NITISH JAIN (PROPRIETOR OF VEER FABTEX)

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr.Ram Prakash Soni and Mr.Harish Kumar, Advs.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶11

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This appeal has been filed, challenging the Order and Decree dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-04), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in CS (COMM) No. 500/2023, titled Nitish Jain (Prop. of Veer Fabtex) v. Nayab Raza (Prof. of Nizami Garments), partly decreeing the Suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for a sum of Rs.2,49,905/- in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

¶13

At the outset, we would note that the present appeal has been

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 350/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 9.12.2025 19:11:00

¶17

filed with a delay of 140 days. The grounds urged for seeking condonation of delay are as under:

¶18

“2. That the appellant could not preferred the appeal within the period of limitation as the appellant was suffering from heavy financial loss as such he was under the verge of starvation which disabled the appellant to institute the appeal within period of limitation. The appellant is also illiterate and is unable to access the knowledge of law.

¶19

3. That the appellant prior to this appeal has also instituted the application under section 151 Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the ld. Suit Court after the filing of application under section 151 Code of Civil Procedure seeking recalling of the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the ld. Trial Court.”

¶20

The application which forms the basis for seeking the condonation of delay, was filed under Section 151 of the CPC by the appellant on 24.09.2024 seeking recall of the Impugned Order. The same was then withdrawn by the appellant on 14.05.2025. We doubt as to how the said application even otherwise was maintainable before the learned Trial Court, the same not being one of review but under Section 151 of the CPC. It appears that the said application was not filed bona fidely but to only gain time.

¶21

Even otherwise, the Impugned Order arises from a commercial dispute and therefore, even if we condone the delay on such pretentious grounds, it will defeat the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶22

We, therefore, find that the appellant has not been able to make

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 350/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 9.12.2025 19:11:00

¶26

out any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.

¶27

We have, however, also considered the merits of the appeal.

¶28

In the present case, the respondent had filed the above Suit claiming therein that he had supplied garments/fabric to the appellant on credit basis against invoices. The appellant had made only part payment against the same, leading to an amount of Rs.4,70,026/remaining outstanding against the appellant. The respondent also issued a legal notice dated 18.07.2023 to the appellant and as the mediation failed, filed the above Suit for recovery of the said amount. 8. In the Written Statement filed by the appellant, the appellant’s only defence was that he has paid Rs.2 lakhs in cash to the respondent which has not been accounted for by the respondent. The ledger filed by the appellant itself showed an outstanding of Rs.2,49,905/- to the respondent. Based on the said pleading, the learned Trial Court in its Impugned Order held that as there is no dispute for remaining claimed amount of Rs.2,49,905/-, the Decree for the said amount deserves to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the respondent had intentionally concealed the fact of receiving of Rs.2 lakhs in cash, a Decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC could not have been passed.

¶30

We do not find any merit in the said submission.

¶31

Whether the said amount has been paid in cash or not, is a matter of dispute which shall be adjudicated in the Suit. However, as

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 350/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 9.12.2025 19:11:00

¶35

long as the appellant had admitted the remaining amount as due and payable to the respondent, a part-decree has rightly been passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent for the said amount. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Impugned Order.

¶36