Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Vijay Pal Singh vs Vijay Berlia & Ors on 29 October, 2015

              IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL, 
             ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­02 (SOUTH­EAST), 
                      SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No. 506/12


Vijay Pal Singh 
                                                                         .....   Plaintiff
Vs.


Vijay Berlia & Ors. 
                                                                         .....    Defendants
O R D E R

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of two applications u/o 1 rule 10 (2) CPC, one moved by defendant no. 1 and other moved by defendant no. 2 and 3.

2. It is stated by defendant no. 1 in the application that there are no allegations against him that he placed the order upon the plaintiff in his personal capacity or stood guarantor for defendant no. 4 society and therefore he is not personally liable for the alleged act of the defendant no. 4 society. It is further averred that the defendant no. 4 society is an independent legal entity from its officer bearers and an officer bearer of a society does not have vicarious liability for an alleged act of the society. Therefore it has been prayed that name of defendant no. 1 may be deleted from the array of the parties.

Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

3. The defendant no. 2 and 3 are also seeking deletion of their name from the array of the parties on the similar grounds as averred by defendant no. 1 in his application.

4. The plaintiff has filed separate reply to both the applications contending that there are specific allegations against the defendant no. 1 to 3 in the plaint and for proper adjudication of the matter, they are necessary and related party. It is stated that contract was signed by defendant no. 1, payments regarding first work order was made by him to the plaintiff and reply to legal notice of the plaintiff was also sent by him and hence he is necessary party to the suit. Similarly, the entire work was done under the supervision of defendant no. 3 and it is the defendant no. 3 before whom all the bills of payments were submitted and all the payments were made by the defendant no. 3 under the signature of defendant no. 1 and hence for presence of all the defendants is necessary to adjudicate the matter properly. The plaintiff has prayed for dismissal of both the applications.

5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 15,71,796/­ against the defendants. The defendant no. 1 has been impleaded as Director, defendant no. 2 has been impleaded as CS No. 506/12 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

President and defendant no. 3 has been impleaded as Director (Civil) of defendant no. 4 which is an educational society. It is stated in the plaint that in the month of March, 2011, the defendant no. 1 assigned a tender for a civil work of Apeejay Satya University, Sohna to the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 signed the agreement on behalf of defendant no. 4 society. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2011 the defendant no. 1 assigned another tender for a civil work of proposed ASI Faculty Hostel at Apeejay Satya University Sohna to the plaintiff which was signed by defendant no. 1 on behalf of defendant no. 4. The plaintiff completed the work and submitted a bill of Rs. 15,71,767/­ which was received by the office of the defendant no. 4 society. But the defendants did not bother about the payment. In the first week of March, 2012, the plaintiff met with the defendant no. 2 regarding payment who directed to defendant no. 3 to release the payment within a week but the defendant no. 3 has failed to release the payment. The plaintiff also sent payment reminders through email but no reply was received and ultimately legal notice was sent to the defendants thereby demanding payment of Rs. 15,71,796/­ from the defendants, but despite service, no payment was made by the defendants. Hence, the present suit.

7. From the aforesaid averments made in the plaint, it is apparent that the contract was between the plaintiff and defendant CS No. 506/12 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

no. 4 society. The defendant no. 1 assigned and signed the work order on behalf of defendant no. 4. The plaintiff has also placed on record the documents which would reveal that plaintiff has carried out the work for defendant no. 4 society and in no way the defendants no. 1 to 3 were liable in their personal capacity for the acts done by the plaintiff for the defendant no. 4 society. There is nothing on record to show that the defendants no. 1 to 3 ever stood guarantor for the payment to be made by defendant no. 4 society to the plaintiff for the work done by him.

8. In the absence of any privity of contract, the defendant no. 1 to 3 cannot be held liable only because they happens to be officer bearers of the defendant no. 4 society. It is the defendant no. 4, the society with whom the plaintiff had signed the agreement and carried out the work. The defendant no. 4 which is society is a distinct entity from its office bearers and for any act of the society, its office bearers cannot be held liable personally. Therefore, in the absence of any privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3, the defendants no. 1 to 3 are not necessary party to the present suit. Hence, the applications are allowed and the name of defendant no. 1 to 3 are deleted from the array of the parties. Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 29th October, 2015 Addl. District Judge ­02 (South­East) Saket Courts, New Delhi CS No. 506/12 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­02 (SOUTH­EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI Civil Suit No. 506/12 Vijay Pal Singh ..... Plaintiff Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

                                                                     .....    Defendants

O R D E R

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application u/o 8 rule 1 CPC moved by the plaintiff, who is the defendant in the counter claim, seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS to the counter claim of the defendant.

2. It is stated in the application that defendant no. 4 filed the WS along with counter claim on 12.02.2015, but the documents annexed with the same were not supplied to the counsel for plaintiff on the said date and same were supplied on 23.03.2015. Thereafter, there was strike of lawyers which has resulted in delay in filing the WS to the counter claim of the defendant. It has been prayed that delay of 66 days which was due to the aforesaid reason may be condoned.

CS No. 506/12 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

3. The Ld. Counsel for defendant/counter claimant argued straightaway on the application without filing any formal reply to the same. He argued that there is no justifiable reason to condone the delay and hence application is liable to be dismissed.

4. Submissions heard. Record perused.

5. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the WS to the counter claim is condoned subject to cost of Rs. 500/­ payable to the defendant no. 4/ counter claimant. Application stands disposed of.

Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 29th October, 2015 Addl. District Judge ­02 (South­East) Saket Courts, New Delhi CS No. 506/12 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.

29.10.2015 
Present:    None. 

Vide my separate order of even date, two applications u/o 1 rule 10 CPC moved by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and 3 are allowed. Another application moved by the plaintiff u/o 8 rule 1 CPC is also allowed subject to cost of Rs. 500/­ payable to defendant no. 4.

Amended memo of parties be filed.

Case is adjourned for payment of cost, admission/denial of documents and framing of issues for 05.01.2016.

(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ­02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 29.10.2015 CS No. 506/12 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vijay Berlia & Ors.