Delhi District Court
Hira Lal vs Sunil Kumar on 14 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
DISTRICT JUDGE-13 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS DJ No. 14784/16
Unique ID No. : DLCT01-000894-2012
In the matter of:
HIRA LAL,
S/O LATE SHRI PARTAP CHAND,
R/O B-656, AVANTIKA, SECTOR-1,
ROHINI, DELHI. ..............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. SUNIL KUMAR,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S SARR FREIGHT CORPORATION,
R/O 1E/12, SWEAK HOUSE JHANDE
WALAN, NEW DELHI. ............DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 21.12.2012
Date of Reserving judgment : 14.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 14.05.2025
Sh. Sanjay Dua, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Vikas Bhadauria, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 5,29,535/- (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS TWENTY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE ONLY) ALONGWITH FUTURE AND PENDENTE LITE Digitally signed by INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM SATISH KUMAR SATISH KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:15:43 +0530 Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 1 of 13
1. That the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,29,535/-
(Rs. Five Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five Only) alongwith future and pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum on the ground that the plaintiff is a building contractor and used to do all kinds of construction work. The defendant approached and requested to the plaintiff for construction of his two buildings at Gurgaon Haryana i.e. No. 29 and 35, SCO, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana and vide written contract dated 08.07.2010 executed at Delhi in the office of the defendant, it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant for construction of the said two building of the defendant and it was agreed that the payment will be made fortnightly i.e. on 3 rd and 17th of every month except for extra work done by the plaintiff.
2. That the plaintiff was working properly as per terms and conditions of the written contract dated 08.07.2010, but the defendant failed to make the payment on time as agreed in written contract and when construction work of the said two buildings was in progress, the defendant had requested to plaintiff to do some additional work on dated 27.01.2012 related to excavation of basement, plaster and beam etc. and further it was agreed that defendant will make additional payment to the plaintiff for such additional work.
3. That the plaintiff gave seven running bills from time to time of different amount for the work done to the defendant, but none of bill was finally paid and every time only part payment was made by the Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 2 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.05.14 16:15:50 +0530 defendant and defendant failed to make complete payment of additional work and till date defendant has paid only the following amount:-
S. No. Particulars Date of Amount in Mode payment Rupees
1. Construction Work 20.06.2010 150000/- Cash
2. -do- 09.07.2010 25000/- Cheque
3. -do- 17.07.2010 25000/- Cheque
4. -do- 23.07.2010 30000/- Cash
5. -do- 21.09.2010 15000/- Cheque
6. -do- 29.09.2010 50000/- Cheque
7. -do- 10.09.2010 20000/- Cheque
8. -do- 21.10.2010 50000/- Cheque
9. -do- 25.11.2010 10000/- Cash
10. -do- 26.11.2010 20000/- Cheque
11. -do- 11.12.2010 50000/- Cheque
12. -do- 14.12.2010 40000/- Cheque
13. -do- 21.12.2010 22500/- Cash
14. -do- 25.12.2010 10000/- Cash
15. -do- 27.12.2010 5000/- Cash
16. -do- 12.01.2012 10000/- Cash Total 3,97,500/-
4. That though the plaintiff has already completed the work as well as extra work, but till date defendant has not made the complete payment and as per statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, sum of Rs. Rs. 2,60,501/- is found due against the seven running bills and further payment of Rs. 2,69,044/- is also due against the extra work done by the plaintiff and the plaintiff claims that a total sum of Rs. 5,29,535/- is due against the defendant. The defendant did not make the Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 3 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:15:54 +0530 payment of the amount of Rs. 5,29,535/- despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff and even receipt of the legal notice dated 28.09.2012.
5. The present suit has been filed with the prayer that a money decree of Rs. 5,29,535/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five only) may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
6. That upon summons of the suit, the defendant filed the written statement and in the preliminary objections, it was stated that the construction work was done in two buildings at Gurgaon, Haryana i.e. No. 29 and 35, SCO, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana and the cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. It has also been stated that the defendant had engaged the service of the plaintiff on the recommendation of his Architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha and the construction work was to be done at plots no. 29 and 35, SCO, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana at an agreed rate of Rs. 90/- per sq. feet. The plaintiff, though, has been paid a total amount of Rs. 4,42,500/- by the defendant, but the plaintiff did not complete the entire work and the defendant was constrained to get the said construction work completed by engaging another contractor namely Sh. Lila Ram. It has also been stated in the written statement that because of non-completion of the construction work by the plaintiff, the defendant had to pay an amount Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.05.14 16:15:59 +0530 of Rs. 75,000/- to HUDA on account of extension fee, for delay in completion of construction. It has also been stated that bills were submitted by the plaintiff to Sh. Hitesh Chadha, Architect and the defendant has, from time to time, made the payments to the plaintiff, as asked to do so by Sh. Hitesh Chadha, Architect and it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action and same may kindly be dismissed.
7. That upon pleadings of the parties, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2014, has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has completed the work as per proposal dated 08.07.2010? (OPP)
2. Whether the defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 4,42,500/- to the plaintiff? (OPD)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery for a sum of Rs. 5,29,535/-? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate or for which period? (OPP)
5. Relief.
8. That, in order to substantiate and to prove its case as mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A bears his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon the following documents to prove his case:-
(1) Contract/labour rate sheet as Ex. PW-1/1; (2) Details of extra work dated 27.01.2012 as Ex. PW-1/2; (3) Copy of the running bill dated 08.07.2010 to 27.01.2012 as Mark A to Mark H;
(4) Copy of material purchase list dated 15.12.2010 as Mark I; (5) Copy of E-mail dated 16.11.2011 as Mark J;
Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 5 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:16:03 +0530 (6) Legal notice as Ex. PW-1/6;
(7) Postal receipts, returned AD card and returned envelops as Ex.
PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9 (colly) respectively.
9. The PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant and in the cross-examination, the defendant has pointed out Point X and PW-1 identified the signatures of defendant at Point X at second page of contract/labour sheet Ex. PW-1/1. The plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant that agreed work as well as additional work will be paid to the plaintiff @ Rs. 90/- per sq. feet. It has also been admitted by PW-1 that he know Sunil Kapoor through architect Hitesh Chadha. In May, 2010, the plaintiff used to do the work in DLF, Gurgaon and Mr. Hitesh Chadha gave him the address and he visited the site in May, 2010. It has also been admitted by PW-1 that the defendant appointed Sh. Hitesh Chadha as his architect with respect to two buildings i.e. No. 29 and 35, SCO, Sector 18, Gurgaon. The plaintiff has admitted that he had received Rs. 4,42,500/- from the defendant.
10. That, the defendant has examined one witness to disprove the case of the plaintiff. DW-1 is defendant himself, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. In the affidavit of evidence, the defendant has admitted that the bills were submitted by the plaintiff to Sh. Hitesh Chadha, Architect and Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 6 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:16:08 +0530 he has also admitted that the rate of both the SCO was Rs. 90/- per sq. feet, however, he has deposed that the plaintiff has not completed his entire construction work and he was forced to get completed the construction work by engaging another contractor Sh. Lila Ram and had also paid Rs. 3,24,600/- to Sh. Lila Ram.
He relied upon the following documents to prove his defence:-
(1) Copy of Form A of M/s Sarr Freights Corporation as Mark A; (2) Copy of Form B documents filed with Registrar of firm as Mark B;
(3) Memorandum and acknowledgment receipt as Mark C; (4) The vouchers paid for a total amount of Rs. 4,42,500/- to the plaintiff as Ex. DW-1/4 (colly) (Total 20 vouchers); (5) The vouchers paid for a sum of Rs. 3,24,600/- to Leela Ram as Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) (total 19 vouchers); (6) The letter of Leela Ram Building Contractor dated 15.12.2010 as Ex. DW-1/6.
The DW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
11. Having heard the submission made by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as well as Ld. Counsel for defendant and after gone through the record, the issue-wise findings of this court is are under:-
Issue no. 1:-
"Whether the plaintiff has completed the work as per proposal dated 08.07.2010? (OPP)"
That the onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff and to Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 7 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:16:17 +0530 prove the same, plaintiff has examined himself and has tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A bears his signatures at point A and B. In para no. 6 of the affidavit, it has been deposed that the plaintiff has completed the assigned work in terms of contract dated 08.07.2010 and also completed the additional work assigned to him and this fact has also been mentioned in para no. 6 of the plaint. The defendant has filed the written statement and in reply to para no. 6, it has been mentioned that plaintiff never completed the work assigned to him and left the construction work midway and the defendant was constrained to engage another contractor Sh. Lila Ram and paid a sum of Rs. 3,24,600/- to him. It has also been stated that on account of delay caused by the plaintiff for non-completion of the work, the defendant was contrained to pay Rs. 75,000/- to HUDA on account of extention fee for delay in completion of construction as stipulated in terms of allotment.
12. The defendant has not been able to place on record any documentary proof that he had paid the extension fee of Rs. 75,000/- nor the defendant examined any witness from HUDA Gurgaon Office to prove that he had paid Rs. 75,000/- on account of extension fee to HUDA for non-completion of construction work of SCO 29 & 35, Sector 18, Gurgaon.
13. It is pertinent to mention that in the cross-examination, defendant has admitted "it is correct that both Hira Lal and Lila Ram were performing the work at the same time" and if he had made a payment of Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 8 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:16:22 +0530 Rs. 3,24,600/- to Sh. Lila Ram then that cannot be considered that the same was paid for construction work which was left by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also placed on record the running bills and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has completed the construction work in terms of the written contract dated 08.07.2010 as well as the additional work assigned to him by the defendant. Therefore, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
14. Issue no. 2:-
"Whether the defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 4,42,500/- to the plaintiff? (OPD)"
That the onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant, however, in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself has admitted that he had received Rs. 4,42,500/- from the defendant and on the admission of the plaintiff, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant.
15. Issues no. 3 and 4:-
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery for a sum of Rs. 5,29,535/-? (OPP) "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate or for which period? (OPP)"
That the case of the plaintiff is that he was engaged by the defendant through his architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha to do the construction work of two plots No. 29 and 35, SCO, Sector 18, Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 9 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.05.14 16:16:29 +0530 Gurgaon, Haryana at the rate of Rs. 90/- per sq. feet and he had done construction job in terms of written contract dated 08.07.2010 and also done additional work to which the defendant had paid Rs. 4,42,500/- and Rs. 5,29,535/- alongwith interest is due against the defendant.
16. Having heard the submission made by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and after gone through the case file and evidence led by both the parties, this court is of the considered view that initially, the defendant refused to enter into any contract dated 08.07.2010. However, the defendant in his cross-examination has admitted "it is correct that handwritten 2 lines from point C1 to C2 are in his handwriting".
17. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant has taken the defence that the services of the plaintiff were engaged through his Architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha, but the defendant admitted in his cross-examination that construction work was being supervised by him and the entire work of carrying out construction on his behalf was handled by his manager Sh. Sh. Rajesh Khurana and the same was being executed by Architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha. The defendant has also admitted in his cross- examination that "the plaintiff has not completed his work and the plaintiff was not performing the work to their satisfaction and objections were raised by them with their Architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha. The defects in the work/non performance of the contract was brought to the knowledge of Sh. Hitesh Chadha and was also brought directly to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the said communication was oral. Since plaintiff i.e. Hira Lal after such communication had himself Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 10 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.05.14 16:16:33 +0530 stopped work as well as no writing for non-performing of work was given to the plaintiff Hira Lal. They have made complete payment to Hira Lal (plaintiff herein) for the work performed by him through voucher."
18. The defendant has also taken the defence that because of non- completion of the construction work, HUDA had charged Rs. 75,000/- penalty from the defendant, but no receipt to make the payment of Rs. 75,000/- to HUDA as penalty had been placed on record rather the defendant in his cross-examination deposed that " the completion certificate was duly issued by the HUDA" and if there is no receipt on record to prove that because of non-completion of work of construction site of the defendant was penalized then how the completion certificate was duly issued by HUDA. The defendant has also admitted in his cross-examination that it is agreed that both Hira Lal and Lila Ram were performing the work at the same time, and if they both were doing construction at the same time, then they both were doing their work separately and the payment was to paid separately to both of them. The suggestion was put to the defendant that the entire work as agreed and the extra work was carried out by the plaintiff then the defendant has replied in the cross-examination that he cannot say as to when the bills were submitted by plaintiff to Architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha and the same were kept pending on the ground that the same have been send to him for payment and the payment was to be made to both the contractor @ Rs. 90/- per sq. feet with respect to area of the building which was 4059 Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 11 of 13 Digitally signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:16:38 +0530 and 4131. It is worth mentioning that defendant has also deposed in his cross-examination that "he cannot say as to whether any document was prepared by Sh. Hitesh Chadha wherein it is certified that all the payment has been made to Sh. Hira Lal for the work performed by him."
Had it been the case of non-completion of the entire construction work by the plaintiff, then the defendant ought to have been served upon the legal notice or intimate to plaintiff by asking him to complete entire construction work and extra work, but no communication made in writing by the defendant to the plaintiff nor by his Architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha. The plaintiff has served upon legal notice dated 28.09.2012 upon the defendant by asking the payment of the work done as well as the extra work done and despite receipt of the said legal notice, the defendant has not replied for the same.
19. The defendant has mentioned in his affidavit of evidence that the service of the plaintiff work engaged by Architect Sh. Hitesh Chadha, but the defendant had failed to examine Sh. Hitesh Chadha, Architect to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant has also failed to examine Sh. Lila Ram to prove that the remaining construction work and extra construction work which was left by the plaintiff was carried out by contractor Sh. Lila Ram.
20. That in para no. 5 of the written statement, there is a table of the payment made in cash and through cheque by the defendant to the plaintiff, however, at Sr. No. 19, it is mentioned that the payment of Rs.
Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Digitally Page no. 12 of 13 signed by SATISH SATISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14 16:16:42 +0530 20,000/- through cheque bearing no. 567806 (HDFC) dated 25.10.2011 and payment of Rs. 25,000/- through cheque bearing no. 567820 (HDFC) dated 24.11.2011 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
But, to prove the said payment, no bank statement was placed on record by the defendant to prove that the payment against the construction work was paid by him to the plaintiff nor any bank official is examined to prove that the payment was made from the account of defendant to plaintiff. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that plaintiff has successfully established his case with preponderance of probabilities. Hence, issues no. 3 and 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
21. Relief:-
In view of the findings of this Court on the above issues, it is held that plaintiff has proved his case against the defendant and is entitled for money decree. Therefore, decree of sum of Rs. 5,29,535/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five Only) with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 21.12.2012 till its realization with cost of the suit.
The Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally File be consigned to the Record Room.
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.14
16:16:46
+0530
Pronounced in the open Court (Satish Kumar)
on 14th May, 2025 District Judge-13 (Central)
This Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No. 14784/16 Hira Lal Vs. Sunil Kumar Page no. 13 of 13