JUDGMENT : ROMESH VERMA, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP. dated 13.03.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 56/1 of 2015, titled Puneet Singh Seehra vs. M/S Lokpriya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., dated 25.11.2022 has been affirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 19,90,082/-alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District solan, HP. on 09.06.2015. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and supply of furniture and leather etc. and he is running his business in the name and style of a proprietorship firm known as ‘Coach Classic’ and is having its office at New Delhi. The defendant is engaged in the business of construction of Hotel etc. The Managing Director of the defendant-company, namely Sh. Harpal Singh approached the plaintiff in the year 2010 at its Delhi Office for supply of various goods to his hotel which was under construction and reached an agreement. In pursuance to the demand as made by the defendant, it was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff supplied the ordered goods as per the requirements and time schedule of the defendant and the goods were duly received by the defendant in good condition. 3. It has been averred in the plaint that plaintiff had raised the following invoices to the defendant:- Invoice No.68 dtd 31/3/11 for Rs.159580/- Invoice No.66 dtd 30/3/11 for Rs.210080/- Invoice No.65 dtd 30/3/11 for Rs.252500/- Invoice No.59 dtd 11/3/11 for Rs.181800/- Invoice No.30 dtd 25/11/10 for Rs.343400/- Invoice No.28 dtd 2/11/10 for Rs.363600/- Invoice No.25 dtd 18/9/10 for Rs.161600/- Invoice No.54 dtd 24/2/11 for Rs.525200/- Invoice No.55 dtd 24/2/11 for Rs.63969/- Invoice No.57 dtd 28/2/11 for Rs.43597/13/- Invoice No.49 dtd 7/2/11 for Rs.343400/- Invoice No.36 dtd 17/12/10 for Rs.343400/- Total Rs.29,92,126.13/- 4. The plaintiff sold the furniture to the defendant company for the period of 2010-2011. During the said period, the plaintiff made supply of the furniture, total worth Rs. 2,53,26,507/-. Out  of  this  total  amount  of Rs. The plaintiff sold the furniture to the defendant company for the period of 2010-2011. During the said period, the plaintiff made supply of the furniture, total worth Rs. 2,53,26,507/-. Out  of  this  total  amount  of Rs. 2,53,26,507/- the defendant during the course of business i.e. during the period of 2010-2011 had made total payment of Rs. 2,04,53,513/- to the plaintiff. The same has been duly reflected in the statement of the account of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff as per the understanding with the defendant also gave credit note of Rs. 30,50,702/- to the defendant during the above said period. After credit note to the tune of Rs. 30,50,702/- total recoverable amount, due against the defendant, comes to Rs. 18,22,292/- which has been reflected in the statement of account. Apart from the said mentioned amount, the defendant has also not paid amount of Rs. 1,67,790/- against two invoices. Therefore, total outstanding amount against the defendant is Rs. 18,22,292/-+Rs. 1,67,790/- = Rs. 19,90,082/-. It was further averred that the defendants have failed to pay the above said outstanding amount despite various correspondences and reminders with respect to the payment of the said bills. The plaintiff sent e-mails and reminders for the payment of the outstanding dues but nothing was done by the defendant. Therefore, it was prayed that decree for recovery of Rs. 19,90,082/ may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 24% P.A. 5. The suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendant by filing written statement, in which preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, suit being mischievous, plaintiff not approached the court with clean hands etc. were taken. On merits, it was submitted that entire payment has been made by the defendant and the suit in question has been filed by the plaintiff in order to harass him. It was submitted that the defendant was cheated by the plaintiff and to avoid penal action, and to compensate the defendant, the plaintiff willfully had given the discounts to the defendant including the amount of Rs. 19,90,082/ which the plaintiff is now claiming. It was averred that the plaintiff is claiming that between 2010-2011, he had supplied furniture worth Rs. 2,53,26,507/- without placing on record the purchase orders and the corresponding invoices for the balance amount. 19,90,082/ which the plaintiff is now claiming. It was averred that the plaintiff is claiming that between 2010-2011, he had supplied furniture worth Rs. 2,53,26,507/- without placing on record the purchase orders and the corresponding invoices for the balance amount. In the alleged C forms which were attached by the plaintiff totaling to Rs. 2,47,14,555/-, there is a difference of Rs. 6,11,952/- in the alleged goods supplied and the value of C forms. The facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint even after amendment are wrong and misleading. It was averred that the complete payments have been made to the plaintiff after the discounts given by the plaintiff due to defective goods supplied which has caused monetary irreparable loss to the defendant and also to the reputation of the defendant. The defendant on several occasions complained about the inferior quality of the goods supplied and also that they were not meeting the specifications of the defendant. Moreover, the defendant also suffered huge losses due to the defective furniture and upholstery supplied by the plaintiff and on account of the act and conduct of the plaintiff, an irreparable loss was caused to the defendant as well as his reputation. Therefore, in sum and substance the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit preferred by the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint. 7. The learned trial Court framed issues in the matter on 01.08. 2017, in the following manner: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 19,90,082/- alongwith interest and cost, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD 4. Relief. 8. The learned trial Court directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and after concluding the evidence the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent and decree for recovery of Rs. 19,90,082/ alongwith future simple interest @ 9% per annum from 20.01.2012 onward till payment and cost of the suit from and against the defendant company. 9. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 25.11.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, HP, the defendant preferred an appeal before learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP on 27.02.2023. 19,90,082/ alongwith future simple interest @ 9% per annum from 20.01.2012 onward till payment and cost of the suit from and against the defendant company. 9. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 25.11.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, HP, the defendant preferred an appeal before learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP on 27.02.2023. Vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2025, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant/appellant and affirmed the findings/judgment as passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Still feeling dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant assailing the judgments and decrees as passed by learned Courts below. 11. It is contended by Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees as passed by learned Courts below against the present appellant are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside. 12. He submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case. Therefore, no decree for recovery could have been passed in favour of the plaintiff. He further submits that suit which was filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent has defended the judgments and decrees as passed by learned Courts below and he contended that the Courts below after appreciating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record have rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff which has further been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of the parties the case was finally heard at the admission stage. 15. The precise case of the plaintiff before the courts below was that the defendant had approached the plaintiff for supplying the furniture and leather for newly constructed hotel at Chandigarh. As per the demand made by the defendant, the plaintiff supplied the ordered goods as per the specification and requirements in time and to the satisfaction of the defendant through transporters. The goods which were supplied by the plaintiff were duly received and acknowledged by the defendant. Plaintiff had placed on record the invoices in order to substantiate its case for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. 16. The goods which were supplied by the plaintiff were duly received and acknowledged by the defendant. Plaintiff had placed on record the invoices in order to substantiate its case for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. 16. In order to corroborate its case, the plaintiff entered in the witness box and reiterated the contents as made in the plaint. He submitted that the defendant had approached the plaintiff for supplying the furniture and leather for its newly constructed hotel at Chandigarh and as per the requirements, the products were supplied to the defendant to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of the defendant. While deposing as PW-1, he tendered affidavit Ext.PW1/A. In the said affidavit, the averments as made in the plaint were elaborated and it was stated that the defendant has failed to pay the amount of outstanding bills despite many reminders without any lawful excuse. After voluntary discount on the bills a sum of Rs. 19,90,082/- is still payable as per the audit books of account of plaintiff against the defendant, which he is liable to pay with interest @ 24% per annum on the date of delivery of goods. It has further been submitted that plaintiff sent e-mails and reminders to the defendant for the payment of the outstanding due but despite making various reminders defendant failed to accede to his requests. 17. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestions as made by the defendant that nothing is outstanding against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. He denied that the discount of Rs.25,00,000/- was given and outstanding amount was forgone by him. 18. The defendant could not extract favourable in cross-examination of the PW-1. 19. PW-2 is the statement of Amit Rajput. He stated that he remained Accountant of M/S Coach Classic from January 2010 to February 2012. He had generated the computer bills, which were duly signed by him and those are correct and the prints of the same have also been taken by him. He supported the case of the plaintiff. 20. In the cross-examination, PW-2 refuted that he is deposing falsely. He stated that C-form is always given when the goods are received. He stated that the bills were duly stamped and he can identify the same. He denied that C-form was prepared in an illegal manner. 21. He supported the case of the plaintiff. 20. In the cross-examination, PW-2 refuted that he is deposing falsely. He stated that C-form is always given when the goods are received. He stated that the bills were duly stamped and he can identify the same. He denied that C-form was prepared in an illegal manner. 21. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant examined Sh. Deepak Khetarpal (DW-1) as the sole witness. He submitted that as per his records, he can say that the complete payment against purchase order No.LP0198 dated 24.10.2009 has been made to M/s Coach Classic. The above mentioned purchase order also specifies that the delivery of the specified goods has been made before 20.07.2010. Payment terms in the purchase order clearly specify that 50% of the payment will be given at the time of placing order, 40% at the time of making delivery and balance within 15 days of the delivery. He stated that even after purchase order No.LP0198, several other purchase orders were placed, in the course of business as mentioned in the letter, sent to defendant by the plaintiff so there is no question of dispute pertaining to the purchase order No.LP0198. Defendant made several complaints to the representatives of the plaintiff about the inferior quality of goods supplied. The C-form was issued by the defendant in good faith, after making request to the plaintiff that the furniture and upholstery so supplied were of substandard quality and were also not up to the specification given by the defendant. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in order to harass the defendant by abusing the due process of law. 22. While deposing in cross-examination, he stated that the defendant company is registered under the Companies Act at Delhi. The company has two Directors namely Sh. Harpal Singh and Sh. Achhar Singh. He stated that in the company, he is not holding any post, however, he is a Consultant. He stated that he does not know in what capacity Ashok Kumar is working in the company. He stated that he does not know Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. J.R. Pal. He stated that he never remained at any post including the post of Director with the defendant. He stated that he does not know that the written statement filed by the defendant and duly signed by Sh. Ashok Kumar. He stated that he does not know Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. J.R. Pal. He stated that he never remained at any post including the post of Director with the defendant. He stated that he does not know that the written statement filed by the defendant and duly signed by Sh. Ashok Kumar. He does not know Ashok Kumar nor he could identify his signatures. He admitted that defendant company had taken furniture, which was taken in 2010-11. He admitted that on the basis of order as placed to the plaintiff-company, the goods were supplied to the defendant. He admitted that the supply order which was ade was as per the order Ext.PW1/C and goods whichwere supplied as per the bills Ext.PW1/D1 to Ext.PW1/D12, Ext.PW1/Z1 to Ext.PW1/Z 24, Ext.P21 to Ext.P25 and Ext. PW-1/Z32, which are correct. He admitted that total amount came to Rs.2,53,26,507/- and out of that Rs.2,04,53,513/- were paid and thereafter Rs.48,72,994/- remained as balance to be paid and out of that a rebate of Rs.30,50,702/- was given to the defendant. He admitted that goods were supplied to the company owned by the defendant as per purchase order Ext.PW1/C and the bills/ invoices Ext.PW1/ D1 to Ext.PW1/D12, Ext.PW1/Z1 to Ext.PW1/Z24 and Ex.PW1/Z25 to Ext.PW1/Z32. 23. He admitted that the defendant company had pending liability of Rs.19,90,082/-towards the plaintiff. C-forms Ext.PX1 to Ext.PX4 were issued by the defendant company. He denied that any amount is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. He admitted that he does not have any record to substantiate that the entire payment has been made by the defendant to the plaintiff. 24. The admission on the part of the defendant clinches the controversy in question. The admission on the part of DW-1, when it is read in conjunction with the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 proves the case of the plaintiff that defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.19,90,082/-to the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case is incorrect and it is dehors the record. The plaintiff has been able to establish by leading oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record that he is entitled for a decree of recovery amounting to Rs.19,90,082/- and the said claim as put forth by the plaintiff, could not be refuted by the defendant. The plaintiff has been able to establish by leading oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record that he is entitled for a decree of recovery amounting to Rs.19,90,082/- and the said claim as put forth by the plaintiff, could not be refuted by the defendant. In the view of the admission as made by the defendant, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and have rightly passed a decree of Rs.19,90,082/-. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the suit filed by the present plaintiff/ respondent was barred by limitation, therefore, no relief of any kind could be granted in the present proceedings. He submitted that benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted to the present respondent. The learned District Judge while appreciating the said point in issue in Para 14 of the judgment, has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was directed by the Delhi Court on 2nd of February 2015 to file suit before Competent Court within 40 working days. The plaintiff again approached the Delhi Court seeking extension of time to comply with the order dated 02.02.2015 and the Court at Delhi allowed the request of the plaintiff and vide its order dated 18.04.2015 granted additional 10 days’ time to do the needful, thereafter, the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 27.04.2015. 26. Therefore, the submission and contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit is not within the period of limitation does not hold good and it can safely be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation and the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant needs to be rejected. 27. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision has held that scope of interference while dealing with the case under Section 100 of CPC is limited. The scope of interference will be available to a party only in those cases where the findings as rendered are perverse and based on no evidence. 29. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navaneethammal vs. Arjuna Chetty AIR 1996 SC 3521 , wherein it has been held as under: “10. The scope of interference will be available to a party only in those cases where the findings as rendered are perverse and based on no evidence. 29. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navaneethammal vs. Arjuna Chetty AIR 1996 SC 3521 , wherein it has been held as under: “10. This Court, time without number, pointed out that interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below by the High Court under Section 100CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to reappreciating the evidence just to replace the findings for the lower courts. 20. In our considered view the lower Appellate Court has fairly appreciated the evidence in the above background and has reached the conclusion that the suit was not barred by Limitation. Even assuming that another view is possible on a re-appreciation of the same evidence, that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the First Appellate Court was based on no material.” 30. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others (1997) 5 SCC 438 , has held as under: “10. We would only add that (a) it is the duty cast upon the High Court to formalate the substantial question of law involved in the case even at the initial stage; and (b) that in (exceptional) cases, at a later point of time, when the Court exercises its jurisdiction under the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 C.P.C in formulating the substantial question of law, the opposite party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair or proper opportunity to meet the point. Proceeding to hear the appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal is illegal and is an abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court; and even after the formulation of the substantial question of law, if a fair or proper opportunity is not afforded to the opposite side, it will amount to denial of natural justice. The above parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC should always be borne in mind. The above parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC should always be borne in mind. We are sorry to state that the above aspects are seldom borne in mind in many cases and second appeals are entertained and/or disposed of, without conforming to the above discipline. 11. The guidelines to determine as to what is a "substantial question of law" within the meaning of Section 100 CPC, have been laid down by this Court in a Constitution Bench decision in Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.2 There is also a later decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of Indias. It is unnecessary to deal at length with that aspect any further.” 31. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, AIR 1999 SC 2213 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. It is not within the domain of the High court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate Court. It is true that the lower appellate Court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court, in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial Court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it iss found that the appellate Court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 32. There is no question of law much less the substantial question of law, therefore, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the concurrent findings of the facts as returned by the courts below are legal, valid and sustainable and do not call for any interference. This appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be rejected and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed off.