A. K. Sikri ( 1 ) THE plaintiff which is an English company incorporated in England has filed the suit for recovery of pounds 76. 800/- against the defendants. The claim is based on the supply of goods by the plaintiff to the defendants. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants placed various orders with the plaintiff for implants on 1/04/1996, April 24, 199 6/05/1996, 28/05/199 6/06/1996 and on 21/06/1996 and the plaintiff supplied the goods in respect thereof to the defendants vide the following invoices: ( 2 ) IT is further alleged that inspite of having. ; taken delivery of the aforesaid goods by. the defendants, the defendants failed to make the payment within the credit period of 180 days. It is stated that on repeated demand of the plaintiff, the defendants vide their fax dated 6/11/1996 to the plaintiff _ regretted the delay in the payment and promised to start, remittance from January, 1997. It is stated that in reply to the defendants fax letter dated 6/11/1996 the plaintiff vide its fax letter dated 8/11/1996 wrote to the defendants to either make the payment or send back the goods latest by February, 1997. It may be pertinent to point out that even though the plaintiff was not obliged to take back the goods the plaintiff gave the defendants the option to return the goods as a gesture of goodwill and in order the settle the dues. It is further stated that as the plaintiff did not receive any reply to its fax letter dated 8/11/1996 the plaintiff vide its fax letter dated 26/11/1996 once again asked the defendants to make the payment of the outstanding amount. The defendants vide their fax letter dated 13/06/1997 wrote to the plaintiff that they would be returning back unsold material and would also start making payment from October, 1997 but still neither any goods were returned or any payment was made. In reply to the defendants letter the plaintiff once again vide its letter dated 15/07/1997 wrote to the defendants to make urgent arrangements to return the unsold goods and to make the balance payment immediately but this letter of the plaintiff also went unreplied by the defendants. As the defendants failed to either return the goods or make any payment,. the plaintiff was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 23/07/1997 through. As the defendants failed to either return the goods or make any payment,. the plaintiff was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 23/07/1997 through. its advocate on the defendants wherein once again the defendants were asked to either return back the goods supplied or pay up a sum pounds 67. 900/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum,but still neither any payment was made by the defendants nor any goods were returned by them. The plaintiff has also claimed interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum. Interest calculated from due date till 31/12/1997 is 8,899 pounds and in this manner the total amount claimed is 76,800/- pounds. ( 3 ) THE defendants could not be served by ordinary process despite various efforts made by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed application under Order V Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure for substituted service. Having regard to the report of the process server on the process earlier this application was allowed and it was directed that the defendants be served by publication in the Statesmen as well as by affixation on their last known address and at the notice Board of the court. ( 4 ) THE defendants were duly served by aforesaid means. However, none appeared on behalf of the defendants. By order dated 24/04/2000 the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. The plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavit. ( 5 ) TWO affidavits dated 27/09/2000 and 9/04/2001 are filed both of Sh. Pankaj Sachdeva who is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff company. He has proved on record Power of Attorney dated 11/12/1997 as per which the plaintiff company has authorised him to institute the present suit. This Power of Attorney is Ex. PW-1/1. Various orders, particulars of which are given above, are proved as Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/9. The invoices raised in respect of aforesaid orders are Ex. PW-1/10 to ex. PW-1/23. The correspondence exchanged between the parties, reference to which has already been made above, are proved as Ex. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/27. By means of second affidavit 9/04/2001 the original power of Attorney is filed as Annexure-A. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid unrebutted, uncontested and unchallenged testimony proves the case of the plaintiff to the hilt. It stands proved that the defendants had placed various orders. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/27. By means of second affidavit 9/04/2001 the original power of Attorney is filed as Annexure-A. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid unrebutted, uncontested and unchallenged testimony proves the case of the plaintiff to the hilt. It stands proved that the defendants had placed various orders. , for supply of material/goods by the plaintiff to the defendants which was duly supplied by the plaintiff and received by the defendants. The correspondence, in particular letters of defendants themselves, bear testimony to the effect that the defendants have not only received these goods but sold some of the goods. They had also regretted the delay in making the payment and assured time and again to make the payment. They had even repeated that they would return the unsold goods and make the payments for the goods sold by them. Even the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. However, neither any payment has been made nor unsold goods returned by the defendants to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff, therefore, stands proved by the admissions of defendants themselves. ( 7 ) THE defendants are, therefore, liable to make the payment of 67,900. 80 pounds to the plaintiff which is the value of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. The transaction in question being commercial one, having regard to the rate of interest prevailing at the relevant time i. e. in the year 1996, the interest claimed at the rate of 14 per cent per annum is also reasonable. However, the plaintiff has not shown any clause relating to payment of interest in case the payment is not made after 120 days, which was the period of credit agreed to between the parties. Therefore, the interest would be payable only from the date of payment if it was demanded; otherwise from the date of filing of the suit. Correspondence produced by the plaintiff does not show any interest having been demanded by the plaintiff from the defendants on overdue payment. Therefore, the interest would be payable only from the date of institution of the suit 4 interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum is granted on pounds 76,800/- from the date of institution of the suit till the decree. Therefore, the interest would be payable only from the date of institution of the suit 4 interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum is granted on pounds 76,800/- from the date of institution of the suit till the decree. From the date of decree, interest admissible would be at the rate of 11 per cent per annum having regard to the rate of interest payable these days. ( 8 ) THERE shall be no order as to cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Suit stands disposed of.