Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Nisha Nagpal vs . Rakesh Narang & Ors. Page 1 Of 7 on 13 April, 2018

New CS No. 58376/16                          Dated: 13.04.2018
Old CS No. 211/12


          IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN GUPTA
           ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-03,
           NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS,
                   NEW DELHI

                                   New CS No. 58376/16
                                   Old CS No. 211/12
IN THE MATTER OF :-

     Smt. Nisha Nagpal
     W/o Sh. Tarun Nagpal
     R/o D-17, Rajan Babu Raod,
     Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033                 ........ Plaintif

                           Versus

1.

Sh. Rakesh Narang S/o Late Sh. Diwan Chand R/o A-1, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033

2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. I.D. Gupta R/o D-24, Bhagat Singh Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033

3. Sh. M.L. Singh S/o Sh. Jiwan Dass Chugh R/o 6, Toot Sarai, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 ....... Defendants Date of institution of suit : 04.06.2012 Date of final arguments : 17.03.2018 Date of judgment : 13.04.2018 Nisha Nagpal Vs. Rakesh Narang & Ors. Page 1 of 7 New CS No. 58376/16 Dated: 13.04.2018 Old CS No. 211/12 EX-PARTE JUDGMENT

1. Present suit is for recovery of Rs. 3,20,000/.

PLAINT

2. Case of plaintiff is that she is the joint owner of the property bearing No. D-17, Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar. She along with her brother in law entered into a property development agreement with respect to the construction of the abovesaid property measuring 150 sq. yards with the defendants. Subsequently, a MOU was again executed with defendants on 17.02.2010. It was agreed and assured by the defendants that the construction would be completed within one year and would be of good standard. The construction was supposed to start from 01.07.2009. However, defendants started the construction with very low speed and handed over the possession only in the month of January - February 2012. It is alleged that defendants have used sub-standard material for the construction. Due to the poor quality of the construction, leakage and seepage has been caused in the property and the same is dangerous for human life. The plaster of the walls has fallen and flooring of the ground floor has been uprooted. Even the electric fitting is not proper.

New CS No. 58376/16 Dated: 13.04.2018 Old CS No. 211/12 2.1 It is stated that she engaged Sh. M.S. Chawla, Government approved architect to inspect the level of construction who after inspecting the property has given the report. She immediately contacted the defendants in mid February 2012 for reparing the building, however, the defendants told her that she should get the property repaired and promised her to reimburse the same. She accordingly spent Rs. 2,20,000/- towards the repair of the ground floor, however, a lot of work is still outstanding. On 18.03.2012, she requested the defendants to pay the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and further requested them to release Rs. 1 Lac for further outstanding repair work, however, they flatly refused. It is stated that the condition of the house is still very bad and she has already spent a lot of money on the same. Legal notice dated 3.10.12 was also served upon defendants, however, they have not paid any amount to her till date, hence, the present suit.

2.2 It is prayed that defendants be directed to pay Rs. 2,20,000/- towards the actual amount spent by her on the repair work and Rs. 6,000/- as interest on the said amount calculated @ 18 % p.a. from the date when the amount was spent till the filing of the suit. It is further prayed that she be granted future and pendentelite Nisha Nagpal Vs. Rakesh Narang & Ors. Page 3 of 7 New CS No. 58376/16 Dated: 13.04.2018 Old CS No. 211/12 interest @ 18 % p.a. on the amount of Rs. 2,26,000/-. It is further prayed that decree for the sum of Rs.1 lac be passed with respect to the amount which is liable to be spent on the deficient work.

WRITTEN STATEMENT

3. In the WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 and 3, it is stated that suit is without any cause of action. They have already handed over the possession of the property to plaintiff on 04.08.2011 itself after she was fully satisfied with the construction work as per collaboration agreement. It is stated that plaintiff has got some changes done in the building which lead to delay in handing over the possession of the suit property. The collaboration agreement and the MOU has not been denied by the defendants. It is stated that after the construction started, plaintiff forced them to construct basement which was not mentioned in the agreement which caused loss of money and time. They have denied the other contents of the written statement.

New CS No. 58376/16 Dated: 13.04.2018 Old CS No. 211/12 REPLICATION

4. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, she has reiterated the facts as stated in the plaint and denied the contents of the written statement.

5. During trial, D-2 stopped appearing and was proceeded Ex. parte on 29.09.2012. D-1 and D-3 were proceeded Ex. parte on 08.01.2015.

ISSUES

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled vide order dated 24.01.2013:-

Issue No. 1: Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit as stated in the Para 2 of the preliminary objection in the WS of defendant? OPD Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of amount against the defendant as prayed in the Para a of the prayer clause of the plaint? OPP Nisha Nagpal Vs. Rakesh Narang & Ors. Page 5 of 7 New CS No. 58376/16 Dated: 13.04.2018 Old CS No. 211/12 Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest against the defendant as prayed in the Para a of prayer clause of the plaint? If yes, then at what rate and for what period? OPP Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of amount against the defendant as prayed in the Para b of the prayer clause of the plaint? OPP Issue No. 5: Relief.

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

7. In order to prove her case, plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1. She was partly examined in chief and remaining chief was deferred on 26.07.2013 at the request of her counsel as he had to file certain documents. Thereafter, various opportunities were given to plaintiff to conclude her PE, however, no further document was brought by the plaintiff/ PW1. On the basis of the submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and PW-1, PE was closed on 28.03.2016.

New CS No. 58376/16 Dated: 13.04.2018 Old CS No. 211/12 RELIEF

8. Heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the complete record file. PW- 1 in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A has relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7, however, she has not filed the document Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4. Plaintiff has claimed the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- which she has incurred on the repair work, however, she has not placed on record any bill to show that she has incurred such expenses. She has filed the report of one architect Ex. PW1/7, however, the said architect has not been examined by her. Plaintiff has neither filed any bill or examined any person to prove the liability of the defendants. In the absence of any evidence, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open                    Kiran Gupta
Court on 13.04.2018          Additional District Judge-03
                             North District, Rohini Courts
                                       Delhi




Nisha Nagpal Vs. Rakesh Narang & Ors.                Page 7 of 7