Delhi District Court
M/S S/R. Interiors & Exteriors vs Anurag Pahuja on 26 August, 2015
1
In the Court of Anubhav Jain, Civil Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi.
Suit No. 566/14
Unique ID No. 02401C0831362008
1.M/s S/R. Interiors & Exteriors, Through its power of attorney:
Shri. Lalit Jonwal, S/o Shri G.R. Jonwal, A-1/184, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi-110085
2. Smt. Raj Kumari, W/o Shri Lalit Jonwal, Partner M/s S.R. Interiors & Exteriors, R/o B-2/ 118, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi-110085
3. Smt. Aarti, W/o Late Shri Manoj, Partner, M/s S.R. Interiors & Exteriors, R/o M-353, Ragubir Nagar, Delhi ................ Plaintiffs Suit No. 566/114 S.R. Interiors & Exteriors Vs. Anurag Pahuja 2 Versus Shri Anurag Pahuja, D-74, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi Also At:
B-37, Swami Nagar, Near Chirag Delhi, New Delhi .............. Defendant Date of Institution: 03.06.2008 Date of Final Decision: 26.08.2015
1. Present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,34,040/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. In brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that plaintiff no. 1 is a family firm engaged in the field of interior and exterior decoration works and the said firm is being run by plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 from last several years. It is stated that plaintiff have been rendering various services to the defendant in respect of interior and exterior decoration. It is further stated that in October 2007, defendant requested the plaintiff's firm to provide their services for various works of sanitation and pluming P.O.P, Zipson work, woodworks, painting works with wall treatment, semi-
Suit No. 566/114 S.R. Interiors & Exteriors Vs. Anurag Pahuja 3 construction works etc at the defendant's premises at G-9/15, D.L.F Phase-I, Gurgaon (Haryana), where the defendant intended to run a Guest House under the name and title of 'Anurag Guest House. It is further stated that plaintiff executed the aforesaid works to the entire satisfaction of the defendant and his Architect and the plaintiff raised their bills against which certain payments were released in case as well as cheques. It is further stated in the plaint that after satisfactory completion of the works, plaintiff submitted their final bill dated 08.12.2004 for the balance amount of Rs. 2,34,040/- after adjusting sum of Rs. 2,72, 690/- out of which total amount of Rs. 5,096,730/-. It is further stated that defendant did not make the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 2,34,040/- and on persuasion defendant stated that he has not received the copy of the bill however copy of the bill was provided to him on 14.01.2008. It is further stated that plaintiff made several efforts to recover the balance amount but defendant is avoiding the same and thereafter plaintiff served a legal notice dated 04.04.2008 upon the defendant to release the payment of Rs. 2,34,040/- however defendant declined to receive the notice. By way of present suit plaintiff has sought a decree of Rs. 2,34,040/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum till the realization of this amount.
3. In reply to the plaint, written statement was filed by the defendant wherein it is stated by the defendant that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. It is stated by the defendant in their written statement that defendant had engaged one Sh. Manoj to carry out the interior decoration work in the premises of the defendant at G-9/15, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is further stated that no written contract was executed between defendant and Sh. Manoj. It is further stated that Sh. Manoj had carried out the work but the same was not as per the commitment and expectation of the defendant. It is further stated that defendant settled all the accounts of Sh. Manoj for the work carried out by him and paid a total sum of Rs. 272690/-
Suit No. 566/114 S.R. Interiors & Exteriors Vs. Anurag Pahuja 4 through various cheques and after receiving the same Sh. Manoj never turned up. It is further stated that defendant never engaged the plaintiff for carrying out the interior work at his premises. Defendant denied all the other averments as made by the plaintiff in his plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. In reply thereof, replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein he denied all the other averments as made by the defendant in his written statement and reiterates those as made by him in his plaint.
5. Plaintiff in support of his case filed the affidavit of Sh. Lalit Jonwal, Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Original GPA Ex. PW-1/1, Letter of quotation dated 12.10.2007 PW-1/2, Architectural design of works plan Ex. PW-1/3, defendant's letter to various authorities Ex. PW-1/4, Acknowledged Bill dated 08.12.2007 Ex. PW-1/5, legal notice dated 04.04.2008 Ex. PW-1/6, postal receipt dated 04.04.2008 Ex. PW-1/7, return envelop Ex. PW-1/8.
6. It is pertinent to state in here that suit against defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide court order dated 19.12.2013.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully. My issue wise finding are as follows:
Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery, as prayed for? OPP
8. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is a family firm and Sh. Manoj who was one of the family member entered into an agreement with the defendant for work of Suit No. 566/114 S.R. Interiors & Exteriors Vs. Anurag Pahuja 5 sanitation, pluming etc. at defendant's premises and raised the bill dated 08.12.2004 for balance amount of Rs. 2,34,040/- of which a copy was sent to the defendant which was duly acknowledged by his representative on 14.01.2008. It is further stated that despite repeated demands and requests defendant failed to make the payment to the plaintiff. Defendant in their written statement has stated that they had engaged one Sh. Manoj to carry out interior decorating work at their premises however no written contract was executed between them. It is further stated that Sh. Manoj carried out the work but same was not as per the satisfaction of the defendant and that defendant has settled the account of Sh. Manoj by paying the total sum of Rs. 2,72,690/- by paying various cheques.
Plaintiff in order to prove his case has placed on record copy of invoice Ex. PW-1/5 dated 08.12.2007 alleged to be signed by Sh. Manoj and further bearing a receiving on behalf of the defendant. Further defendant has admitted the fact that work was carried out by Sh. Manoj in their premises. In such circumstances, onus of proof shift upon the defendant to show that they have finally settled the account of Sh. Manoj by paying a sum of Rs. 2,72,690/-. It is pertinent to state in here that despite giving repeated opportunities defendants does not appear to cross examine the plaintiff's witness and court was compelled to proceed ex-parte against the defendant on 19.12.2013. As testimony of the plaintiff goes unrubtted and unchallenged I found no ground to disbelieve the same. In view of the same plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,34,040/- from the defendant. Plaintiff has also sought interest @ 18 % p.a till the realization of the said amount from the defendant. Considering the same being exorbitant this court is of the view that interest @ 12 % p.a shall serve the interest of justice. In view of the same plaintiff will be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,34,040/- from the defendant along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12 % per annum.
Suit No. 566/114 S.R. Interiors & Exteriors Vs. Anurag Pahuja 6 Relief Suit of the plaintiff is partly decree. Plaintiff will be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,34,040/- from the defendant along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12 % per annum. Considering the present circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court on 26.08.2015 ( Anubhav Jain ) Civil Judge-05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi Present judgment is consist of 6 pages and each page is signed by me.
Suit No. 566/114 S.R. Interiors & Exteriors Vs. Anurag Pahuja