Delhi District Court
Mohammad Ali vs Shri Raj Kumar Mangla on 16 May, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. : 118/2016
CNR No.: DLSH01-000321-2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mohammad Ali
R/o H. No. 430, Street No.1
New Kardampuri
Shahdara, Delhi-110094 ... Plaintiff
-Versus-
Shri Raj Kumar Mangla
R/o House No.11/5
West Jyoti Nagar
Near Bada Shiv Mandir
Delhi-110094
Also at:
C-Eleven Movements Collection
E-116, Kardampuri Road
Opposite World GYM
West Jyoti Nagar Extension
Shahdara, Delhi-110094 ... Defendant
Date of institution of suit: 07.12.2015
Date of judgment reserved: 31.01.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 16.05.2020
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF ₹23,88,600/-
Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla
C.S. No. 118/16
Page 1/18
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the instant suit for recovery of ₹23,88,600/- (Rupees Twenty three lakhs eighty eight thousand and six hundred only) filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The facts set out in the plaint are that plaintiff is a carpenter specializing in all kinds of woodwork related to Housing Construction, Wooden Furniture, Kitchen Almirahs and Woodwork, Office Furniture, Almirahs and Woodwork, construction of Doors, Windows, Chaukhats, Fixtures, Furnitures etc. It is averred that defendant lured the plaintiff to enter into an oral agreement with defendant in November, 2013 for getting all kind of woodworks done in his newly constructed multi-storied residential building at H. No. 11/5, West Jyoti Nagar, Near Bada Shiv Mandir, Delhi-110094. It is further averred that in November, 2013, the defendant agreed that in lieu of the services rendered by the plaintiff, his family members and assistants, for the aforementioned works, the wages of the plaintiff in person would be Rs. 800/- per day excluding overtime. The wages of other skilled carpenters/accomplices/colleague/ assistants/sons/family members of the plaintiff would be Rs.600/- per day excluding overtime. It was further agreed by the defendant that for all services rendered after 6.00 p.m. on any given day, overtime would be payable to the plaintiff and his colleagues which would be equivalent to half day wages for that particular day. It is also averred that all days where the works would continue even after 6.00 p.m., the wages payable to the plaintiff would be Rs.800+400=1200/- and wages Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 2/18 payable to the other skilled carpenters would be 600+300=900/-. It is also alleged that the said woodwork commenced on 01.12.2013. It is further averred that as per the oral agreement entered into between the parties, with due knowledge, consent and supervision of the defendant, plaintiff properly maintained attendance(s) for himself and other skilled carpenter/ colleagues/ assistants/sons/family members in a designated register which was regularly seen by/ shown to the defendant for determination and acknowledgment of wages. It is further averred that defendant intentionally and deliberately never paid the due amounts/wages to plaintiff and other skilled carpenters /accomplices /assistants /sons/ family members of the plaintiff on one pretext or the other and instead paid petty amounts to them.
3. It is further averred that in June, 2015, on demand of their legitimately earned wages by the plaintiff, the defendant threatened the plaintiff of non-payment of even a single penny if the plaintiff and other skilled carpenters/ accomplices/ colleagues/ assistants/ sons/ family members arranged by the plaintiff stopped the work at the aforementioned premises of the defendant. It is further alleged that the remaining amount of the plaintiffs and other skilled carpenters/ accomplices/ colleagues/ assistants/ sons / family members arranged by the plaintiff, due upon the defendant is as follows:
Month Monthly Cumulative Amount Amount
Amount Due Due (₹) Paid (₹) Outstanding
(₹) (₹)
Dec-13 99200/- 99200/- 10000/- 89200/-
Jan-14 99200/- 188400/- 10000/- 178400/-
Feb-14 106800/- 285200/- 0 285200/-
Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla
C.S. No. 118/16
Page 3/18
Mar-14 106200/- 391400/- 0 391400/-
Apr-14 107800/- 499200/- 0 499200/-
May-14 147000/- 646200/- 15000/- 631200/-
Jun-14 124800/- 756000/- 95000/- 661000/-
Jul-14 189600/- 850600/- 20000/- 830600/-
Aug-14 255900/- 1086500/- 15000/- 1071500/-
Sep-14 198000/- 1269500/- 35000/- 1234500/-
Oct-14 182400/- 1416900/- 70000/- 1346900/-
Nov-14 140400/- 1487300/- 50000/- 1437300/-
Dec-14 176700/- 1614000/- 55000/- 1559000/-
Jan-15 193500/- 1752500/- 50000/- 1702500/-
Feb-15 182100/- 1884600/- 65000/- 1819600/-
Mar-15 174300/- 1993900/- 25000/- 1968900/-
Apr-15 114600/- 2083500/- 35000/- 2048500/-
May-15 173400/- 2221900/- 65000/- 2156900/-
June-15 155800/- 2312700/- 20000/- 2292700/-
July-15 95900/- 2388600/- 0 2388600/-
Total Outstanding Till 27.07.2015 (Rupees ₹23,88,600/- Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Only
4. It is further averred that the defendant had played a fraud with the plaintiff and his other colleagues. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant and a reply to the same was also sent on 12.09.2015, wherein all legitimate requests of the plaintiff were denied. It is further averred that the cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of plaintiff in November 2013, when oral agreement for house woodwork was executed between the parties. Further cause of action arose on month to month basis till May 2015 when upon request of payments, plaintiff was assaulted by the defendant. Again cause of Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 4/18 action arose in July 2015, when defendant denied to make any payments and thus arrears payable by defendant accumulated. Further, cause of action arose when legal notice was served upon the defendant and further when the said legal notice was also replied. It is further contended that residence as well as office of defendant are situated with the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the present suit.
5. The summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant by my Ld. Predecessor and the defendant appeared through Ld. counsel and filed written statement.
6. In the written statement, defendant denied the plaint averments and contended that the present suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and no cause of action ever arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. It is further contended that present suit is based on false, frivolous, baseless, vague, evasive and concocted facts and thus the same is not maintainable under law. It is further contended that defendant is not liable to pay any alleged amount to the plaintiff. It is also contended that plaintiff has never worked worth Rs. 23,88,600/- in the said property and the copy of alleged attendance register filed by the plaintiff is also forged and fabricated and the same was prepared by the plaintiff and his family members by manipulating things, only to extort money from the defendant. It is further contended that alleged register neither bears any signature of the defendant nor has any legal sanctity in the eyes of law. It is further alleged in the written statement that an agreement was executed Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 5/18 between the plaintiff and defendant regarding woodwork viz. Construction of doors, windows, chaukhats, almirahs, kitchen almirahs and wood work, fixtures, furnishing etc. in property bearing no. 5/11, West Jyoti Nagar, Near Big Shiv Mandir, Delhi-94 and according to the said agreement plaintiff took the contract of the defendant for a total sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and kept original agreement with himself. It is further contended that plaintiff took payment of Rs. 5,70,000/- from the plaintiff and lastly on 16.08.2015, plaintiff took remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/-. It is further contended that plaintiff did not complete all the work and no document of any kind, whatsoever, has been filed by the plaintiff with the present plaint to show that the alleged amount claimed is due or outstanding against the defendant. It is further contended that plaintiff did not perform his part of contract properly and also some of the articles like Fevicol, kunde of steel and brass etc. were missing and when defendant asked plaintiff to return the said articles, he did not return the same to the defendant despite repeated requests. Defendant further denied all the other plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. Plaintiff filed replication in response to the written statement filed by the defendant, thereby reiterating the plaint averments and denying the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant.
8. From the pleadings on record, the Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues:
1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 23,88,600/-? OPP
2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 6/18
3). Relief
9. To prove his case, plaintiff has examined four witnesses on his behalf. PW1 had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the photographs as Ex. PW1/1 (colly); copy of attendance register as Mark PW1/2 (colly) and legal notice along with postal receipts and tracking report as Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
10. PW-2 Irfan, son of Mohammad Ali, has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. PW-3 Rizwan, son of Mohammad Ali, has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit at Ex. PW3/1 and PW-4 Anwaar, son of Mohammad Ali, has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW4/1 and thereafter PE was closed by the plaintiff.
11. Thereafter, in support of his case, defendant has examined himself as DW-1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit at Ex. DW1/A and no document was relied upon by the defendant and thus DE was closed.
12. Arguments were heard on either side. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff is a carpenter and is doing woodwork since a long time. It was further argued that defendant has cheated and committed fraud with the plaintiff and that defendant had admitted in the written statement that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for doing woodwork at latter's residential building. It is further argued that defendant did not pay the accumulated wages to the plaintiff despite repeated requests.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that plaintiff wants to recover Rs.23,88,600/- lakhs in lieu of discharge of his duty as carpenter/doing wood work for defendant, although plaintiff never Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 7/18 worked at defendant's place worth the aforesaid amount. It is further contended that present suit filed by plaintiff is baseless, false and unfounded. Ld. Counsel for defendant has further argued that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for doing woodwork for a total sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and the said amount had already been received by the plaintiff. It is further argued that present suit has been filed without cause of action and thus the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
14. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1 Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 23,88,600/-? Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, If so, at what rate and for what period?
15. Both these issues are inter-related to each other, hence, they are being adjudicated together. At the outset, it is important to mention that civil cases such as the present one are decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. The onus to prove both the aforesaid issues was casted upon the plaintiff.
16. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a carpenter and he was hired by the defendant for doing woodwork related to housing construction, Wooden Furniture, Kitchen Almirahs and woodwork, Office Furniture, Almirahs and woodwork, constructions of Doors, Windows, Chaukhats, Fixtures, Furnishings etc. in his house i.e. property bearing no. 11/5, West Jyoti Nagar Near Bada Shiv Mandir, Delhi-110094. It is also contended that the defendant agreed that in lieu of the services rendered by the plaintiff, his family members, Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 8/18 assistants etc., for the aforementioned works, the wages of the plaintiff in person would be ₹800/- per day excluding overtime. Further, the wages of other skilled carpenters/ accomplices/ colleagues/ assistants/sons/family members of the plaintiff would be ₹600/- per day excluding overtime and for all services rendered after 6.00 p.m. on any given day, overtime would be payable to the plaintiff and his colleagues which would be equivalent to half day wages for that particular day. It is further contended that all days where the works would continue even after 6.00 p.m., the wages payable to the plaintiff would be ₹800+₹400=₹1200/- and wages payable other skilled carpenters would be ₹600+₹300=₹900/- and the said woodwork commenced on 01.12.2013. Plaintiff further contended that as per the oral agreement entered into between the parties, with due knowledge, consent and supervision of the defendant, plaintiff properly maintained the attendance(s) of self and other skilled carpenter/colleagues/assistants/sons/family members in a designated register which was regularly seen by/ shown to the defendant for identification and determination of wages. It is further contended that defendant intentionally and deliberately never paid the due amounts/wages to other skilled carpenters /accomplices /colleagues /assistants /sons/ family members. It is further contended that in June, 2015, on demand of their legitimately earned wages by the plaintiff, the defendant threatened the plaintiff of non-payment of even a single penny if the plaintiff and other skilled carpenters/ accomplices/ colleagues/ assistants/ sons/ family members arranged by the plaintiff stopped the works at the aforementioned premises of the defendant. It is further contended that the defendant had played a fraud with the Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 9/18 plaintiff and his assistants/colleagues.
17. The plaintiff in support of his claim has examined three witnesses along with himself and has deposed on affidavit as PW-1 on the same lines as that of plaint. He has also tendered/produced three documents in evidence which are Ex. PW1/1 (colly), Mark PW1/2 (colly) and Ex. PW1/3(colly). Pertinently, mere exhibition of documents does not prove the same and they are to be proved in accordance with law. Ex. PW1/1 (colly) are purportedly the photographs of plaintiff and his assistants doing woodwork at the newly constructed residential building of defendant. However, the aforesaid photographs have not been proved by plaintiff in accordance with provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Neither the negatives nor the certificate u/s 65B (4) Evidence Act have been placed on record to substantiate the photographs. Even if the said photographs are presumed to be proved in accordance with law and are taken into consideration, then too at best, the same only prove that plaintiff and his assistants performed woodwork at defendant's residential building, a fact which the defendant has himself not denied in his written statement. But, it is important to mention that the photographs, as such, does not indicate that an amount of Rs. 23,88,600/- is due against the defendant by any stretch of imagination. Thus, Ex. PW1/1 (colly) does not substantiate in any manner, the version otherwise put forth by plaintiff and is of no help to the plaintiff as such. In addition to the aforesaid photographs, plaintiff has also placed reliance upon Mark PW1/2 (colly), which are purportedly the photocopies of attendance register maintained by the plaintiff with respect to woodwork done by him and his assistants at the residential building of Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 10/18 defendant. It is pertinent to mention that secondary evidence as per section 63 and 65 Evidence Act may be adduced by laying proper foundation for the same as to its admissibility. An application was filed by plaintiff u/s 63 and 65 Evidence Act r/w section 151 CPC seeking permission to lead secondary evidence supported by an Information Report in respect of Article /Document lost in Delhi. It is a settled law that for proof of documents by secondary evidence, conditions laid down in section 65 Evidence Act have to be satisfied, however, the said conditions can be satisfied only during evidence and an application for leading secondary evidence is not required at all. So, it was imperative upon the plaintiff to lead evidence and prove that original attendance register was lost. Besides this, evidence was also required to be led as to the fact that the photocopy placed on record was the true copy of the original. Thus, a two-fold evidence was to be led, first of all, as to the existence of circumstances/situations in which secondary evidence is permissible. Secondly, such evidence will have to be in proof of the document. Further, it is settled law that allowing or disallowing application for leading secondary evidence without leading evidence is impermissible in law. It is to be decided at the stage of disposal of suit only, whether case for leading secondary evidence is made out or not and if so, whether document stands proved by secondary evidence or not.
18. In the case in hand, plaintiff was to lay foundation for reception of secondary evidence. By way of the aforesaid application, it was averred that the attendance register was lost, however, apart from a self serving statement in cross examination by the plaintiff, nothing has been placed on record to indicate that attendance register was lost.
Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 11/18 An information report as to document lost in Delhi, which was filed along with application u/s 63 & 65 Evidence Act, has not even been tendered/ produced in evidence by the plaintiff as per law. Also, nothing has been deposed by other PWs as to the attendance register being lost by plaintiff. Moreover, a glaring inconsistency seems to be evident as to the alleged incident of losing attendance register by the plaintiff. It is worth mentioning that in the application u/s 63 & 65 Evidence Act, the plaintiff has mentioned that on 09.08.2016 while returning home from the court, he lost his bag in the auto rickshaw which contained photographs and the attendance register, whereas it has been stated in the cross examination by plaintiff that the attendance register of carpenter work done in property in question was lost by him while coming to court from his home. However, it has been mentioned in the Information report in respect of Document lost in Delhi, that plaintiff had come to Durgapuri Chowk from Karkardooma court in an auto, when he found that attendance register had fallen and was lost on 09.08.2016. But surprisingly, perusal of the order sheet dated 09.08.2016 reveals that only Ld. Counsel for plaintiff was present in court and plaintiff's presence is not indicated in the same. The aforesaid inconsistencies inter se raise a suspicion on the version of plaintiff as to losing the attendance register and the same seems to be unbelievable. Thus, the copy of attendance register Mark- PW1/2(colly) cannot be read in evidence as plaintiff has not been able to prove that circumstances existed for leading secondary evidence in the present matter.
19. Despite the aforesaid inconsistencies, even if we take the copy of attendance register into consideration for disposal of the present Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 12/18 matter, then too, the same neither indicates anywhere that an amount of ₹23,88,600/- (Rupees Twenty three lakhs eighty eight thousand and six hundred only) is due against the defendant nor shows the address or any other details of residential building of defendant, where the woodwork was being purportedly performed. Pertinently, in the absence of the aforesaid information on the copy of attendance register, it is beyond imagination as to how the copy of attendance register can be related to the defendant or his residential building. Also the aforesaid document has not been got signed anywhere from the defendant to confirm/acknowledge the work done at his place as claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, Mark PW1/2 (colly) does not provide much assistance to the plaintiff in order to prove his case. In addition to the aforesaid documents, plaintiff also relied on Ex. PW1/3 (colly), which is legal notice sent by plaintiff along with postal receipts and tracking report. However, the said documents, ipso facto, do not substantiate the claim put forth by the plaintiff. Also, the plaintiff has mentioned the money allegedly due on monthly basis from the defendant in tabular form in the plaint, but the plaintiff has neither disclosed the source of information mentioned in the table nor has placed any document on record to substantiate the entries mentioned therein. Therefore, the respective monthly entries along with total amount mentioned in the table is not believable as such.
20. Further, plaintiff was cross examined at length on behalf of the defendant and all the suggestions were denied through which the Ld. Counsel for defendant attempted to put forth defence of the defendant. It has been stated in the cross examination of PW-1 that no agreement was ever executed between plaintiff and the defendant. It is pertinent Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 13/18 to mention that during cross examination, PW-1 has categorically stated that he had received a sum of Rs. 6.5 lakhs approximately from the defendant for the woodwork done by him. In addition to the aforesaid, most importantly, PW-1 during cross examination, voluntarily stated that "Vol. I received entire payment of work done by me as a carpenter for all the floors from the defendant Raj Kumar Mangla." The said categorical admission by plaintiff, elicited during cross examination, has nullified the version of plaintiff and as a result his entire claim has come under a cloud. Plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, could have produced attendance registers of woodwork done at other places, which he has admittedly stated in his cross examination, but, he has stated later on in the said cross examination that he cannot produce the attendance register of carpenter's work done in all the properties. This inability on behalf of plaintiff to produce even one such attendance register points towards the possibility that there never was any attendance register maintained for carpenter work done by plaintiff and this makes the claim made by the plaintiff even more doubtful. Further, plaintiff has deposed that wages were to be paid by defendant fortnightly, nevertheless, he defaulted and instead paid petty part payments to plaintiff and his assistants. It is inexplicable as to why despite not being paid in full, plaintiff kept on working along with his assistants at defendant's residential building. It is unbelievable to say the least, that a daily wager like plaintiff along with his assistants, would continue to work for such a long time even without receiving full payment from defendant. This does not inspire confidence and makes the version of plaintiff improbable as the wages were allowed to be accumulated to Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 14/18 the tune of ₹23,88,600/- (Rupees Twenty three lakhs eighty eight thousand and six hundred only).
21. The plaintiff apart from his own deposition, also got examined PW-2 to 4 on affidavits. In the cross examination, PW2, who is the son of the plaintiff, has stated that there was no agreement between him and the defendant for the work of carpenter. He further stated that plaintiff has always maintained the attendance register of work done in all the properties and that defendant might have paid Rs. 6 lakhs as payment to the plaintiff. PW-3 Rizwan and PW-4 Anwaar, who are also the sons of the plaintiff, have also deposed precisely on the same lines as PW-2. Even the cross examinations of PW-2 to 4 was absolutely identical. However, it is worth mentioning that PW-2 to 4 have nowhere stated in their deposition that an amount of ₹23,88,600/- (Rupees Twenty three lakhs eighty eight thousand and six hundred only) was due against defendant or that the attendance register was lost by plaintiff. In fact, during cross examination, PW-2 to 4 have confirmed the payment of ₹6.00 lakhs to the plaintiff by the defendant. Thus, there is nothing even in the testimonies of PW 2 to 4 to indicate that defendant was liable to pay an amount of ₹23,88,600/- (Rupees Twenty three lakhs eighty eight thousand and six hundred only) to the plaintiff.
22. The defendant, while leading his evidence, has examined himself on affidavit as DW-1. During his cross examination, defendant unlike his plea in his written statement, has stated that no written agreement was executed between him and the plaintiff, but whatever payments he made to the plaintiff was got written on a piece of paper by the plaintiff from him. Further he has stated in his cross Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 15/18 examination that he used to maintain similar record, but he had not placed any such record before the court. He also stated that plaintiff performed woodwork in the entire building, against which the plaintiff was already paid ₹6.00 lakhs by him. He further stated that oral agreement between the plaintiff and him was executed in December 2013 and as per the said agreement, he has provided complete requirement of all woodwork to be done by the plaintiff, but he did not remember as to how many doors, windows, chaukhats, almirahs, fixtures, furnishing etc. were made by the plaintiff. It has been stated in cross examination by the defendant that he did not lodge any police complaint regarding the missing articles and he did not know the amount of loss caused to him by the missing of fevicol, kunde or steel brass etc. and also did not know as to how many containers of the said articles were missing. DW-1 in his cross examination has stated that para no. 3 and 6 of his evidence affidavit at Ex. DW1/A are false. Further, he has also stated in the cross examination that plaintiff had handed over the possession of his property to him in December, 2015.
23. It has been argued on behalf of plaintiff that there are numerous contradictions in the version put forth by defendant. In the written statement, it has been stated by the defendant that an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and him and the plaintiff kept the original copy with himself, however, during cross examination, it has been categorically stated by defendant i.e. DW-1 that no agreement in writing was executed between plaintiff and him. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the plaintiff that there are inconsistent versions of the defendant with respect to finishing of work by the plaintiff and his assistants. It is also argued that the version of the Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 16/18 defendant is further not believable in view of the fact that defendant did not lodge any complaint against the plaintiff with respect to missing articles. Also, it has been stated by the defendant during cross examination that contents of para 3 and 6 of his evidence affidavit are false. Therefore, it has been argued that due to contradictions galore in the version of the defendant and also because of defendant furnishing false evidence, the claim of the plaintiff stands proved. However, it is worth mentioning that with respect to allegations of false evidence, a separate miscellaneous application u/s 340 Crpc is pending before this court on behalf of the plaintiff, so this court is not inclined to go into the issue of false evidence while disposing the present suit. Further, it is pertinent to mention that no matter how contradictory/ inconsistent the versions of the defendant are, the case of the plaintiff still has to stand on its own legs. Plaintiff cannot take advantage of the fact that there are many irregularities in the version of defendant, when he himself has not been able to prove his case at all. Importantly, neither pointing out gaping holes in defendant's version nor giving suggestions by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding amount being due against the defendant can be a substitute of proof. Plaintiff in the present case has not been able to discharge the onus of proof either by way of oral or documentary evidence. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
24. As Issue No. 1 has been decided against the plaintiff, consequently, Issue No.2 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. Therefore, in light of aforesaid discussion, this Court deems appropriate to pass the following order in the suit preferred by the plaintiff against the defendant:
Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla C.S. No. 118/16 Page 17/18 ORDER
(a) The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs, and
(b) Application(s), if any, pending on record, is/are accordingly disposed of.
25. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room only after due compliance and necessary action, as per Rules.
Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2020.05.16
21:29:32 +1200
Pronounced in the Court (Vineet Kumar)
proceedings convened Addl. District Judge-01
through video-conferencing Shahdara District
on May 16, 2020 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Sh. Mohammad Ali v. Raj Kumar Mangla
C.S. No. 118/16
Page 18/18