Delhi District Court
L And Q Surveys Private Limited vs Tdi Infracorp India Ltd on 13 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 486/2018
CNR No. DLND010045612018
L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS CEO, DR. S.N. BANSAL
XV-5352/A, SHORA KOTHI, PAHARGANJ,
NEW DELHI-110055
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD.
THROUGH ITS CEO MR. NITESH KUMAR,
UG FLOOR, VANDANA BUILDING,
11 TOLSTOY MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. MR. SALESH MANGLA
UG FLOOR, VANDANA BUILDING,
11 TOLSTOY MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001.
...Defendants
Date of filing the suit : 18.05.2018
Date when reserved for judgment : 25.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 13.04.2026
CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,55,490.786/- along with cost & interest @ 18 % per annum with monthly rest.
Pleadings
2. The facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff company is a leading company in the area of Land & Quantity Surveys, Cartography, Geological mapping, Geotechnical investigation and related studies of projects sites. It is well equipped with modern instruments and technologies and Dr. S.N. Bansal is the CEO of the plaintiff company. The present suit has been instituted through Dr. S.N. Bansal, who was duly authorized vide board resolution dated 01.06.2017.
3. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 approached the plaintiff company for conducting the land survey of property bearing no. 5, Sikander Road, New Delhi. It is stated that several telephonic calls were exchanged between the defendants and the plaintiff company on 28.12.2017. The defendants wanted that the requisite survey shall be carried out on the same day as the property was sealed by the Monitoring Committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was de-sealed only for one day and the survey was to be conducted on the said day. It is stated that the plaintiff company acceded to the request of the defendant and reached the site along with the survey team and requisite equipments on the same day i.e. 28.12.2017. The instructions to the plaintiff company for carrying out the survey was given by defendant no. 1 in presence of Ms. G.S. Rao, Sr. Architect, New Delhi Municipal Council and Ms. Rashmi Garg, who was an official of the New Delhi Municipal Council.
CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 2 of 21It is further stated that as per the verbal discussion, the defendant no. 1 agreed to pay a fee of Rs. 25,000/- for land survey and further Rs. 8/- per sq. feet for built measured drawing for the area admeasuring 55,719.363 sq. ft. Thus, the total amount agreed between the parties to be paid to the plaintiff company for its services was Rs. 5,55,490.78/- which included GST. It is submitted that considering the urgency in the matter and at the request of defendant and the officials of New Delhi Municipal Council, the plaintiff carried out the work of survey at the site and also undertook the work of 'as built measured drawing'. The fee fixed for the said work and all other conversations are duly reflected in the e-mails exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendants on 28.12.2017.
4. It is further stated that on 29.12.2017, one Ms. Mamta Sharma, who was an Architect in defendant no. 1 company, sent certain drawings to the plaintiff company through email with specific directions to the plaintiff to prepare the matching drawings. Physical survey of the subject property was carried out and the survey report was handed over in hard copy as well as soft copy to Ms. Rashmi Garg, Architect, New Delhi Municipal Council on 04.01.2018 and also through WhatsApp as directed by the defendants. Plaintiff also updated about the same to both the defendants. It is stated that the officials of the defendant along with the officials of New Delhi Municipal Council requested the plaintiff to remove the name of the plaintiff company from the drawings prepared by it as the said drawings were to be submitted to the committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through New Delhi Municipal Council and not by the defendants or the plaintiff. The plaintiff CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 3 of 21 has also annexed the email dated 04.01.2018 where the drawing of the subject work were sent.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that after completion of work, plaintiff raised a bill of Rs. 4,70,754.90/- inclusive of GST (Rs. 25,000/- + 4,45,754.90/-) dated 03.01.2018 and the same was handed over to the defendant through Ms. Mamta Sharma, however, the bill remained unpaid. Therefore, the plaintiff had sent a reminder dated 23.01.2018 by speed post to defendant no. 1. The plaintiff was also in touch with the defendant no. 2 since completion of work and demanded the payment. However, the defendant no. 2 requested the plaintiff to accept Rs. 60,000/- as full & final payment towards the services provided. It is stated that the said conduct of the defendants was completely unprofessional and they failed to comply with the terms of payment as agreed between the parties. As the bill amount remained unpaid, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 27.02.2018 on both the defendants, which was replied vide reply dated 08.03.2018 denying the genuine demand of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff had sent counter reply on 19.03.2018, however, as the amount was not paid, the present suit was filed seeking recovery of said amount.
6. Written statement has been filed by the defendant no. 1, wherein all the contentions of the plaint have been denied. It is stated that the plaintiff has no cause of action as the defendant no. 1 has never entrusted any project work nor signed or consented to any such scope of work to be awarded to the plaintiff company. It is submitted that the facts averred in the plaint does not meet with the criteria of an agreement to culminate into a contract as required CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 4 of 21 under Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act. It is further averred that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court. Several meetings were held between the plaintiff and defendant company in which it was agreed that the plaintiff will carry out the work for a total sum of Rs. 60,000/-. However, the plaintiff has concealed this fact from the Court. It is further stated that the averments made in the plaint are improbable because the plaintiff has represented itself a leading company in land & quantity survey and it is unlikely that a company of such stature would agree to carry out a project worth Rs. 5,55,490.786/- without any written agreement and without taking advance payment. The facts pleaded in the plaint becomes suspicious because the plaintiff company and the defendant were working together for the first time and therefore, it is unlikely that without any advance or written contract, the plaintiff choose to work for the defendant company as the agreed amount was only Rs. 60,000/- . It is further stated that the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fees nor it has been verified by the rightly authorized representative of the plaintiff company and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.
7. Plaintiff did not file the replication to the written statement of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 did not file any written statement and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2023.
Issues:
8. After completion of the pleadings and from material on record, following issues were framed on 21.11.2023 by my Learned Predecessor:
CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 5 of 21Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff has not paid proper Court fees and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD Issue No. 3: Whether there was no contract between the parties as pleaded by the defendant in its written statement? OPD Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for sum of Rs.5,55,490.786/- as prayed in the prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP Issue No. 6: Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
9. In order to prove its case, Dr. S.N. Bansal, CEO of the plaintiff company examined himself as PW-1. He has filed his evidence by way of affidavit in examination-in-chief which is Ex. PW1/1 wherein he has reiterated the contents of plaint on oath. PW-1 has relied upon various documents i.e. (1) Copy of the board resolution as Mark A. (2) Copy of email dated 28.12.2017 along with the quotation of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/3.
(3) Copy of email dated 29.12.2017 along with the drawings being the sanctioned building plan of New Delhi Municipal Council as Ex. PW1/4. (4) Copy of email dated 04.01.2018 submitting the drawings of the subject work as Ex. PW 1/5.
(5) Copy of bill dated 03.01.2018 as Ex. PW1/6.
CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 6 of 21(6) Copy of letter dated 23.01.2018 along with speed post receipt as Ex. PW1/7.
(7) Copy of legal notice dated 27.02.2018 is Mark B. (8) Copy of reply dated 08.03.2018 to the legal notice as Ex. PW1/9. (9) Copy of reply dated 19.03.2018 to the reply of the legal notice as Ex. PW1/10.
10. PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of defendant by Sh. Pradeep Singh, Ld. Counsel and then discharged as defendant no. 2 was already ex- parte.
11. As per the record, plaintiff examined only two witnesses, however, Ms. Rashmi Garg was numbered as PW-4 as the witnesses mentioned at serial no. 2 and 3 from the list of witnesses were dropped by the plaintiff as recorded in order dated 04.09.2024.
12. PW-4 deposed in her examination-in-chief that she was working with New Delhi Municipal Council since 1991 and she was aware about sealing and desealing of property bearing no. 5, Sikandra Road, New Delhi as per the directions of the monitoring committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, PW-4 stated that she was unaware which agency was appointed by New Delhi Municipal Council for conducting the physical survey of the said property and if the drawings were submitted or were used by the New Delhi Municipal Council as an end user. She stated that this information will be available with the concerned official who may be called to testify. In a question put to her if drawings of the property were handed over to her in the CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 7 of 21 year 2017 by Dr. S.N. Bansal, the then director of the plaintiff company, she stated that she does not remember due to lapse of time. PW-4 was cross examined on behalf of defendant no. 1 by Sh. Vinit Virmani, Ld. Counsel and then discharged as defendant no. 2 was already ex-parte.
13. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Plaintiff's evidence was closed vide statement dated 24.04.2025 and the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence.
Defendant's evidence
14. Defendant examined Ms. Sunita, Authorised Signatory/representative of defendant company as DW-1. DW-1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A and has relied upon board resolution dated 27.03.2023 which is exhibited as Ex. DW1/1. She was cross examined by Dr. Khushboo Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and then discharged.
15. No other witness was examined by defendant no. 1. Counsel of defendant no. 1 closed defendant's evidence vide statement dated 07.11.2025. Defendant no. 2 was already ex-parte and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Arguments
16. I have heard the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has filed written arguments also.
17. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the defendant no. 1 admitted that the work as stated in the plaint was awarded to the plaintiff. In the written statement, it admits that Rs. 60,000/- was settled as remuneration for the work CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 8 of 21 awarded. In view of this admission, the fact that work awarded to plaintiff duly stands established and defendant no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte, therefore, no objection has been raised by defendant no. 2. It is further submitted that as per Section 10 of the Contract Act if by the conduct of the parties there is no denial then same is deemed to be admitted.
18. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further argued that plaintiff examined its Authorized Representative who entered in witness box and testified the facts on oath. All relevant documents forming the basis of plaintiff's claim were duly exhibited during the evidence and defendant failed to discredit the testimony of PW1 by cross-examination or by leading any independent evidence. Once the plaintiff has discharged the onus then the burden shifts on the defendant to rebut the same. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment titled as Rangammal v. Kuppuswami stated to have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, citation is not provided.
19. It is further argued that defendant failed to lead any evidence or to produce the relevant documents before the court to prove its stand, therefore, adverse inference may be drawn that if the said evidence would have been produced the same could not have been in favour of defendant.
20. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further argued that defendant no. 1 has given evasive denials to the contents of the plaint. The contention that there was an agreement of work between the parties has not been specifically denied and in fact defendant no. 1 has admitted that the work was awarded to CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 9 of 21 the plaintiff for which total sum agreed was Rs. 60,000/-. It is submitted that in these circumstances when the defendant no. 1 has admitted the execution of agreement then the onus was upon the defendant no. 1 to prove that the amount agreed was Rs. 60,000/-.
21. Further, it is submitted that defendant has failed to specifically deny the submissions that the plaintiff has prepared and submitted the drawings and invoice dated 03.01.2018. In absence of the specific denial and the fact that plaintiff has placed on record these documents, the said fact also duly stands proved. It is submitted that admittedly the invoice dated 03.01.2018 stands unpaid and in these circumstances, the plaintiff has entitled to recover Rs. 5,55,490.786/- and as the transaction is commercial in nature, therefore, entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
22. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has argued that defendant no. 1 is a real estate company, if any work is awarded by defendant no. 1 company the work order is always issued in writing. The plaintiff has not produced any such work order. It is further contended that admittedly property in question was sealed by the monitoring committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not proved any fact on the basis of which it is claimed that New Delhi Municipal Council has assigned the work to defendant no. 1 without any written document and the defendant no. 1 further assigned the same to plaintiff again without any written document.
23. It is further submitted that no suggestion has been given to DW-1 in CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 10 of 21 cross-examination that the work so alleged was awarded to plaintiff and Mr. Mangla about whom DW-1 has deposed is an independent architect. It is further submitted that even PW-4 who was aware of sealing and desealing of property was not aware about any work of survey being carried out by plaintiff, plaintiff has not produced any book of accounts to show that sum as alleged outstanding to be recovered by the plaintiff firm. It is further submitted that emails placed on record by plaintiff cannot be relied upon as the same are not proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Plaintiff has failed to place on record the requisite certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and failed to carry out the rectification in the certificate despite PW-1 being cross examined on the said aspect. It is further submitted that the said emails were not even put to DW-1 during cross- examination to verify if the email address of the recipient belonged to defendant no. 1 or not. Similarly there is no evidence to show that the invoice produced by the plaintiff was ever served upon defendant no. 1. It is argued that in these circumstances, defendant no. 1 is not liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff.
Findings
24. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the record.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff has not paid proper Court fees and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD
25. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has taken a preliminary objection that the suit is not valued properly for the CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 11 of 21 purpose of court fees. However, only a vague submission has been made. The plaintiff has sought recovery for a sum of Rs. 5,55,490.786/- on which the plaintiff has paid ad valorem court fees of Rs. 7,766/- as per rules. There is no pleading or evidence adduced by defendant no. 1 in support of the objections regarding incorrect valuation of court fees. Hence, present issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD Issue No. 3: Whether there was no contract between the parties as pleaded by the defendant in its written statement? OPD Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for sum of Rs.5,55,490.786/- as prayed in the prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
26. Onus to prove issue no. 1 and 3 was upon defendant no.1 and to prove issue no. 4 was upon the plaintiff. The findings on these issues shall be overlapping, therefore, these issues shall be decided together.
27. It is the case of the plaintiff that work for conducting physical survey by using total survey station of property bearing no. 5, Sikandara Road was assigned to it by defendant no. 1. Plaintiff has pleaded that as per the agreement, the survey was to be conducted on 28.12.2017 as the property was desealed only for that day under the orders of the monitoring committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also contended that the work details was allotted to him in the presence of Mr. G.S. Rao the then senior architect of the New Delhi Municipal Council and another official of New Delhi Municipal CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 12 of 21 Council namely Ms. Rashmi Garg. Plaintiff completed the entire work and has forwarded the drawings as desired. He shared the drawings directly with Ms. Rashmi Garg, Architect, New Delhi Municipal Council after bringing the same to the knowledge of the defendants. Plaintiff has claimed that after completion of the work, he raised his invoice as per the agreed price totaling to sum of Rs. 4,70,754.90/- plus GST. Accordingly, plaintiff has claimed Rs. 5,55,490.786/-.
28. Defendant no. 1 has stated that no such work was ever assigned to the plaintiff by defendant no.1. It is stated that there is no evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff to prove that there was any such contract between the parties. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the initial burden to prove was upon the plaintiff which plaintiff has discharged by examining proprietor Mr. S.N. Bansal as PW-1 who has testified all the facts on oath with supporting documents. It is further argued that the onus shifted upon the defendant to prove that the defendant no. 1 has not awarded such contract to the plaintiff which defendants have failed to discharge because defendant no. 1 has not led any evidence and defendant no. 2 was proceeded exparte.
29. It is correctly argued on behalf of plaintiff that once the plaintiff discharges the initial burden to prove certain facts which are essential to establish his claim, the onus shifts upon the defendant to prove the facts forming basis of the defence. It is also a settled law that the plaintiff has to prove its own case and cannot take any advantage of the deficiencies and lacunae in the defendant's case. The plaintiff must prove its case on its own strength adhering to the principles of burden to prove as contained in Section CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 13 of 21 104, 105 and 106 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. These provisions are reproduced herein as under:
"104. 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, and 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.
105. On whom burden of proof lies.--The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Illustrations.
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore, the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore, the burden of proof is on B.
106. Burden of proof as to particular fact.--The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 14 of 21Illustration.
A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.
xxxx"
30. From the above provisions, it is clear that a person who desires any court to give a judgment or to acknowledge a legal right in his favour and if a person wants the court to believe in the existence of a particular fact then the burden to prove such facts which would entitled the said person for the judgment lies upon him. In the present case also, the burden to prove the existence of the agreement for survey of the property as pleaded in the plaint is upon the plaintiff. I shall now proceed to examine whether the plaintiff has been able to discharge this burden and establish that he was awarded the contract as pleaded in the plaint.
31. The plaintiff has averred that he was asked to complete the survey on the same day i.e. 28.12.2017, he visited the property took measurements and deputed extra manpower to complete the work. After completing the work, he submitted the drawings as agreed. In support of these contentions, plaintiff examined Dr. S.N. Bansal as PW-1 who filed his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW-1/1. However, besides the testimony of PW-1 there is no other supporting evidence to prove that the plaintiff was awarded any such work. During cross- examination, PW-1 admitted that no work was awarded to the plaintiff in writing. As per the case of the plaintiff, the value of the awarded work was Rs. 5,55,490.786/-. The plaintiff is stated to be a private limited company registered under the Companies Act. Defendant no. 1 is also a company. In CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 15 of 21 normal course of business, two companies will not enter into an oral agreement for carrying out the work without written terms and agreement for such a high value. During cross examination PW-1 has also admitted that he has not produced books of accounts nor have any knowledge if the liability of defendant on. 1 company has been shown in the book of accounts. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the book of accounts was not a relevant piece of evidence as the dispute in question is not commercial in nature and it is a simple suit for recovery. There is no principle of law which says that books of account is an admissible evidence only in cases involving commercial dispute. In normal course of business, a private limited company will show all its debts to be recovered for the completed work orders in the books of accounts or would maintain any written record to this effect. Therefore, the books of accounts is a crucial piece of evidence which would have corroborated the claim made by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to produce the same without any plausible explanation.
32. Plaintiff itself has claimed that defendant no. 1 has awarded this work on behalf of New Delhi Municipal Council. It was the New Delhi Municipal Council who required the survey to be conducted, it contacted defendant no. 1 who further awarded the survey work to the plaintiff. Again it cannot be believed that New Delhi Municipal Council which is a government department would award work to private entity without any written contract or agreement. Plaintiff has specified that the work was awarded in presence of Ms. Rashmi Garg, the then official of New Delhi Municipal Council. He also examined the said official as PW-4. However, PW-4 has not supported the CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 16 of 21 case of the plaintiff. She has shown ignorance of the fact that any such survey work was awarded to the plaintiff. She has also shown her ignorance about receiving the drawings from the plaintiff regarding the survey as pleaded in the plaint. PW-4 has stated that the official from the concerned department of New Delhi Municipal Council may be called to verify that plaintiff has submitted any such drawings with the New Delhi Municipal Council. Despite this plaintiff did not call any other witness from New Delhi Municipal Council to prove this fact.
33. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that PW-1 has exhibited all the relevant documents during his evidence. It is a settled law that merely putting an exhibit mark on the documents does not mean that the said document stands proved and onus remains on the party producing the document to prove it as per law. Plaintiff has sought to prove the copy of emails exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no. 1, plaintiff and the New Delhi Municipal Council to establish that he received the sanctioned building plan and submitted his drawings with the New Delhi Municipal Council. These emails are exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3, Ex. PW-1/4 and Ex. PW-1/5. Perusal of these documents shows that the same are photocopy or printout. In order to prove these emails, the plaintiff was required to place on record the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. PW1 has filed an undated certificate showing to be attested on 16.05.2018. However, the said certificate only acknowledges that some emails were exchanged between the parties. It further certifies that said emails are maintained in a computer and is a printout taken from a computer server. The certificate does not mention that it CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 17 of 21 is issued for emails Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5. Nor it mentions that these emails as placed on record is the true printout of emails exchanged and the computer from which the printout was taken out was in proper working condition under the control or supervision of PW1. In these circumstances, this certificate does not fulfill the requirement of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, thus the emails Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5 are not proved and cannot be considered. Defendant no. 1 examined Ms. Sunita who is an employee of defendant no. 1. She was cross examined on behalf of plaintiff but during the cross-examination plaintiff has not put the above stated copy of the emails to DW-1 to ascertain if the email addresses mentioned in the same belongs to defendant no. 1 and to prove that the emails were received by defendant no. 1 which could have ascertained that these emails were exchanged between the parties.
34. In the plaint, plaintiff has averred that he has sent the soft copy of survey report to Ms. Rashmi Garg (PW-4) on her WhatsApp number also as directed by the defendants. Plaintiff himself has examined Ms. Rashmi Garg as PW-4 but no question was put to her if she received the survey report on her WhatsApp when she deposed that she has no knowledge if the sruvey report was submitted with the New Delhi Municipal Council or not.
35. Besides this there are many facts which plaintiff could have proved to support his contention but has not been produced as evidence by the plaintiff. To list few of such evidences, plaintiff pleaded that it has deployed extra manpower to complete the survey report in one day, plaintiff could have examined any such official who is the member of the team deployed to CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 18 of 21 conduct the survey. However, plaintiff has not examined any such witness. PW-1 has stated that he was not aware about the accounts of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff could have examined the concerned person from the accounts department to prove that there was a payment to be recovered from the defendants against the work completed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also not placed on record the orders of the monitoring committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as averred by which the property was desealed. It is averred in the plaint that the work of survey was awarded to the plaintiff in the presence of one Mr. G.S. Rao the then architect of New Delhi Municipal Council but plaintiff has not examined Mr. G.S. Rao as a witness, he was not even named as a witness in the list of witnesses by the plaintiff. In fact plaintiff purposed to examine his chief surveyor and the coordinator but subsequently chose not to examine them also without any plausible explanation.
36. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendant no. 1 has admitted the execution of the agreement by submitting that agreed amount to be paid was Rs. 60,000/- only. It is correct that in the written statement in para no. 3 of the preliminary objections it is averred that defendant company had agreed for a total sum of Rs. 60,000/- for completion of agreed work between the parties and the said amount was agreed after the series of meetings. However, an admission to be acted upon has to be specific. Defendant no. 1 has only admitted that there are some work which was awarded to the plaintiff for which the agreed amount is Rs. 60,000/-. It is not admitted that the work awarded was the same as averred in the plaint. During cross-examination of DW-1, she has deposed that no meeting was ever held CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 19 of 21 between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 regarding conducting of physical survey of the building and the meeting in which amount of Rs. 60,000/- was decided to be paid was held between the plaintiff and Mr. Mangla (defendant no. 2). Thus, there are no clear admissions on behalf of defendant no. 1 and the court cannot pass judgment blindly merely on the basis of admission. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Balraj Taneja & Anr. v. Sunil Madan & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3381.
37. Even if defendant no. 2 has not contested the case and was proceeded exparte or there is admission of certain facts in the written statement, the said admissions cannot be acted upon by the court if the same are insufficient to establish the facts which are basis of the claim made by the plaintiff. Even if it is taken that defendant has admitted that the survey work was awarded to the plaintiff then also defendant has not admitted that the said work was completed as agreed and the survey report was submitted as averred by the plaintiff. In order to recover the amount claimed, plaintiff had to prove these facts also.
38. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is not even an iota of evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff to prove that the survey work was awarded to it or that the amount was claimed was agreed to be paid or that the work was completed by the plaintiff and the invoice was generated for which the amount was paid.
39. The present issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 20 of 21 favour of the defendants.
Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
40. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In view of my findings of issues no. 1, 3 and 4, the plaintiff is held not entitled for any interest and present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue No. 6: Relief.
41. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order is passed with respect to costs.
42. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
43. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Dr. Sugandha Aggarwal) District Judge-04, Patiala House Court, New Delhi This judgment contains 21 pages and all pages have been duly signed by me.
(Announced in the open court on 13th April 2026) (Dr. Sugandha Aggarwal) District Judge-04, Patiala House Court, New Delhi CS 486-18 L & Q SURVEYS PVT. LTD. Vs. TDI INFRACORP. (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. Page 21 of 21