Delhi District Court
Arsh Kumar vs M.I.Builder Ltd on 9 December, 2025
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-03
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER MS. AANCHAL, DHJS
CNR No. DLNT01-007224-2020
CS No./1740/2016
In the matter of :-
Arsh Kumar
S/o Sh. Puran Chand,
R/o Flat No. 264, Neelkanth Appartment,
Sector-13, Rohni-85 ............Plaintiff
Versus
M/S M.I. Builder Ltd.
Office:- 6 Floor, 9A, New Janpath Complex,
Ashok Marg, Hazratganj, U-226001.
Through its director Kadir Bhai ............defendant
Date of filing of suit : 14.07.2016
Date of Final Arguments heard : 03.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the suit seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- (Rupees Six lakh twenty thousand only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest, initially filed u/o 37 CPC.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are as under: -
CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 1 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL Date: AANCHAL 2025.12.09 14:20:49 +0530
-:: 2 ::-
(a) The defendant is a real-estate company incorporated in 1987 under the Companies Act, 1956, and its agent, Madhav Sharan Agarwal approached the plaintiff and offered a flat in one of the defendant's upcoming projects. Relying on the representations and brochure, the plaintiff executed a Flat Buyer Agreement dated 01.11.2005 at Delhi for a total consideration of ₹52,19,800/- (₹49,06,800/- towards flat cost and ₹3,13,000/- towards other dues).
(b) The plaintiff initially paid ₹5,00,000/- at the time of booking and thereafter made several payments through cheques and cash between 2005 and 2014 which are as under :-
Amount (in Cheque No. Date Drawn On Rs.) 033729 14.11.2005 5,00,000/- Lord Krishna Bank Standard 274082 12.10.2007 10,00,000/-
Chartered Bank
Standard
274106 04.12.2007 10,00,000/-
Chartered Bank
Standard
367448 12.05.2008 10,00,000/-
Chartered Bank
Standard
477672 08.09.2008 5,00,000/-
Chartered Bank
107637 08.12.2008 2,00,000/- Lord Krishna Bank
587419 04.04.2012 3,50,000/- HDFC Bank
605730 03.09.2012 3,50,000/- HDFC Bank
656188 16.04.2013 2,15,000/- HDFC Bank
Cash 31.07.2014 6,04,800/- Cash
In total, the plaintiff paid ₹57,19,800/-, thereby inadvertently paying ₹5,00,000/- in excess of the agreed consideration. On realizing the excess payment, CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 2 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:2025.12.09 14:20:55 +0530
-:: 3 ::-
the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant for refund. The defendant gave verbal assurances but failed to return the amount. The plaintiff transferred his rights in the property to Shri Ranveer Singh for valuable consideration vide endorsement dated 31.07.2014, pursuant to which a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the plaintiff, the defendant and Shri Ranveer Singh on the same date. Thereafter, the defendant issued a possession certificate dated 06.08.2014 in favour of Shri Ranveer Singh. Prior thereto, the plaintiff had lost the original Agreement and reported the loss to the Crime Branch, Delhi, vide LR No. 128129/2014 dated 04.06.2014.
(c) Despite repeated oral assurances, the defendant failed to refund the excess amount of ₹5,00,000/- due to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 26.02.2015, calling upon the defendant to make the payment, but no response or payment was received.
Hence, with the above pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the recovery of abovesaid amount.
3. The summons for appearance u/o 37 CPC were served upon the defendant but rather than appearance, a written statement is filed by the defendant straight away and during the proceedings, this written statement was itself treated as an application for leave to defendant as submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant. Vide order CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 3 of 10Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:
2025.12.09 14:20:59 +0530
-:: 4 ::-
dated 16.03.2018 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, leave to defendant is allowed.
4. That very written statement is accepted as written statement to the plaint. It is preliminary objected on behalf of defendant that the suit is not maintainable as this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction since the property is situated in Greater Noida, outside Delhi, and no payment was ever made in Delhi and it is further stated that :-
(a) The payment as stated by the plaintiff as plaint are false, fabricated and baseless and plaintiff did not pay any excess amount towards cost and charges payable in respect of flat bearing No. A103, 1st Floor, admeasuring 1880 Sq. Feet at GH02, Alfa-II, Greater Noida City, UP. The plaintiff had arrears towards the cost of the flat, interest on delayed payments, maintenance charges and transfer charges and that upon the plaintiff's request for settlement to obtain a no-dues certificate for transferring the flat to his nominee Ranveer Singh, the plaintiff paid a total of ₹6,20,000 and after this full and final settlement and the affidavits submitted by both plaintiff and transferee, the no-dues certificate was issued.
(b) The plaintiff concealed true facts in the plaint and intentionally withheld flat details and misled the Court. Defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was liable to pay various dues and wanted to transfer the flat for profit to his nominee; hence he requested settlement. It is also asserted that the plaintiff paid ₹6,20,000 towards balance cost, arrears, interest, maintenance, and transfer charges and that thereafter no amount remained due. The defendant further submits that the plaintiff executed an affidavit confirming full and final CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 4 of 10Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:
2025.12.09 14:21:04 +0530
-:: 5 ::-
settlement and that the suit is filed with malafide and dishonest intention, deserving dismissal with compensatory costs. Further, denying all the allegation made in the plaint by the plaintiff, suit of the plaintiff is prayed to be dismissed.
5. At the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the reply to the written statement (which was treated as an application for seeking leave to defend) is accepted as a replication. Vide this, facts as stated by the defendant in the written statement are denied and the plaintiff iterated the facts as stated by him in the plaint and it is also stated that in para no. 27 of flat buyer agreement, it was clearly mentioned that agreement shall be jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi or at Gautam Budh Nagar only.
6. Vide order dated 24.08.2018, following issues on the basis of the pleadings are framed by Ld. predecessor of this Court :-
1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.6,20,000/-, if, so, interest at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Relief.
7. Plaintiff entered into the witness box as PW1 and he relied upon following documents.
1. Copy of flat buyer agreement Mark A
2. Copies of receipts Mark B
3. Copy of triplicate agreement Mark C
4. Copy of certificate of possession Mark D
5. Copy of complaint Vide LR No. Mark E CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 5 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:
2025.12.09 14:21:09 +0530
-:: 6 ::-
128229/2014 dated 04.06.2014
6. Legal notice dated 26.02.2015 Ex. PW1/6 alongwith receipts During the cross-examination, defendant himself put original builder buyer agreement dated 01.11.2005 as Ex. PW1/D2, letter from plaintiff to defendant for change of right to purchase the flat as Ex. PW1/D3, an affidavit of plaintiff as Ex. PW1/D4 to the plaintiff and plaintiff admits those but stated that at the time of signing Ex. PW1/D4, he was not aware that he had paid amount in excess. The receipt of demand letter dated 25.09.2007 put to him as Ex. PW1/D5 during cross-examination is denied by the plaintiff. He also denied the service of reminder for payment dated 18.08.2006 put to him as Ex. PW1/D6, upon him.
8. Thereafter, opportunity is granted to defendant to lead his evidence and Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, AR for defendant was examined as DW-1. He relied upon following documents :-
1. Board resolution dated 18.04.2024 Ex DW1/1
2. Statement of account maintained by Ex DW1/2 defendant
3. Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. DW1/3
9. Final arguments are heard and record is perused carefully. Now, issue wise finding are as under :-
Issue No. 1Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
10. Though the onus to prove this issues lies upon the defendant, at the time of advancement of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 6 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:
2025.12.09 14:21:14 +0530
-:: 7 ::-
submits that this issue as not being pressed in view of clause/para No. 21 of flat buyer agreement Mark A/Ex. PW1/D2 which is not disputed by any of the parties. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.Issue No. 2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.6,20,000/-, if, so, interest at what rate and for what period? OPP
11. The onus to prove this issues lies upon plaintiff. It is pleaded by plaintiff that he paid Rs. 5 lacs inadvertently on 31.07.2014. Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act provides that :-
101. Burden of proof. -- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts. So the plaintiff must prove (i) payment in excess made to defendant and (ii) inadvertence, if he desires to have judgement in his favour.
12. Now this Court is proceeding to examine if the plaintiff has succeeded to prove these two facts.
12.1 Whether the plaintiff had paid the defendant in excess ?
CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 7 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date: 2025.12.09 14:21:18 +0530 -:: 8 ::-
Parties are not at dispute that a flat buyer agreement Ex. PW1/D2 was existing between them and the plan for payment to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant on various dates/times was well mentioned in Annexure A to this agreement. As per this Annexure, the plaintiff had adopted Plan B for payment. As per this plan, the plaintiff had to pay 20% of basic price on the date of booking and thereafter he had to pay 15 equal monthly installments of 5% each starting from 45 days from the date of booking i.e. Rs 2,45,340/- from 10th of December 2005. The plaintiff deposed that he made payment firstly, on 14.11.2005. This payment pertains to the booking of the flat but the same is not 10% of basic sale price. Not only this, it is not the case at all of the plaintiff that he started making payment of 5% on monthly basis. But it is admitted case of the plaintiff that he made the payment for the second time only on 12.10.2007 i.e. after the gap of approximately two years. Not only this, he was not even regular in making the payment. Thereafter, the payments were made by him in the gap of two months/five months/three months/four months. Clause-6 of flat buyer agreement provides that in case of omission in regular payment by the buyer, the agreement was liable to be cancelled and in exceptional circumstances, defendant may condone the delay in payment by charging interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Therefore the contention of defendant that plaintiff was liable to pay interest on account of delayed payment, cannot be brushed aside. During his cross-examination, the plaintiff gave two reasons for making delay in payments. Firstly, no demand was ever made and secondly, the project was delayed by the defendant itself. So CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 8 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:
2025.12.09 14:21:23 +0530
-:: 9 ::-
far as the first reason assigned by the plaintiff is concerned, the same is illusive since the plaintiff agreed to make the payment of 5% of flat price on monthly basis, so the question of receiving any demand does not arise and for this reason, denial of the plaintiff to the receipt of Ex. PW1/D5 and Ex. PW1/D6 i.e. the demand letters from defendant, is also of no assistance to the plaintiff. Assuming the project was delayed, the developer/ defendant was liable to pay to the plaintiff compensation at the rate of ₹53.82 per square meter or ₹5 per square feet of the super area of the flat per month for the period of delay as per clause 14(b) of the flat buyer agreement Mark B/Ex. PW1/D2. In case in hand, the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to suggest that project was delayed but assumingly the project was delayed, it only suggests that an amount was payable by the defendant to plaintiff and it does not discharge the plaintiff from his liability to make the timely payments and to be charged for the penal interest for delayed payments. It is not the case at all of the plaintiff that the payments made by him to the defendant was in excess to his liability of payment arising on total of sum due towards price of the flat and penal interest. Hence the plaintiff has failed to prove that he paid to the defendant in excess.
Not only this, plaintiff who is admittedly educated enough to go through the documents himself, has also admitted the execution of affidavit Ex. PW1/D4. This affidavit reads that plaintiff affirmed that his accounts with defendant have settled and none of his amount is payable by defendant. This affidavit presupposes that a dispute as to the mutual liabilities of the parties was going on and as on the day of filing of the affidavit, these disputes were settled CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 9 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:
2025.12.09 14:21:27 +0530
-:: 10 ::-
and plaintiff agreed that nothing is due against the defendant, so the payment made by him on the very same day i.e. 31.07.2014 is proved by preponderance of probability to have been made by the plaintiff towards the settlement and not in excess.
11.2 Whether the payment was made by the plaintiff due to inadvertence ?
As discussed above, it is proved by preponderance of the probability that on 31.07.2014, the plaintiff made the payment only towards the settlement of dues, the plaintiff is held unsuccessful to prove that the payment was made due to inadvertence.
12. Hence, the plaintiff is held unsuccessful to prove that payment made by him to the defendant was an excess or due to inadvertence, consequently, the issue in hand is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No. 3Relief
13. In view of the decision given by this Court on the issues involved in the present case, the plaintiff has held entitled for no relief and the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to record.
Announced in open Digitally
Court on 09.12.2025 at 1:15 PM signed by
AANCHAL
AANCHAL Date:
2025.12.09
(Aanchal) 14:21:32
+0530
District Judge-03
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 10 of 10