Delhi District Court
Sh. Surjit Singh vs Managing Director on 11 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. NITISH KUMAR SHARMA
CIVIL JUDGE01 ( WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No.612312/16
Date of Institution : 14.05.2016
Date of reservation of judgment : 28.11.2019
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 11.12.2019
Sh. Surjit Singh
S/o Sardar Puran Singh
R/o H.No. 150, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
.................Plaintiff
Vs.
Managing Director
SCJ Plastic Limited
Unit II, 70/A19
Rama Road Nazafgarh Road
New Delhi15
..............Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are
(a) That the defendant had placed an order with the plaintiff for the repair of Kneader Chamber, which was accepted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had visited the office of defendant on number of occasions to demand payment for the repair work but defendant had given false assurances for the payment of amount to the plaintiff.
(b) That the machine of defendant was sent by the plaintiff after CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 1/7 repair work on 09.5.2014 and the repair work was satisfactory as per telephonic message of the defendant.
(c) That the bill no. 114 was raised in which the amount of Rs. 65,625/ was mentioned for the cost indulged in repairing the machine and the defendant received the bill but didn't pay the due amount.
(d) That on number of occasions, the plaintiff sent a letter through registered post dated 17.3.2015 but the defendant failed to pay the amount. Hence the plaintiff constrained a legal notice through his counsel on 29.2.2016 but the defendant neither paid the amount nor even replied to the notice.
Hence this suit.
2. By virtue of present suit the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs :
1.Decree for the sum of Rs. 65,625/ alongwith interest 18 % p.a.
2.Any other relief.
3. DEFENDANT'S VERSION Litigation by its very nature has two side to a story. To give his version, written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant wherein it is stated
1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit without any cause of action.
2. That the defendant "SCJ Plastics Ltd. " had not placed any order to the plaintiff for repair of the kneader chamber and the defendant had never visited in the office of plaintiff on any occasion and no assurance for any payment was given to plaintiff.
3. That the defendant has not received the bill.
4. That defendant company has not received any legal notice from CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 2/7 plaintiff.
Prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
4. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff wherein the averments made in the plaint are reiterated and contentions raised in the W.S are denied.
5. ISSUES Vide Order dated 09.11.2017, following issues were framed
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of sum of Rs. 65,625/ as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18 % p.a till the date of realization as prayed for ? OPP
3. Relief.
6. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 1/A and has relied upon following documents :
1. Order dated 09.5.2014 Ex. PW 1/1
2. Original bill dated 20.6.2014 Ex. PW 1/ 2
3. Legal notice dated 29.02.2016 Ex. PW 1/ 3 4. Postal receipt Ex. PW 1/ 4 Besides himself plaintiff has examined two other witnesses as under
1.Sh. Ghan Shyam as PW2
2.Sh. P.K. Garg as PW3 Plaintiff witnesses were crossexamined by Ld. counsel for defendants. Thereafter vide Order dated 25.10.2018, PE was closed and the matter was listed for DE.
CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 3/7
7. In defendant evidence, defendant has examined its AR namely Sh. Deepak Kumar as DW1 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 1/A and has relied upon the Board Resolution dated 28.5.2016. Same is Ex. DW 1/1.
DW1 has been crossexamined by Ld. counsel for plaintiff and thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard final arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for parties and perused the record.
ISSUE NO. 1 & 21. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of sum of Rs. 65,625/ as prayed for ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18 % p.a till the date of realization as prayed for ?
The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff.
9. As the onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff, it is to be seen from the evidence led by the plaintiff as to whether he has been able to discharge the onus. To substantiate its claim, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex. PW 1/1 i.e work Order dated 09.5.2014 vide which the the assignment of work for repair of kneader Chamber was given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further relied upon document I.e original bill dated 20.6.2014, Ex. PW 1/2 which was stated to be issued by the plaintiff in lieu of work done by him.
10. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff's claim is false as no repair work was given by the defendant to the plaintiff and that SCJ Colourants is a different entity than SCJ Plastics ( defendant) and as such there is no cause of action against the defendant.
11. At this point, it is pertinent to note that in his cross CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 4/7 examination, the plaintiff I.e PW1 has stated that Ex. PW 1/1 I.e documents vide which order was placed with the plaintiff, pertains to the order given by M/s SCJ Colourants.
12. Further during the crossexamination, a cheque I.e Ex. PW 1/D1 was shown to PW1 which has been drawn in the name of SCJ Plastics by the firm of the plaintiff. The plaintiff I.e PW1 stated in response that he had worked for SCJ Plastics in 2014, for the same work, the cheque was issued by SCJ Plastics.
13. Again, during the crossexamination a question pertaining to bill I.e Ex. PW 1/2 was put to the witness to which PW1 had responded that the bill is partly correct and entry I.e with respect to two new router is wrong.
14. The witness PW1 has further stated that Ex. PW 1/ 2 was not raised against SCJ Plastics as neither the work order Ex. PW 1/1 was placed by SCJ plastics Ltd. nor the machine in question was repaired for SCJ Plastics Ltd., and that payment with respect to Ex. PW 1/ 2 was to be made by SCJ Colourants only.
15. Again, PW1 admitted that legal notice was issued to M/s SCJ Colourants. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff had the knowledge that SCJ Colourants and SCJ Plastics are different entities. Further, the PW1 has also failed to produce on record any document pertaining to his relationship with the proprietorship concern M/s Dashmesh Engineering Works by whom Ex.PW 1/ 2 has been issued.
16. In view of the aforesaid, it can be stated that the plaintiff had failed to stand the test of crossexamination and his testimony has to be read with circumstances.
17. The other two witnesses summoned by the plaintiff are PW CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 5/7 2 and PW3, who are employees of defendant. PW2 had stated that he had received the machine on the request of the guard as he was standing at the gate.
18. Nothing to the effect that the machine was received on behalf of the defendant, came out from the testimony of PW2. PW3 did not support the case of plaintiff at all and has denied that Ex. PW 1/1 was signed by him.
In the case of Murari Lal vs State of UP AIR 1980 SC, it was held by the Hon'ble Court that "The argument that the Court should not venture to compare the writings itself as it would thereby assume to itself the rule of an expert is entirely without force as Section 73 expressly enables the Court to compare the disputed writing with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of a person by whom it purports to have been written. There may be cases where both sides call experts and voices of science are heard or there may be cases where neither side calls an expert being not able to afford him and in all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings to come to its own conclusion. It was further held that the duty placed upon the court cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. "
The signatures of PW3 on his testimony as well as on Ex. PW 1/D 4 and PW 1/D3, are entirely different from the signatures at point A on Ex. PW 1/1. Thus, the signatures on Ex. PW 1/1 cannot be CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 6/7 attributed to PW3.
19. In view of the aforesaid, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus on the balance of preponderance of probabilities.
Issue no. (1) and (2) are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
20. RELIEF In view of aforementioned findings on Issue No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2019.12.11
SHARMA 17:01:37 +0530
Pronounced in the open court (Nitish Kumar Sharma)
today i.e on 11.12.2019 Civil Judge01(West)/Delhi
CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 7/7