Delhi District Court
Sunita vs Bharat Bhushan Sunda on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-012840-2023
CS (COMM) No.1115/2023
Ms. Sunita
Proprietor, M/s Sunita & Subhash Constructions
Having Office at R/o 825,
Gall No.7, Near Escort 2nd Plant,
Indira Nagar, Sector 7,
Faridabad-121006
Through its Authorized Signatory
Shri Subhash Chand ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sunda
S/s Late Sh. Jiwan Lal Sunda
R/o C-400, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024 ....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 18.12.2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 21.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 07.03.2026
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY ALONGWITH DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFITS
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.39,00,000/- alongwith interest, recovery of NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 1 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:37:47 +0530 construction material / equipment worth of Rs.15,00,000/- lying at the suit property / construction site or in the alternate, recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith damages and mesne profits.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a) The Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of repairs and construction work of buildings and interiors. The present suit has been filed through Shri Subhash Chand, Authorized Signatory of the Plaintiff, who has been authorized vide Authority Letter to file the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff.
b) The Defendant approached the Plaintiff for reconstruction of his property bearing No.C-400, Defence Colony, New Delhi-
110024 and after negotiation, a Contractor Service Agreement dated 24.04.2023 was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for reconstruction of the property bearing No.C-400, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. The Defendant did not give the copy of the agreement dated 24.04.2023 to the Plaintiff despite several assurances from Defendant. Later, the Plaintiff could arrange the photocopy of the same which has been filed with the suit.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 2 of 45 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:37:53 +0530
c) After execution of the Contractor Service Agreement dated 24.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"), the Plaintiff started construction work on the property bearing No.C-400, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024, (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property") as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 29.04.2023.
d) The Plaintiff had already completed a big part of the construction work at the aforesaid property up to 4 linters when Defendant created trouble on one pretext or the other to usurp the money of the Plaintiff. The Defendant in a very clever way stopped the Plaintiff completing the construction work only with an intention to grab the money/investment of the Plaintiff and the Defendant had breached the terms and conditions of the said contract to save him to pay the outstanding due pending towards the Plaintiff. The Defendant had not paid an amount of Rs.39,00,000/- approximately to the Plaintiff for work done by the Plaintiff in pursuance to agreement dated 24.04.2023.
e) On 27.08.2023, the son of the Defendant under the influence of alcohol misbehaved with the labour of the Plaintiff and the watchmen illegally detained labour of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint of 27.08.2023 to the officials of PS Defence Colony which was under consideration on date of filing of the present suit and at that time, copy of the Agreement dated 24.04.2023 was supplied to the Plaintiff. After seeing the said NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 3 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:37:59 +0530 Agreement, the Plaintiff was shocked and surprised to see the signature of Smt. Sunita on the said agreement which were forged one as Smt. Sunita never signed the said Agreement dated 24.04.2023.
f) The intention of the Defendant was deceitful and malafide even at the time of entering into the Agreement dated 24.04.2023. The Defendant did not pay an amount of Rs.39,00,000/- approximately to the Plaintiff for work done by the Plaintiff pursuant to agreement dated 24.04.2023.
g) The Defendant made allegations on false and frivolous grounds without any iota of truth and without any cogent reason and sent legal notice of termination dated 29.08.2023. The Plaintiff duly replied the same by giving the true picture of the state of affairs qua the construction work done by the Plaintiff on date 01.09.2023. The Defendant also sent the replication of the reply of legal notice on 11.09.2023. Plaintiff also filed a police complaint against the illegal acts of the Defendant on 09.09.2023 bearing DD No.39A at PS Defence Colony. The Plaintiff raised the bills of the work done to the Defendant which were already verified by the Architect namely M/s Sandeep Tomar who was appointed by the Defendant.
h) The Defendant was extending threats that he had the connections with the higher ups in the police department and NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 4 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:06 +0530 would get the Plaintiff implicated in false criminal cases and the Defendant also sent a legal notice for termination of Agreement dated 29.08.2023.
i) In the suit property, stocks, goods and other construction material of the Plaintiff were still lying at the construction site which is worth Rs.15,00,000/- approximately. Furthermore, the Defendant had not paid approximately Rs.39,00,000/- which was due qua the construction work which the Plaintiff had already done in pursuance to the agreement dated 24.04.2023.
j) Defendant filed an injunction suit bearing No.CS/SCJ/1231/2023 against the Plaintiff which was pending before the court of Ld. Commercial Civil Judge-Cum-ARC-Cum Admin-CJ, South-East Delhi on date of filing of the present suit.
k) The Plaintiff completed a big part of the contract and was also willing and ready to perform his part of the agreement, but the Defendant was not willing and ready to perform his part of the agreement dated 24.04.2023.
l) The Plaintiff preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 19.09.2023, however Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 5 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:12 +0530 Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 01.11.2023.
3. Hence, the present suit was filed in the name of proprietorship firm. Vide order dated 18.12.2023, my learned predecessor observed that the suit should have been filed in the name of proprietor and directed to file amended memo of parties. In terms of order dated 18.12.2023, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Memo of Parties as well as list of documents on 11.01.2024. My learned Predecessor observed that none of the prayers made in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC were maintainable.
4. On 11.01.2024, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the material of the Plaintiff worth Rs.15,00,000/- was lying at the site and the Plaintiff should be permitted to remove the same. There was no such prayer in the plaint and learned Counsel for Plaintiff sought time to amend the plaint. Therefore, learned Counsel for Plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the suit and an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The Plaintiff was also directed to file fresh Statement of Truth with the amended plaint.
5. On 25.01.2024, fresh Statement of Truth was filed on behalf of Plaintiff in support of the Amended Plaint alongwith an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The Plaintiff had also filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. The amendment was allowed by my learned Predecessor and Amended Plaint NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 6 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:18 +0530 was taken on record vide order dated 25.01.2024. Summons and notice of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC were issued to the Defendant for 22.02.2024. On 22.02.2024, learned Counsel for Defendant appeared and filed his Vakalatnama for the Defendant.
6. Vide order dated 14.03.2024, application of the Defendant filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was disposed of with direction to the Plaintiff to correct valuation in the plaint within 4 weeks from that date and file the deficient court fees. Vide same order dated 14.03.2024, the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.
7. Vide order dated 16.05.2024, application under Order XI Rule 1 (5) CPC filed by the Plaintiff was allowed and invoices filed with the application were taken on record.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. In his Written Statement, Defendant admitted that on 24.04.2023, the Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed to enter into a Contractor Agreement for the construction of property bearing number C-400, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 and also that in the said agreement, it was mutually decided that the Plaintiff would complete the construction work within 8 months of commencement of the agreement and in consideration, would be paid for the work. Defendant also admitted that NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 7 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:23 +0530 further payment clause was also decided in the said agreement and as such the payments were regularly made.
9. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendant in the Written Statement are that:
Preliminary Objections:
a) The Plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory service and started using cheap quality and substandard products in the construction and repair of the property of the Defendant.
b) The architecture namely Sandeep Tomar was known to the Plaintiff and he introduced the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the construction work. After the constant request of Defendant, the Plaintiff had picked up his goods and confirmed the same on WhatsApp.
c) In the said agreement, there was a penalty clause on the Plaintiff which made him liable for a penalty of Rs.15,000/- per day, if Plaintiff failed to construct the property by using the mentioned quality products for reconstruction which Plaintiff failed miserably to provide the Services as agreed. To escape from the liability, the Plaintiff filed a police complaint on 27.08.2023 in the PS Defence Colony. Since it all went in vain, the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff to harass and defame the Defendant.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 8 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:29 +0530
d) The Defendant had already paid the Plaintiff as per the scheduled plan mentioned in the agreement but when the Defendant found the use of substandard quality products in construction site, then he immediately sent a legal notice to Plaintiff.
e) The Plaintiff, after receiving the legal notice dated 29.08.2023, started picking up its stuff from the construction site and loaded it in the truck which was hired by the Plaintiff itself and the same was even confirmed on WhatsApp messenger by the Plaintiff. The son of the Defendant even clicked photographs and recorded the video of the said incidence which proves that the Plaintiff had already taken his goods with him.
f) The Plaintiff lodged many false and frivolous complaints against the Defendant in the labour court regarding the non-payment after which the inspection was done by the labour union and found that the Plaintiff was claiming false amount and bills were bogus after which the Defendant got the bill prepared from the South Delhi Building Contractors Welfare Association which the Defendant annexed with his Written Statement.
g) The suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-disclosure of the cause of action and also there is a deficit in the court fees paid for the relief claimed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 9 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:35 +0530
h) The claim of the Plaintiff is bogus and false as neither Plaintiff has mentioned any list of articles nor annexed any kind of bill for the work done.
i) The Plaintiff has breached the terms of the agreement which gives the right to the Defendant to terminate the agreement dated 24.04.2023.
Reply on merits:-
a) The allegation of illegal detaining of any labour is false and frivolous even through the labour has given their statement in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. It was son of the Defendant who stood up for the labourers and helped the labour financially to visit the doctor as he was ill because the Plaintiff was not paying them well and on time. The complaint filed by the Plaintiff was proven to be wrong and malafide as neither any labour was detained nor any kind of violation was done by the Defendant.
b) No claim has been left and the legal notice dated 29.08.2023 was sent to the Plaintiff for the reason of using substandard products and constructing the property in a wrong manner which has also been verified through conducting Non-Destructive Testing through the Scientific Infra Geo Investigation Laboratory. In the said report, it has been revealed that the "out of 20 readings in NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 10 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:41 +0530 overall structure the non-uniform homogeneity of concrete and low density. The overall concrete has varied grade quality of the density pattern & have the presence of voids, honeycomb and micro-cracks". The complaint dated 09.09.2023 has been filed on false and baseless grounds and the Defendant did not receive any information regarding the said complaint.
c) Sandeep Tomar is well known to the Plaintiff, and he introduced the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff raised a false bill with wrong measurements and with overpriced rates which proves his intention of grabbing money from the Defendant. The total area of Defendant's property is around 2100 Sq. Feet and the Plaintiff has generated the bill for an area of 2578 Sq. Feet. Even the Defendant had got a bill generated by the South Delhi Building Contractors Welfare Association and according to the said bill, the Plaintiff has already been paid for the work done.
d) Plaintiff had taken the goods and materials with him.
Further, the Plaintiff was allowed into the premises only to re- construct the property, which Plaintiff failed to do and the Defendant was left with no other option but to terminate the said agreement. The Plaintiff was constantly connected with the son of the Defendant regarding the pickup of his goods and even the said goods were loaded in the truck that was hired by the Plaintiff.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 11 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:47 +0530
e) The Defendant has suffered an irreparable loss due to the acts of the Plaintiff as he has used substandard quality products and the wrong in constructing the property of the Defendant which was proven in non-destructive report of the property. The Defendant has suffered an irreparable loss as the structure of the property has been raised in a wrong manner.
f) The Defendant filed a suit for injunction against the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff was creating hindrances for him to get their pending construction work completed as he used to instigate the contractors due to which nobody was ready to take the work.
g) The Plaintiff has ruined the structure of the property as he constructed the property with sub-standard quality and poor designing. He stated himself to be an experienced contractor which is wrong after seeing the work done by him. The said fact is already proven from the report of the Non-Destructive Test.
10. Relying on the said averments, the Defendant has submitted that there is no merit in the present suit, and it deserves to be dismissed.
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
11. Replication has been filed by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 12 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:38:52 +0530 FRAMING OF ISSUES
12. Vide order dated 01.06.2024, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of sum of 39,00,000/-
from the defendant in respect of the work done under the agreement dated 24.04.2023 with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% p.a.? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to allow the plaintiff to remove her goods from the site and in the alternative whether she is entitled to a decree for 15,00,000/- as prayed? OPP (3) Subject to outcome of issue no. (ii), Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest on the amount granted under issue no. (ii)? If yes, at what rate? OPP (4) Relief.
13. On 30.07.2024, evidence affidavit of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were filed and the matter was adjourned for Plaintiff's Evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
14. On 06.08.2024, Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Subhash Chand. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/1. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
(1) The Authority letter dt. 10.12.2023 as Ex.PW-1/A. NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 13 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:01 +0530 (2) Copy of agreement dt.24.04.2023 is Mark A (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/B).
(3) Copy of complaint dt. 27.08.2023 is Mark B (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/C) (4) Copy of Legal notice dt. 29.08.2023 is Mark C (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/D).
(5) Copy of Reply of legal notice dt. 01.09.2023 is Mark D (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/E).
(6) Postal receipt is Ex.PW-1/B (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex. PW-1/F).
(7) Copy of Replication to the reply of legal notice dt. 11.09.2023 is Mark E (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/G).
(8) Copy of complaint dt. 09.09.2023 is Mark F (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/H. (9) Full and final invoice undated as Ex.PW-1/C (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/I.) (10) The non-starter report dt. 01.11.2023 as Ex.PW-1/D (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-1/J).
(11) Bills, invoices, ledger accounts as Ex.PW-1/E (colly.) (in the evidence affidavit, this document is mentioned as Ex.PW-I/K (colly.) NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 14 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:08 +0530
15. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 06.08.2024 and discharged on the same day.
16. On 09.08.2024, the Plaintiff Smt. Sunita examined herself as PW-
2. She presented her evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. She relied upon the authority letter, Ex. PW-1/A.
17. PW-2 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 09.08.2024 and discharged on the same day.
18. On 09.08.2024, the Plaintiff also examined Shri Hemant Kumar Chaudhary as PW-3. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-3/A. He relied upon the agreement dated 24.04.2023, Mark B.
19. PW-3 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 09.08.2024, 19.10.2024 and discharged on 19.10.2024.
20. On 19.10.2024, the Plaintiff examined Shri Sandeep Tomar as PW-
4. He deposed that he tendered invoice dated 20.08.2023 running into two pages which is already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/C which bears his signature and his stamp on each page at Point A & B respectively. He did not tender his affidavit of evidence and his examination in chief was recorded in the court. The extracts of the same have been referred to in the 'Findings' wherever necessary.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 15 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:14 +0530
21. PW-4 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 19.10.2024 and 16.11.2024 and discharged on 16.11.2024.
22. There were four witnesses of Plaintiff to be examined and therefore, vide order dated 16.11.2024, Shri Shivam Takiar was appointed as Ld. Local Commissioner for recording the evidence in the present matter in terms of Order XVIII Rule 4 (2) CPC and the matter was adjourned for 21.02.2025 for report of learned Local Commissioner.
23. In the interregnum, on 29.11.2024, the Plaintiff also examined Shri Mahesh Yadav, Sub-inspector PS Defence Colony, as PW-5. He proved on record the complaint dated 27.08.2023, Mark B as Ex. PW-5/A. PW-5 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant and discharged on 29.11.2024. On the same day, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of Shri Subhash Chand, Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
24. Defendant examined DW-1 Shri Jasbir Singh on 25.01.2025. He deposed that he had issued a document/Bill which was marked as DW- 1/A. He stated that he was General Secretary of South Delhi Building Contractor Welfare Association since 31st August 2023 and Welfare Association has been established and registered under the Society Registration Act vide Registration No.3073/District South/2023. He also stated that Association had been formed to protect the interest of builders NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 16 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:22 +0530 and contractors. He did not tender his affidavit of evidence and his examination in chief was recorded in the court. The extracts of the same have been referred to in the 'Findings' wherever necessary. He was cross- examined on the same day by learned counsel for Plaintiff and was thereafter discharged.
25. Defendant also examined DW-2 Shri Aamir Khan on 15.02.2025. He tendered NDT Test Report (running into 25 pages) conducted 1 year ago on 05.09.2023, on the property bearing No.C-400, Defence Colony, New Delhi which he stated that he had issued which was exhibited as DW-2/A(colly). He further deposed that he is Technical Manager at Scientific Infra Geo Investigation Laboratory where he was working since 2 years as a Technical Manager. He did not tender his affidavit of evidence and his examination in chief was recorded in the court. The extracts of the same have been referred to in the 'Findings' wherever necessary. DW-2 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 15.02.2025 and discharged on the same day.
26. Defendant examined DW-3 Shri Bharat Bhushan Sunda on 05.07.2025. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW- 3/A. He relied upon the following documents: -
i. Contract Agreement as Ex. RW-1/1. ii. Copy of the report of Scientific Infra Geo Investigation
Laboratory is Ex. RW-1/2. [The same is already exhibited as Ex. DW-2/A (Colly.) and would be read as Ex. DW-2/A to avoid confusion].
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 17 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:30 +0530 iii. Copy of the Bill verified by the South Delhi Building Contractors Welfare Association as Ex. RW-1/3.
iv. Copy of the WhatsApp chat is Ex. RW-1/4. (The same is already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D1 and would be read as Ex. PW-1/D1 to avoid confusion).
27. Defendant proposed exhibiting the Agreement which was Mark A and therefore, Mark A was exhibited i.e. Ex. PW-1/B1. Ex. RW-1/3 being the photocopy of bill was de-exhibited and was marked as Mark DW-1/A with liberty to Defendant to summon relevant witness/record or to prove the same as per law.
28. DW-3 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 12.07.2025. On the same day, DW-3 was discharged.
29. Defendant also examined DW-4 Shri Kapeesh Sunda on 05.07.2025. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW- 4/A. He relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Copy of WhatsApp Chat as Ex. RW-2/1. (The same was already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D1 and was directed that it would be read as Ex. PW-1/D1 to avoid confusion).
(ii) Copy of the Bill verified by the South Delhi Building Contractors Welfare Association as Ex. RW-2/2. (The same was already marked as Mark DW-1/A).
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 18 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:37 +0530
30. DW-4 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 05.07.2025 and he was discharged on the same day.
31. Defendant's Evidence was closed vide order dated 05.07.2025 and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
32. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that Plaintiff and the Defendant executed a Contract Service Agreement dated 24.04.2023 and thereafter, the Plaintiff started construction work on the suit property and completed construction work at the suit property up to 4 linters. However, Defendant suddenly sent the legal notice of termination dated 29.08.2023 for malafide reasons and did not pay approximately Rs.39,00,000/- to the Plaintiff which remained to be paid on the date of termination for the construction work carried out by Plaintiff. He also submitted that goods worth Rs.15,00,000/- were detained by the Defendant at site which the Defendant did not allow to be removed by the Plaintiff and thereby causing loss of about Rs.55,00,000/- to Plaintiff, thus compelling Plaintiff to file the present suit.
33. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Defendant argued that Plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit against the Defendant. He also stated that the Plaintiff had already been paid its dues and the Plaintiff has raised false bills inflating its claims to cause loss to the Defendant. He submitted that the Defendant terminated the contract of Plaintiff since NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 19 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:44 +0530 Plaintiff had used sub-standard material of construction and had had raised sub-standard construction, thereby putting the Ddefendant to harassment and loss. Learned Counsel for Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had taken away all its stock lying at site and the same are duly recorded in the WhatsApp chat exchanged between the AR of Plaintiff and son of Defendant. He submitted that there is no merit in the present suit and the suit deserves to be dismissed.
34. Rival submissions of the parties considered and perused the record very carefully.
FINDINGS
35. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of sum of 39,00,000/- from the defendant in respect of the work done under the agreement dated 24.04.2023 with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% p.a.?
Onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
36. Plaintiff has stated in the Plaint and deposed in affidavit of evidence of its authorized signatory that the Plaintiff and the Defendant executed a Contract Service Agreement dated 24.04.2023 and thereafter, the Plaintiff started construction work on the suit property. Plaintiff has further submitted that it had completed a big part of the construction work at the suit property but the Defendant in a very clever way stopped the Plaintiff from completing the construction work with the intention of NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 20 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:51 +0530 grabbing hard earned money of the Plaintiff and has not paid an amount of Rs.39,00,000/- to the Plaintiff for work done by the Plaintiff pursuant to the said agreement.
37. Defendant, in his Written Statement as well as in his affidavit of evidence, deposed that he had paid sum of Rs.89,00,000/- to the Plaintiff for the work done. It has also been stated on behalf of Defendant that the Plaintiff had constructed the slabs up to three floors, with columns on each floor, using substandard quality products and no amount was pending to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as Plaintiff had already received the amount for work done. The fact of Plaintiff having completed construction work at the suit property up to 4 linters is not disputed. However, the Defendant denied about him troubling the Plaintiff and alleged that Plaintiff used sub-standard material and raised sub-standard construction.
38. The Plaintiff has submitted that Contractor Service Agreement dated 24.04.2023 (Agreement) was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for reconstruction of the suit property, but Defendant did not give the copy of the Agreement dated 24.04.2023 to the Plaintiff despite several assurances from Defendant.
39. PW-1 as well as PW-2 have also deposed to the same effect in their respective affidavits of evidence. PW-1 is husband of PW-2 and has submitted that he is the authorized signatory of the Plaintiff and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 21 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:39:57 +0530
40. PW-1 tendered the photocopy of the Agreement as Ex. PW-1/B. Since it was a photocopy, it was de-exhibited and marked as Mark A. PW-1 deposed that it was later on that he could arrange the photocopy of Agreement. During this cross examination, PW-1 stated that he had not received the copy of the agreement and had demanded the copy of the Agreement from the Defendant many times verbally. He also stated that he got the copy of the Agreement after lodging the FIR which was lodged as the Defendant had locked his labour inside the suit property.
41. PW-1 further stated that the said agreement was executed and signed between the civil engineer, namely Mr. Hemant Chaudhary, Mr. Sandeep Tomar and Mr. Kapish Sunda and his brother, and that he did not remember the name of brother of Mr. Kapish Sunda. However, the copy of the Agreement which was tendered by PW-1 has been executed between the Defendant and the Plaintiff which was signed on behalf of Defendant by Defendant himself and on behalf of Plaintiff by PW-1.
42. It is noticed that Mark-A bears signatures of Defendant and authorized signatory of Plaintiff, i.e. PW-1 as well as that of PW-2, Ms. Sunita. During this cross examination, PW-1 was shown signatures at point X on first page of Mark A which reads as Sunita and he stated that he could not identify those signatures. Thereafter, he was shown signatures at Point Y on the first page of Mark A. PW-1 stated that the signatures at point Y was his signatures.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 22 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:03 +0530
43. In her affidavit of evidence, PW-2, Ms. Sunita deposed that the Agreement dated 24.02.2023 does not bear her signatures. During her cross-examination, PW-2 stated that all agreements, which are signed by the Plaintiff concern, are within her knowledge and she was fully aware about the execution of the Agreement in the present case. She stated that she did not remember the date of the Agreement.
44. She was asked to read her affidavit, and she stated that she could not read its contents since contents were in English and requested that the contents be explained to her in Hindi. After being explained the contents of her affidavit of evidence, PW-2 stated that the date of Agreement mentioned in para 3 of her affidavit of evidence as 24.02.2023 is correct and that the said Agreement was not brought to her home for her signatures and also that her husband did not sign that agreement.
45. However, the Agreement tendered by PW-1, i.e. Mark A, is not the Agreement dated 24.02.2023 rather it is the Agreement dated 24.04.2023. PW-1 stated that it bears his signature at point Y but PW-2 stated that it was not signed by her or her husband. PW-2 also stated that she was not aware if the Agreement, on behalf of the Plaintiff concern, was signed or not by any other person also such as employee of Plaintiff. PW-2 Stated that she did not know how and when Plaintiff received a copy of the Agreement in this case. She admitted that she was like a sleeping proprietor of the Plaintiff firm and did not perform any active work in the business of the firm. In the same breath, she said that her husband, i.e. NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 23 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:08 +0530 PW-1, correctly stated that all banking work of the firm was looked after by her i.e. PW-2.
46. Mr. Hemant Kumar Chaudhary appeared as PW-3 on behalf of Plaintiff and stated in his examination in chief that:
"PW-3 was B. Tech. (Civil) and professionally worked as civil engineer since 2012. He also admitted that he knew PW1 as well as PW2. He had also deposed that the agreement dated 24.04.23, i.e. Ex. PW-1/B (which was later de-exhibited and marked as Mark A) was executed in his presence."
47. A categorical question was put to him as to who all were parties to the Agreement and he answered that Subhash Chand (PW-1) signed as a party. He signed as a witness and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, architect, as other witness. As observed earlier, the Agreement has been signed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant which bears signatures of PW-1 on behalf of Plaintiff, his wife PW-2 and that of Defendant. The columns of witness do not have any signatures and are blank.
48. During his cross examination, PW-3 stated that he did not remember whether the schedule of material was given to the Plaintiff with the Agreement in question. He stated that he had not seen the schedule of material (make list) but he saw the same when the work was to be started. He volunteered that the work could not have been done without seeing the make list. PW-3 stated that he received soft copy of the Agreement with the make list from Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1, before start of the work.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 24 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:16 +0530 However, he stated that he did not know when Mr. Subhash Chand, PW- 1, himself got the copy of the Agreement and stated that he received the soft copy of the Agreement after about 7 days of the start of the excavation work for the basement. He also stated that he did not remember whether the copy received by him was signed by Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1, and Mr. Bharat Bhushan. At that stage, he sought permission to look into the document in his mobile phone which was given and then he said, the soft copy received by him was a word file. It was not signed by the parties and he received it on 29.03.2023 which was sent to him by the architect Mr. Sandeep Kumar (who deposed as PW-4).
49. A question was put to PW-3 if the agreement which he had looked into his mobile phone and which he received on 29.03.2023 was the same document which was received by him about one week after the start of the excavation work. PW-3 replied that the Agreement which he received after about 7 days of the start of the execution work was sent to him by Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1, in the group called C-400 which has now been deleted. He also stated that a printout of the Agreement had been kept at the site and the said Agreement had the signatures of Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1, but not that of the Defendant.
50. PW-4, Mr. Sandeep Tomar, did not tender his affidavit of evidence and was examined in chief by learned Counsel for Plaintiff followed by his cross-examination by learned counsel for Defendant. He deposed that he was appointed as an architect by Mr. Kapish Sunda, son of Defendant. He stated that work was assigned to him for designing the building and NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 25 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:22 +0530 supervision of construction and for the said work, Mr. Kapish Sunda and Mr. Bharat Sunda, the Defendant, had asked him to provide a contractor for the construction of the suit property and PW-4 gave them few names out of which he chose the company of Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1 and his wife, PW-2. He stated that he got the contract signed by two parties and he was also the witness in the agreement at point D in Mark A. During his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he had never received the physical copy of Agreement dated 24.04.2023, i.e. Mark A, and he did not receive copy of the same in any manner. He also stated that physical copy of Mark A bears his signatures. It is noticed that the Agreement, Mark A contains Schedule A which describes the work to be done in the suit property. The said schedule bears signatures of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as that of the Defendant. During his cross-examination, PW-3 identified his signatures at Point C and PW-4, during his cross-examination, identified his signature at point D in the said Schedule A. However, Schedule A cannot be called as Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and signatures at point C and D are not there on the Schedule A as a witness because the column of witness in Mark A is blank.
51. Further, during his examination in chief PW-4 stated that he had requested Mr. Kapish Sunda a number of times to provide copy of the contract to Mr. Subhash Chand Baghel so that he also has the copy of the contract but the same was never given to him.
52. It is therefore noticed that copy of the Agreement dated 24.04.2023 which has been placed on record does not match with statement of any of NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 26 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:30 +0530 the witnesses of the Plaintiff including proprietor of the Plaintiff, PW-2 as well as her husband, Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1 i.e. authorized signatory of Plaintiff with respect to date of the execution, the signatories to the Agreement, witnesses to the Agreement or the date of receiving of the copy of the same by Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1. As noticed above, PW-1 denied signatures of PW-2, Sunita, at point X on Mark A and PW-2, i.e. Sunita, denied her signatures at point X as well as that of her husband, PW-2, at point Y, on Mark A.
53. Had Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1, not been having the copy of the Agreement as stated by him (and which was received by him after he was no longer working at site), it is not clear as to which Agreement PW-3 had received from PW-1, Mr. Subhash Chand, after about 7 days of the start of the execution work which was sent to him as a soft copy by Mr. Subhash Chand in the group called C-400 which had now been deleted. PW-3 had also stated that he received the copy of Agreement before start of work and also said that he received the copy of Agreement after about seven days of start of excavation of basement which is again a contradiction in his own statements. PW-3 also stated that a printout of the Agreement had been kept at the site and the said Agreement had the signatures of Mr. Subhash Chand, PW-1, but not that of the Defendant. The submissions made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 make it highly improbable that the work was executed in the suit property as per the Agreement dated 24.04.2023 which was tendered by PW-1 and was de- exhibited and marked as Mark-A because of being a photocopy.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 27 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:36 +0530
54. PW-1 has submitted that the Plaintiff could arrange the photocopy of the Agreement which has been filed with the suit which was supplied to him after he filed a complaint dated 27.08.2023 to the officials of PS Defence Colony i.e. after the termination of the Agreement. The copy of the Agreement dated 24.04.2023 which was allegedly supplied to the Plaintiff after he filed a complaint dated 27.08.2023 to the officials of PS Defence Colony contained signatures of Ms. Sunita. However, witnesses of Plaintiff including Sunita categorically stated that Contractor Service Agreement dated 24.04.2023 was not signed by Sunita. Therefore, the copy of Agreement filed by Plaintiff with the Plaint cannot be relied upon by Plaintiff or any of the witnesses of Plaintiff and the Agreement which was executed was never brought on record. The copy of Agreement which was tendered by PW-1 and was de-exhibited as Mark-A. It was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B-1 as Defendant had admitted Mark A to be the same document which was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant. However, the exhibiting of that document does not support the case of Plaintiff as in view of testimony of witnesses of Plaintiff, Ex. PW-1/B-1 cannot be the same Agreement for which submissions have been made by the witnesses of Plaintiff.
55. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed miserably to prove that the work on the suit property was carried out as per the terms and conditions of Mark A in view of the contradictions referred in the above 2 paragraphs and the copy of the Agreement which was supplied to PW-3 by PW-1 as a soft copy or which was kept at site during construction of the work cannot be construed as the same Agreement which was executed between the NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 28 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:43 +0530 Plaintiff and the Defendant since PW-3 has stated that he was provided the copy of the Agreement on 24.03.2023 and did not bear the signatures of the Defendant. Furthermore, PW-1 as well as PW-3 has given an altogether different description of who all were the signatories of the Agreement which was allegedly executed in respect of the suit property.
56. Plaintiff has also submitted that after execution of the Agreement, the Plaintiff started construction work on the suit property as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It is not understandable that without having the copy of Agreement, how Plaintiff ensured that construction work on the suit property was carried out as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
57. In his examination in chief, PW-3 deposed that he had inspected the suit property on many occasions during its construction so long as PW-1 was engaged in the construction. PW-3 deposed that the material used during the construction was best in quality and make as per specifications. He deposed that methodology used for construction was best in techniques and multiple visits were organized by the Defendant during the construction of building at each and every level of casting for checking of steels, column layouts, casting of concrete, foundation etc. He also deposed that one personal guard/chowkidar was 24X7 available at the suit property to inspect the work and report to the Defendant on everyday basis by photographs.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 29 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:50 +0530
58. However, no photographs have been placed on record by Plaintiff or PW-3 in terms of this submission made by PW-3. It has to be noticed that PW-3 deposed that he had inspected the suit property on many occasions during its construction so long as PW-1 was engaged in the construction. The said deposition on part of PW-3 establishes that he had not inspected the suit property after the stoppage of the work of construction by PW-1 on the suit property. During his cross examination, PW-3, stated that he did the inspection of all work done under his supervision and volunteered that the same was under his 24X7 supervision. He stated that he had not prepared reports regarding the inspection in respect of the project in question and also that he did not undertake any other project during the time for which the present project was going on. He gave account of the stage wise inspection, first stage as starting from excavation, material procurement, foundation, steel framing, shuttering, curing, retaining wall including casting off retaining wall and footing plus raft and second stage as: slab work, shuttering, framing, steel check and casting, Columns, framing, casting, testing and curing. PW-3 you proved that with this then move to the upper construction above basement level and repeat the same stages. Therefore, he had not given any statement about floor wise construction and inspection thereof.
59. PW-3 also stated that he could not tell the dates of inspection of the Project by him as the inspection was to be done according to status and his presence was marked in the site register. However, no site register has been produced or placed on record by the Plaintiff or by PW-3. PW-3 also stated that he did not prepare any inspection report.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 30 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:40:58 +0530
60. PW-3 stated that he had not read the terms of the Agreement as he had signed there only as a witness. He submitted that Mr. Subhash Chand does not hold any degree or formal training in construction work and volunteered that he had long experience in the field of construction and the clients had their own consultants.
61. PW-3 stated that he did not remember the date when the work was stopped. He stated that the total contract was for construction of approximately 15,000 sq. ft. The rate was Rs.1,230/- per sq. ft. for the basement and Rs.1,100/- per sq. ft. for the typical floors.
62. PW-3 was shown Architect Bill, Ex. PW1/C, and was asked to tell the total area for which the bill was prepared to which he answered that the bill had been prepared according to item work as per the contract. He also stated that the area of the floor was mentioned, and percentage of the item work was also mentioned and that the work could not be described only in terms of area. He stated that if the project had been completed, he could have calculated the construction in terms of area alone.
63. PW-3 also stated that that he did not remember the exact total amount but the total contract amount for construction was approximately Rs.1.80-1.90 crores and that the amount of work done by them till the stoppage of the work was mentioned in Ex. PW-1/C. He stated that Ex. PW-1/C was prepared by the architect of the Defendant after Plaintiff submitted own final bill on demand of Mr. Kapish Sunda after stopping the work.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 31 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:41:22 +0530
64. He proceeded to say that he did not know whether the Plaintiff had placed on record the final bill which was prepared by him and sent to Mr.Kapish Sunda. PW-3 also stated that he did not know if the Plaintiff had placed proof on record regarding sending the bill prepared by him to Mr. Kapish Sunda. Neither the Plaintiff nor PW-3 nor any other witness of the Plaintiff placed on record the said final bill which was allegedly prepared by PW-3 to Mr. Kapish Sunda or proof of sending the Final Bill to Mr. Kapish Sunda.
65. During his cross examination, PW-3 stated that he was not an employee of the Plaintiff and that he was a freelancer consultant and owned his own firm also. He stated that he was doing the present project on monthly basis. In the latter part of his cross examination on a later day, PW-3 stated that he was appointed as Project Manager by Mr. Subhash Chand and that the same was the knowledge of the Defendant and his son. He also stated that he and the Defendant used to attend the meeting held in terms of the Agreement. On being asked he said he did not remember the dates of the meeting but volunteered that everything was documented and after perusing the record of the case, PW-3 admitted that there was no document on record to show that he used to attend the meetings. Defendant in his cross-examination stated that he had not appointed Mr. Hemant Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Tomar was assigned all the work. Similar were the statements of son of Defendant during his cross- examination.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 32 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:41:29 +0530
66. A question was put to PW-3 if he could tell the portion of area completed till his last visit to the site and instead of answering the same, he responded that he had already given answer to that question at point B in his previous examination. The said point B reads as: "The amount of the work done by us till the stoppage of the work is mentioned in Ex. PW1/C."
67. Therefore, it is seen that PW-3 had never seen the original Agreement which was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. He failed to produce anything on the record to establish that he was conducting alleged inspection of the construction of the suit property. He was also unaware of the extent of the construction which was completed till his last visit to the site. He also stated that he did not prepare his inspection report.
68. In view of this testimony, it is established that PW-3 had not inspected the suit property after the stoppage of the work and did not know the extent of the construction or items thereof till the date of stopping of the work by the Defendant. He also admittedly did not remember the date when the work was stopped. His testimony therefore does not help the case of the Plaintiff.
69. As stated earlier, PW-4, Mr. Sandeep Tomar, did not tender his affidavit of evidence and was examined in chief by learned counsel for Plaintiff followed by his cross-examination by learned counsel for Defendant. He deposed that he was appointed as an architect by NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 33 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:46:31 +0530 Mr.Kapish Sunda, son of Defendant. However, the Defendant has denied the same and submitted that Mr. Sandeep Tomar was known to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff introduced him to Plaintiff for construction work.
70. In his examination in chief, PW-4 stated that he was asked by Mr.Kapish Sunda to stop the construction when five floors i.e. Basement, stilt, First, second and third floor were complete and the work was reported to be satisfactory by Mr. Subhash Chand. He further stated that he was instructed by Mr. Kapish Sunda to communicate the same to Mr.Subhash Chand. PW-4 stated that the said instruction was given to him telephonically. There is clear contradiction in the statement of PW4 as on one hand he stated that the work was reported to be satisfactory by Mr. Subhash Chand and in the same breath he stated that Mr. Kapish Sunda had instructed him to communicate the same to Mr. Subhash Chand. Had the report on the work been satisfactory, the occasion of the Defendant telling PW-4 to stop work would not have arisen. Further, PW- 4 has not made it clear if the work was reported to be satisfactory by Mr.Subhash Chand or by Mr. Kapil Sunda.
71. PW-4 also stated that he was instructed to provide the bill for construction already completed till that stage which is mentioned in detail in Ex.PW-1/C. PW-4 tendered Ex.PW-1/C in his examination in chief.
72. PW-4 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Defendant. In his cross examination, PW-4 stated that the tentative cost of construction Digitally signed by CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 34 of 45 NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.03.07 11:46:41 +0530 was Rs.4,000/- per sq. ft. till completion of building with furnishing. He also stated that the total area of building was approximately 14,000 sq ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. and volunteered that it is mentioned in the sanctioned drawing of authority namely MCD. He brought the same on next date of hearing and the same was tendered as Mark Z. After perusing the same, he said that Mark Z reflects permissible FAR Area to be 750 sq. mts and complete area is close to 14,000 sq. ft. Built up area including free FAR area, balconies, stilt area, mumty area, basement area and lift shaft area.
73. Thus, it is noticed that the only independent document which witness of Plaintiff produced was Mark Z and the area mentioned in the said document up till the level of construction carried out by the Plaintiff on each floor is mentioned as 2100 sq. ft and it is also the case of the Defendant that he has made the payment for the said area to the Plaintiff. Defendant submitted that Plaintiff generated the bill, Ex. PW-1/C, for an area of 2578 sq. ft. whereas the area of property is 2100 sq. ft. Defendant has also stated that Plaintiff has filed a forged, overpriced and bogus built with connivance of architect namely Mr. Sandeep Tomar with wrong measurements which proves his intention of grabbing money from the Defendant. Submissions of Defendant are corroborated by Mark Z, print out of which has been taken by PW-4 from website of MCD and Mark Z has not been disputed by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff itself produced a document in support of submission of Defendant that area of suit property is 2100 sq. ft.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 35 of 45 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:49:14 +0530
74. Plaintiff has demanded the amount of Rs.39,00,000/- in the plaint by relying on Ex. PW-1/C according to which the construction was carried out by the Plaintiff on area of 2578 sq. ft. which is a false claim of the Plaintiff. Further Plaintiff is not sure as to how much amount was to be paid by Defendant to the Plaintiff. In the police complaint dated 27.08.2024, Plaintiff admitted of having received Rs.88,00,000/- from the Defendant. During cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, they admitted to receipt of Rs.87,50,000/- and Rs.90,00,000/- respectively from the Defendant.
75. In the plaint, Plaintiff has stated that an outstanding amount of Rs.39,00,000/- is pending to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff without offering any explanation as to how total bill amount is Rs.1,24,62,475 when admittedly Plaintiff already received Rs.88,00,000/- from the Defendant towards construction as per area of the suit property.
76. A question was put to PW-4 as to what the terms and conditions of payment were to be made to him by the Defendant, and he stated that the same were not written but were verbal and he was assured that he would be paid Rs.5,00,000/- two months before starting of construction. He also stated that he had no role in construction and volunteered that he was not a contractor. The said statement of PW-4 runs contrary to his statement made by him in his examination in chief where he had stated that he was asked by son of the Defendant to stop construction. Since PW-4 had no role in construction, his statement that Mr. Kapish Sunda told him to stop construction does not inspire confidence.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 36 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:49:20 +0530
77. Another question was put to PW-4 as to how much work was pending when the bill, Ex. PW-1/C was provided, he stated that it is mentioned on the said exhibit at point A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J & K. He admitted that point 19 of Ex. PW-1/C does not mention percentage of completion of work.
78. PW-4 also stated that the entry at Point no. 11 to 14 in Ex. PW-1/C was written by him when he had gone for supervision. On being asked the date of his visit, he answered that he did not remember the exact date of his visit.
79. Therefore, it is noticed that Plaintiff as well as PW-4 could not prove date of visit of PW-4 to the suit property on basis of which PW-4 prepared Ex. PW-1/C. No other witness of Plaintiff deposed about extent of construction which was carried out in suit property when Plaintiff was asked to stop construction. Contractor was PW-1 but PW-4 has deposed that Defendant told him to stop construction. The extent of construction mentioned in Ex. PW-1/C is far more than the area permissible for construction for which the Plaintiff also procured sanctioned plan from MCD.
80. Plaintiff has not produced any other document except Ex. PW-1/C to claim alleged remaining payment from the Defendant. Further, Plaintiff has not brought on record any other document to substantiate as to how and when PW-4 prepared Ex. PW-1/C. It is further noticed that Ex. PW-
NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 37 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:49:27 +0530 1/C bears name stamp of PW-4 on both sides with date of 28.08.23 mentioned as a part of signatures of PW-4 and the signatures of PW-4 are superimposed on his name stamp. Defendant has filed copy of Ex. PW- 1/C as received by Defendant which was tendered by DW-1. The copy of Ex. PW-1/C which has been filed by Defendant is identical with original Ex. PW-1/C filed by Plaintiff with identical signatures and identically placed on name stamp of PW-4 but does not bear date of 28.08.2023 and comparison by naked eyes establishes fabrication of Ex. PW-1/C to have been committed by Plaintiff on Ex. PW-1/C.
81. PW-1 has deposed that he had already deposited the bills of the work done to the Defendant which had already been verified by architect, namely Mr. Sandeep Tomar, who was appointed by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff has not even filed copy of those alleged bills of the work which he had allegedly deposited to the Defendant.
82. Besides that, PW-4 failed to prove as to how and when suit property was supervised and measured by him to determine extent of construction as reflected in Ex. PW-1/C. Even otherwise Ex. PW-1/C is electronic/computer generated document, but the Plaintiff has not filed certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act or Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam to prove the same and therefore Ex. PW-1/C is inadmissible in evidence.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 38 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:49:33 +0530
83. As observed earlier, the Plaintiff has not filed any other document in support of its alleged outstanding amount to be recovered by the Plaintiff from Defendant.
84. In view of these observations, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that any amount is remaining to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant, and it is held that Plaintiff is not entitled to receive Rs.39,00,000/- in respect of the work done under the agreement dated 24.04.2023 from the Defendant and Plaintiff is also not entitled to receive any interest from the Defendant.
85. Issue No.2 Mandatory injunction and Issue No.3 are being taken up together being connected issues.
Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to allow the plaintiff to remove her goods from the site and in the alternative whether she is entitled to a decree for 15,00,000/- as prayed?
Onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
Issue No.3 : Subject to outcome of issue no. (ii), Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest on the amount granted under issue no. (ii)? If yes, at what rate?
Onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 39 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:49:39 +0530
86. In the plaint as well as in affidavit of evidence of PW-1, it has been submitted that stocks, goods and other construction material of the Plaintiff were lying at the construction site which is worth Rs.15,00,000/- and Plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree for the recovery of construction material/equipment worth Rs.15,00,000/- lying at the suit property along with damages and mesne profits. No other witness of the Plaintiff has deposed to the same effect except PW-1 despite PW-3 alleging himself to be the project manager and PW-4, alleging that he was asked by Defendant to stop construction work.
87. In his Written statement as well as affidavit of evidence, the Defendant has denied the same and has submitted that Plaintiff had already received amount for the work done and that the claim of the Plaintiff is bogus as Plaintiff did not mention any list of articles and has filed incomplete bills which are forged and fabricated. It has also been submitted on behalf of the Defendant that Plaintiff was in constant communication with the son of the Defendant regarding the pickup of his goods and that goods were loaded onto the truck hired by the Plaintiff. Defendant filed a copy of the WhatsApp chat exchanged between the Plaintiff and the son of Defendant during his examination in chief as Ex. RW-1/4. Son of Defendant filed a copy of the WhatsApp chat exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during his examination in chief as Ex. RW-2/1. Mr. Subhash Chand admitted these WhatsApp chats in his cross examination. The cross-examination of Defendant as DW-3 as well as of DW-4 in respect of WhatsApp chat was confined to there being no NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 40 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:49:45 +0530 message in these chats about the quality of material used for construction to be of sub-standard quality.
88. On perusal of the WhatsApp chat exchanged between PW-1 and son of Defendant, it is noticed that on 28.08.2023, son of Defendant had written to the Plaintiff to inform the list of items which he was taking from the suit property and also to name the person who was collecting these items from the site to avoid any misunderstandings later. On the same day, he also informed PW-1 that labor of Plaintiff had said that they would pick up their machine and PW-1 was requested to look into it and also that it was not the responsibility of the Defendant or his son. On next date, PW-1 wrote to the son of the Defendant that the labour would collect shutting material and steel on the said day. In response, son of Defendant had written that "prior to the labour so collecting the material, PW-1 should send him a proper list about whatever was being taken away... "Steel mein, shuttering mein...labour mein...doosra jo leke jaa raha hai uska name bhejein.. then only we can allow them to take on your behalf.. This is to avoid any confusion in future misunderstanding." This message was sent at 10:25 AM on 29.08.2023.
89. This message was followed by another message written to the Plaintiff by son of Defendant at10:25 AM on 29.08.2023 that as per their telephonic conversation at 10:33 AM on 29.08.2023, PW-1 was only arranging material for cleaning purposes and would inform son of Defendant before collecting the same from the site of suit property.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 41 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:49:53 +0530
90. On 30.08.2023, PW-1 wrote to son of Defendant that he was taking back the steel which was stacked outside the site and behind back street. He also stated that this would be deducted from the final invoice list while finalization of the full and final outstanding.
91. On 31.08.2023, PW-1 wrote to son of Defendant that shuttering material and prop was being loaded. When son of Defendant asked him if he was also taking Jack, PW-1 responded that it is Jack only which is referred to as prop.
92. On 01.09.2023, PW-1 wrote to son of Defendant that he was lifting the shuttering material and in the other message he wrote that he was lifting the cement. (Cement utha rahe hain).
93. On 02.09.2023, PW-1 wrote to son of Defendant that shuttering material was being loaded.
94. On 03.09.2023, PW-1 wrote to son of Defendant that Bricks were being loaded.
95. No cross-examination of the Defendant or son of the Defendant has been made in respect of contents or correctness of these WhatsApp chats. These chats prove beyond doubt that the Plaintiff had collected its stock and material lying at the site and continued to lift/collect/load the same even after 28.08.2023.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 42 of 45 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:50:00 +0530
96. The Plaintiff has also relied on police complaint dated 27.08.2023 bearing DD No. 27A and police complaint dated 09.09.2023 bearing DD No.37A to contend that its stock, goods and material worth Rs.15 lakhs was lying at site after the Plaintiff was told to stop construction work. To prove these complaints, Plaintiff summoned police official from PS Defence Colony.
97. PW-5, i.e. Sub-Inspector of PS Defence Colony appeared from the said PS on being summoned by Plaintiff for proving police complaint dated 27.08.2023 bearing DD No.27A and police complaint dated 09.09.2023 bearing DD No.37A.
98. Police complaint dated 27.08.2023 bearing DD No.27A could not be proved by PW-5 as he did not bring its record but submitted that it was received at PS Defence Colony, and he also did not know its status. Police complaint dated 09.09.2023 bearing DD No.37A was proved by PW-5 on 29.11.2024. He had brought original receiving of the said complaint which was thereafter exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A.
99. During his cross examination, PW-5 stated that he was not the concerned enquiry in both complaints. He also stated that he had no knowledge of any invoice annexed with both the complaints, statement of worker or any concerned documents. He also stated that he had no knowledge whether any photograph or any proof of construction or property had been collected by the enquiry officer but submitted that there was none in the file. PW-5 also deposed that he had no knowledge NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 43 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:50:06 +0530 of the status of the complaint dated 27.08.2023 bearing DD No.27A and neither the complaints had been marked nor assigned to him for inquiry. He also stated that he had no knowledge to whom these two complaints had been marked or assigned to which police official.
100. The statements of PW-5 prove by preponderance of probability that the Plaintiff had not filed any document or photograph or statement of any worker with these complaints.
101. Police complaint dated 27.08.2023, since could not be proved by the Plaintiff, is not required to be dealt with.
102. As regards the other police complaint dated 09.09.2023, the same is a detailed and typed complaint which again makes no mention of the goods worth Rs.15,00,000/- lying at the site. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to prove that its stock or goods were left lying at the site and that Defendant did not allow the Plaintiff to lift the same.
103. Contents of WhatsApp chat corroborate and support the submission of the Defendant that the Plaintiff had taken back all his stock and material lying at site after the stoppage of the construction work.
104. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed miserably to prove that the goods worth Rs.15,00,000/- lying at the site after the stoppage of work at the suit property and accordingly, Issue No.2 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant, and it is held that Plaintiff is not entitled to NEERA CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 44 of 45 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.03.07 11:50:12 +0530 relief of mandatory injunction for directing the Defendant to allow the Plaintiff to remove its goods from the site and Plaintiff is also not entitled to alternative relief of Rs.15,00,000 as prayed by the Plaintiff and consequently Plaintiff is also not entitled to receive any interest from the Defendant.
RELIEF
105. In view of my findings given on Issue No.1 to 3, the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
106. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by NEERAAnnounced in the open NEERA
BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE
Date:
Court on 07.03.2026 2026.03.07
11:50:23 +0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
07.03.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 45 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally
signed by (Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
NEERA
NEERA
BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.03.07 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
11:50:27
+0530 07.03.2026
CS (COMM) No. 1115/2023 Sunita Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sunda Page 45 of 45