JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - The plaintiff, M/s Mahou India Private Limited, a company formerly Arian Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of beer, has filed present suit under Order XXXVII CPC against defendant M/s Aradhna Wines, the sole proprietor concern engaged in business of selling beer from outlets situated at several locations in Himachal Pradesh, to recover a sum of Rs. 3,09,59,430/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The suit has been filed through Director of plaintiff company by placing on record certified true copy of resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors of plaintiff company held on 23.9.2016. 3. As per plaint, plaintiff company had been supplying beer products after procuring the same from brewery at the outlet of defendant situated in Himachal Pradesh in response to permits for import of beer products duly procured by defendant from the Excise Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh and submitted to the plaintiff company. 4. Against the supply of beer products, defendant had been making payments, either in full or in part, without referring the invoices against which the payment was made and the plaintiff company had been maintaining running account of transactions with defendant for the supplies made to it and had been crediting the payments received against the pending invoices on the basis of first in-first out principle and crediting the first against the invoices raised earlier in time and thereafter adjusting the remaining amount towards the next invoice of the next date. The defendant was making irregular payments of lump sum amount which were being accepted by the plaintiff and despite having outstanding amount against the defendant, the plaintiff had been supplying the beer products to defendant as it was a regular customer of plaintiff. 5. In the month of June, 2016, an amount of Rs. 3,09,59,430/- became outstanding towards defendant to be paid to the plaintiff for supply of various items including transportation charges etc. In response to various reminders of plaintiff, through telephonic as well as in person conversations, defendant had issued five cheques for Rs. 50 lacs as part payment of its total liability. 3,09,59,430/- became outstanding towards defendant to be paid to the plaintiff for supply of various items including transportation charges etc. In response to various reminders of plaintiff, through telephonic as well as in person conversations, defendant had issued five cheques for Rs. 50 lacs as part payment of its total liability. However, cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds on several occasions, which resulted into issuance of legal notice dated 22.4.2016 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 but defendant neither responded to the same nor made any payment. 6. It is averred in plaint that despite acknowledging its liability to pay the amount of Rs. 3,09,59,430/-, defendant had not shown willingness to pay the said amount which amounted to refusal to make the payment without any justifiable or lawful reason. Whereupon after issuing legal notice, plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for recovery. 7. Notice issued to defendant through Process Serving Agency was received back with endorsement that defendant concern was closed and there was lock on the gate of firm and proprietor of the said concern Mr. Anil Dogra was residing somewhere else. Dasti notices issued to defendant were also received back with report that Mr. Anil Dogra, owner of the defendant company, was not residing in his house since long and his house as well as office had been sealed and his whereabouts were not known. Notices issued through registered AD were not received back. Therefore, plaintiff was permitted to serve defendant by way of publication/advertisement in two newspapers as well as by way of affixation and accordingly, service by way of affixation was effected on 29.8.2017 and publication in newspapers was made on 29.8.2017 in the Divya Himachal and 31.8.2017 in The Tribune. Despite that, none appeared for the defendant. However, one more notice was issued to the defendant on the address mentioned in plaint as well as another address of defendant procured by plaintiff. Thereafter, again there was no representation on behalf of the defendant on 4.10.2017 the date fixed for hearing. However, on perusal of record, it transpired that service upon the defendant was effected through affixation and publication, but copy of plaint and annexures thereto were not sent for affixation as required under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) CPC. Therefore, defendant was again served through affixation by pasting notice along-with plaint and its documents on both addresses of defendant for 7.12.2017. However, on perusal of record, it transpired that service upon the defendant was effected through affixation and publication, but copy of plaint and annexures thereto were not sent for affixation as required under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) CPC. Therefore, defendant was again served through affixation by pasting notice along-with plaint and its documents on both addresses of defendant for 7.12.2017. In aforesaid circumstances, the defendant was proceeded exparte. 8. Plaintiff, along with plaint, had filed photocopies of documents relied upon to substantiate its pleadings. Therefore, the plaintiff was directed to produce original documents, which were filed by plaintiff in Registry of this Court and are part of record. 9. Present suit has been filed under Order XXXVII CPC. This order applies to the following classes of suits:- (a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes; (b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, arising- (i) on a written contract; or (ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or (iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only. (iv) suit for recovery of receivable instituted by any assignee of a receivable." 10. Present case has been filed for recovery of money payable by the defendant arising on a written contract in the shape of invoices read with import permits and Bill of Exchange, i.e. cheques worth Rs. 50 lac. 11. In plaint, in compliance of provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2 CPC, it has been specifically stated that suit has been filed under Order XXXVII and the plaintiff has not claimed any relief which does not fall within ambit of this Rule and in the cause title also, it is specifically mentioned that suit is under Order XXXVII of CPC and resultantly, summons of the suit were also issued as provided in form IV in Appendix B. Defendant has failed to put in appearance despite repeated efforts which were made for procuring the presence of defendant by serving through various modes but it has failed to put in appearance. 12. 12. To substantiate the claim in plaint, plaintiff has produced excise pass issued to the defendant for transporting beer products since 8.8.2014 to 10.2.2015 issued in response to order placed by the defendant by submitting photocopies of import permits issued by Excise and Taxation Department Government of H.P. during this period. Photocopies of import permits along with bility and GRs issued for transportation have also been placed on record with receipts. The details containing invoice no., date, amount etc. which are related to the defendant has also been placed on record. Original invoices books containing carbon copy of invoices with respect to goods supplied against the order placed by defendant at various times have been placed on record. Plaintiff has also placed on record original cheques issued by Mr. Anil Dogra, sole proprietor of the defendant concern bearing Nos. 266439, 266440, 266441, 266442 and 266443 dated 31.12.2016 for Rs. 10 lacs each. Information given by bankers of plaintiff i.e. ICICI Bank with regard to dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds has also been placed on record in original. Copy of legal notice dated 22.4.2016 along with receipt of courier company has been placed on record. Print of ledger record of running account of defendant maintained by the plaintiff company showing the receipt and outstanding amount has also been placed on record. 13. The said ledger account has been generated from the computer of plaintiff and a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has also been placed on record stating therein that ledger account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff is in electronic form on the computer system of plaintiff and has been down loaded from computer system of plaintiff and it is true and accurate record of copy maintained on the computer system and copies of ledger account placed on record are true hard copies of electronic record, which are identical to the record maintained by the plaintiff. 14. Plaintiff has claimed recovery of Rs. 3,09,59,430/- in total with further averment that for making part payment thereof, defendant had also issued five cheques worth Rs. 10,00,000/- each, total amounting to Rs. 50 lacs, which were dishonoured by the Bank for insufficiency of funds. A summary suit based upon "Bill of Exchange" is maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC as provided in its Rule 1(2). 3,09,59,430/- in total with further averment that for making part payment thereof, defendant had also issued five cheques worth Rs. 10,00,000/- each, total amounting to Rs. 50 lacs, which were dishonoured by the Bank for insufficiency of funds. A summary suit based upon "Bill of Exchange" is maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC as provided in its Rule 1(2). Cheque is a special kind of "Bill of Exchange" as defined under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (NI Act). Therefore, summary suit for recovery of cheque amount is maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC. Accordingly, plaintiff''s claim for Rs. 50 lacs against the cheques is maintainable. However, the amount of these dishonoured cheques i.e. Rs. 50 lacs is a part of total outstanding amount of Rs. 3,09,59,430/- sought to be recovered in the suit and therefore, in case plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire amount, it would not be necessary to pass a separate decree for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs, the amount contained in cheques, which were issued by the defendant as part payment towards outstanding amount. 15. Besides, resting its claim of Rs. 50 lacs on the basis of cheques, plaintiff has also claimed his suit based on a written contract with submission that import permits, supply of goods in response thereto through respective invoices constitutes a complete written contract between the parties, as invoices contain the name of importer (purchaser), exporter(seller), description of goods with quantity, along with its rates and price thereof along with tax applicable and levied thereon and also other terms and conditions. 16. Reliance has also been placed on judgments passed by Delhi High Court in Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bpl Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd 111(2004)DLT 736; 2004(74) DRJ 266 and M/s Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Good Morning India Media Pvt. Ltd in CM(M) No. 369 of 2017 and CM Nos. 13049-50/2017 . 17. I am in agreement with the plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff and also with the findings returned on relevant issue in aforesaid judgments cited in support thereof. 18. Import permits placed on record, on Form L-34 issued by the Excise and Taxation Department, Government of H.P. contains the details of licence number, Firm''s name, Licensee''s name and address of not only the importer (consignee) but also of the exporter (consignor) along with complete description of goods i.e. beer therein. 18. Import permits placed on record, on Form L-34 issued by the Excise and Taxation Department, Government of H.P. contains the details of licence number, Firm''s name, Licensee''s name and address of not only the importer (consignee) but also of the exporter (consignor) along with complete description of goods i.e. beer therein. The said import permits were submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff for supply of goods and vide corresponding invoices placed on record, the goods prescribed in the export permits were supplied by plaintiff to the defendant and invoice also contains the name of importer(consignee), exporter(consignor), description of goods with complete identity of seller, purchaser, quantity, rates and price of goods supplied. Besides aforesaid details the invoices also contain the number of truck and GRs along with date regarding the transportation of goods so supplied to the defendant. Corresponding GRs have also been placed on record substantiating the supply and transportation of goods by plaintiff in response to order placed by defendant through import permits. Import permits, invoices, GRs and other documents placed on record contain the name of plaintiff as exporter (consignor) and description of defendant as importer(consignee). Export permit, issued by Excise and Taxation Department, can be in favour of a licensee only as the liquor is a controlled business which is permissible under restrictions imposed under license to be issued/granted by the Government and it is only the licensee who is entitled to apply for issuance of import permit according to his licence and in the present case, defendant is a licensee and import permits, placed on record, have also been issued in its favour permitting to import the beer. The said import permit when was placed before the plaintiff for supplying/transporting the liquor/beer permitted to be imported by defendant, is an offer made by the defendant which stands accepted by the plaintiff by supplying the goods as per requisition of defendant and the invoices issued in furtherance of said offer are completing the written contract between the parties. Contract is not necessary to be completed in one document only, it can be completed in more than one separate documents prepared in continuity establishing offer and acceptance thereof wherein one may be offer and another may be acceptance. Contract is not necessary to be completed in one document only, it can be completed in more than one separate documents prepared in continuity establishing offer and acceptance thereof wherein one may be offer and another may be acceptance. In the present case, offer has not only been accepted but the contract has also been acted upon between the parties, as the goods were supplied as per demand of defendant and by making part payments against thereof, defendant has also acknowledged the completion of contract. The payments made by defendant have been reflected in the ledger account/running account of defendant maintained by the plaintiff, copies whereof, establishing the payments made by defendant and outstanding amount yet to be paid by the defendant, are on record. 19. Even if invoices are to be considered as a counter offer by plaintiff, even then the contract is complete as the said offer stands accepted by the defendant by accepting the goods supplied to him through these invoices and by making part payment against the said supply. Invoices may not have been signed by defendant, but the same have been signed by the authorized signatory of plaintiff and it is not necessary for a valid contract that it must be signed by both the parties. A contract signed by one party is also a valid contact particularly when there is ample evidence on record that same was accepted and acted upon by the concerned party/parties. Outstanding amount Rs. 3,09,59,430/- has been duly established from ledger account of plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 3,09,59,430/- as claimed. 20. Amount involved in present case pertains to business transaction and definitely, by withholding the payment due to plaintiff which may have been utilized by plaintiff in the business of plaintiff for non-availability of funds to be poured in the business activities so as to grow further. Therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on the amount to be recovered from the defendant. 21. In view of aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and accordingly, a decree for recovery of Rs. 3,09,59,430/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of liability wherefrom the said amount becomes due till the final realization of the entire amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly. 3,09,59,430/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of liability wherefrom the said amount becomes due till the final realization of the entire amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly. Suit stands decreed accordingly. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.