Delhi District Court
Naim Khan vs Sushil Gupta on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPANKER MOHAN
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 2488-2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
NAIM KHAN
S/O SH. AMEER HAQ KHAN
R/O H.NO.227, JANTA FLATS,
G.T.B. ENCLAVE, DELHI. ..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
SUSHIL GUPTA
S/O SH. REWATI PRASAD
R/O H.NO.502, GALI NO.30-D BLOCK,
HARSH VIHAR,
DELHI-110093. ..... Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. CS No. : 2488/2016.
2. Under Section : Suit for recovery of
Rs.18,00,000/-
3. Date of Institution : 16.08.2016.
4. Reserved for Judgment : 29.01.2026.
5. Date of Judgment : 14.03.2026.
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the suit for recovery of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum filed by plaintiff against defendants on 16.08.2016.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT
CS No.2488/2016 Page 1 of 13
Digitally signed by
DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14
17:46:48 +0530
2. Plaintiff is the builder by profession and builds the property on contract basis. Plaintiff and defendant had entered into an agreement dated 14.02.2016 in presence of Sanjeev Kumar for construction of suit property bearing No.571, Gali No.31, D-Block, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093 ad- measuring 100 sq. yards.
3. Defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to plaintiff for construction of the suit property at the time of execution of agreement dated 14.02.2016. Defendant intentionally and knowingly has kept certain things blank in the original agreement dated 14.02.2016 and when plaintiff asked regarding it, then defendant assured the plaintiff that the said blanks will be filled by him in presence of plaintiff. Plaintiff believing the words of defendant has put his signatures over the aforesaid agreement dated 14.02.2016. After execution of the agreement, the original agreement was kept by defendant.
4. Defendant had made improvements and filled the blanks in the original agreement at Sl.No.3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 (12).
5. Plaintiff has constructed ground floor, first floor and second floor over the suit property and has invested a sum of Rs.22 lakhs on its construction.
CS No.2488/2016 Page 2 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14
17:46:53 +0530
6. Defendant had paid an amount of Rs.4 lakhs in advance to plaintiff at the time of construction work in presence of defendant's brother-in-law namely Sanjeev Kumar Gupta. Plaintiff has taken money from different persons on interest and thereafter, invested the same on the construction of the suit property. Defendant with the malafide intention is not paying the amount of Rs.18 lakhs to plaintiff despite various demands and requests. Defendant has also thrown out the plaintiff from the suit property because he was having bad intention to grab the hard-earned money of plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff has also made various complaints to police against defendant. Plaintiff through his Counsel has issued a legal notice dated 22.07.2016 by way of registered post and speed post to defendant which has been duly served upon him but despite service, defendant has neither replied nor complied the same. Plaintiff is legally entitled to recover a sum of Rs.18 lakhs against defendant, thus the present suit.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS
8. Vide Order dated 17.08.2016 and 24.11.2016 summons were issued to defendant which was duly served upon him on 20.02.2017. The defendant has put his appearance through his Counsel on 23.02.2017 and subsequently, filed their written statement on 07.10.2017.
CS No.2488/2016 Page 3 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14
17:46:59 +0530
AVERMENTS OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
DEFENDANT
9. The defendant has admitted the existence and execution of agreement dated 14.02.2016, however, he has specifically denied the claim of plaintiff asserted in the plaint.
10. Plaintiff has assured to complete the construction work of the suit property within six months but on 27.06.2016, plaintiff refused to do further construction work and has left the substantial construction work incomplete. Plaintiff himself has left the construction work of the suit property incomplete and has taken Rs.11 lakhs for the work done by him. In this regard, one settlement dated 28.06.2016 was prepared and signed by both the parties in presence of marginal witnesses.
11. Plaintiff has written a letter dated 28.06.2016 to defendant in which he has admitted that he has started the construction work at the suit property from 11.03.2016 and has received an amount of Rs.11 lakhs till 28.06.2016. He has also mentioned in the said letter that he will not carry out the further construction work at the suit property. Plaintiff has received full and final payment from defendant and there is nothing due against him. The letter dated 28.06.2016 was signed by plaintiff, defendant and witnesses.
12. The construction work done by plaintiff was not CS No.2488/2016 Page 4 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14 17:47:04 +0530 satisfactory and he has not done the construction as per the agreement dated 14.02.2016.
13. Despite receiving full and final payment, plaintiff created different type of problems for defendant and demanded more money. Plaintiff has also raised threats to the defendant that he will forcefully take the possession of the suit property and thereafter, he will dispose it off to the third person. On 06.07.2016 defendant has also installed main gate at the property and made a complaint against plaintiff and his nephew Ishtiquar to SHO, PS Harsh Vihar vide DD No.46-B dated 11.07.2016. Plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the suit amount and the present suit deserve to be dismissed with cost.
AVERMENTS OF THE REPLICATION TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
14. Plaintiff has filed replication/rejoinder on 05.08.2017 wherein he specifically denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed the averments of plaint. Plaintiff pleaded that the annexure A i.e. letter dated 28.06.2016 is a forged and fabricated document.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
15. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 06.12.2017:
"1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any CS No.2488/2016 Page 5 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14 17:47:09 +0530 cause of action? OPD
2. Whether plaintiff is entitle to recovery of Rs.18 lacs as claimed? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitle to any interest, if so, as what rate and for what period? OPP
4. Relief."
EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF
16. On 23.02.2019 PW-1 Sh. Naim Khan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon following documents:- (1) Ex. PW1/1-copy of bill dated 18.02.2016 (OSR); (2) Ex. PW1/2 & Ex. PW1/3- copy of bill dated 15.05.2016 in respect of timber work with visiting card of Vardman Timber Traders (OSR) (objected to mode of proof); (3) Ex. PW1/4-copy of bills dated 10.03.2016, 21.06.2016, 27.06.2016, 10.04.2016, 27.03.2016, 08.05.2016, 10.06.2016, 05.05.2016 issued by Sant Ram Builder for purchasing of building material (OSR) (colly); (4) Ex.PW1/5- copy of 59 receipts of dharam kanta in respect of purchasing of dust, rodi on various dates (OSR) (colly); (5) Ex. PW1/6-Copy of legal notice dated 23.07.2016 (OSR); (6) Ex. PW1/7-copy of complaint dated 16.07.2016 with the endorsement seal of DCP NE, Delhi on dated 17.07.2016, ACP, Seemapuri dated 18.07.2016 and PS Harsh Vihar dated 17.07.2016 (OSR); (7) Ex. PW1/8- Copy of application dated 16.07.2016 with endorsement of CS No.2488/2016 Page 6 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14 17:47:15 +0530 seal office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, District East and North East, dated 18.07.2016 (OSR); (8) Mark A-copy of agreement dated 14.02.2016.
17. Plaintiff was cross examined at length on 21.12.2019 and 27.05.2023. Plaintiff evidence was closed on 27.01.2024.
EVIDENCE LED BY DEFENDANT
18. The defendant to prove his case/defence examined himself as DW-1 on 01.06.2024 who tendered his evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 Sh. Sushil Gupta relied upon the following documents: (1) Agreement dated 14.02.2016 Ex.DW1/1; (2) Copy of the letter dated 28.06.2016 Ex.PW1/D1; (3) Copy of complaint vide DD No.46-B dated 11.07.2016 Mark D1; (4) Original photograph showing the lock with the help of chain Ex.DW1/4. DW1 was cross examined on 01.06.2024.
19. On 27.08.2024 defendant has given the statement that he does not want to examine any other witness and DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments for 05.10.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. Since 05.10.2024 many opportunities were granted to both the parties to address final arguments but neither of the parties have addressed the final arguments. The right of CS No.2488/2016 Page 7 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14 17:47:20 +0530 plaintiff to address oral final arguments was closed on 29.01.2026. Written submissions were filed on behalf of defendant on 11.11.2024. Ld. Proxy Counsel for defendant on 29.01.2026 has submitted that Ld. Counsel for defendant does not wish to address oral final arguments. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION OF THE CASE ISSUE WISE
21. All the issues are taken up together.
ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD AND ISSUE NO.2:- Whether plaintiff is entitle to recovery of Rs.18 lacs as claimed? OPP AND ISSUE NO.3:- Whether plaintiff is entitle to any interest, if so, as what rate and for what period? OPP
22. It is settled law that plaintiff has to prove his own case and would have to stand on his own legs and he/she cannot take advantage of weakness of defendant. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who must substantiate their claims with credible evidence, independent of the defendant's weaknesses.
CS No.2488/2016 Page 8 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14 17:47:25 +0530
23. The existence and execution of the agreement dated 14.02.2016 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff has started construction over the suit property, however, as per plaintiff, he has completed the construction work but on the other side, defendant has disputed the said fact. During cross examination of PW-1 recorded on 27.05.2023, he admits that the construction work was not completed and it remained partly constructed.
24. As per PW-1, he has incurred an amount of Rs.22 lakhs on the construction of the suit property and out of which, he has received Rs.4 lakhs from defendant. Plaintiff by way of present suit is claiming the recovery of Rs.18 lakhs from defendant which he has spent on the construction of the suit property.
25. Plaintiff/PW-1 has relied upon the copy of bills dated 15.05.2016 Ex.PW1/2(OSR), copy of bill dated 10.03.2016 Ex.PW1/3(Colly.), copy of bills dated 10.03.2016, 21.06.2016, 27.06.2016, 10.04.2016, 27.03.2016, 08.05.2016, 10.06.2016 and 05.05.2016 issued by Sh. Sant Ram Builder Ex.PW1/4(Colly.)(OSR) and copy of 59 receipts of Dharam Kanta Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) (OSR). Plaintiff has filed the originals of Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) on 23.02.2019 on record.
26. The bills Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 are not the tax invoices.
CS No.2488/2016 Page 9 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14
17:47:30 +0530
The said bills also do not bear the signatures of the executant/seller. Plaintiff has not produced his bank statement to prove that he has paid the amounts mentioned in the bills Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 to the seller/vendor. Plaintiff has also not called the proprietor/AR of Vardhman Timber Traders, Birla Samrat Cement and Santram Builder to prove the bills Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3.
27. The bills Ex.PW1/4(Colly.) are not the tax invoices. The said bills also do not bear the signatures of the executant/seller/vendor. Plaintiff has not produced his bank statement to show that he has paid the amounts mentioned in the bills Ex.PW1/4(Colly.) to the seller/vendor. Plaintiff has also not called the proprietor/AR of Birla Samrat Cement and Santram Builder to prove the bills Ex.PW1/4(Colly.).
28. Plaintiff has not filed the tax invoices in support of the receipt of Dharam Kanta Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) to prove that he has purchased dust, rodi and other raw material for construction of the suit property. The receipt of Dharam Kanta Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) also does not bear signature and stamp of the executant. The receipts Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) does not prove that plaintiff has purchased the raw material for construction of the suit property and the same were delivered/supplied at the site/suit property. Plaintiff has not examined the proprietor/AR of the firm/business who has CS No.2488/2016 Page 10 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2026.03.14 17:47:35 +0530 issued the receipts Ex.PW1/5(Colly.).
29. The documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4(Colly.) do not prove that the material mentioned in the said bills were delivered/supplied at the suit property and had been utilized for the construction of the suit property. Plaintiff has not produced any positive and independent evidence on record to prove that he has paid the amount mentioned in the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5(Colly.) to seller/vendor. Plaintiff has also not disclosed the mode of payment of the amount mentioned in the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5(Colly.).
30. The bills Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4(Colly.) are not the tax invoices. Plaintiff has not led an independent evidence to prove the bills Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4(Colly.) in accordance with law. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the bills Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4(Colly.) are not genuine, valid and have been prepared in order to get success in the present suit.
31. Plaintiff has not led any cogent, reliable, credible and independent evidence to prove that he has spent an amount of Rs.22 Lakh on the construction of the suit property. Moreover, plaintiff has also not examined his friends and relatives from whom he has arranged an amount of Rs.22 lakhs to prove his source of funds.
CS No.2488/2016 Page 11 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14
17:47:42 +0530
32. As per defendant, he has paid an amount of Rs.11 lakhs to plaintiff as full and final settlement on 28.06.2016 and a settlement was also reduced into writing in this regard which was duly signed by plaintiff, defendant and two witnesses namely Sh. Sandeep Gupta and Sh. Shashi Pal Singh Gaur. Plaintiff in his replication has pleaded that the document Ex.PW1/D1 is forged and fabricated document. It is noted that plaintiff has not specifically disputed his signatures on the written settlement dated 28.06.2016 Ex.PW1/D1 in his replication. PW-1 during his cross examination recorded on 21.02.2019 has admitted his signatures on the document Ex.PW1/D1. Plaintiff voluntarily has stated that he put his signatures on a blank paper. No such plea has been taken by plaintiff in his pleadings. It is noted that PW-1 during his cross examination has stated that "I had not raised any objection regarding signing the document Ex.PW1/D1 as at the time there was no dispute between me and the defendant". As plaintiff has admitted his signatures on the document Ex.PW1/D1, therefore, the burden is upon plaintiff to prove his plea that his signatures were taken by defendant on blank paper which was converted into document Ex.PW1/D1. Plaintiff has failed to produce cogent, reliable, positive and independent evidence to establish that he has put his signatures at point A of the document Ex.PW1/D1 when it was plain/blank paper. Plaintiff has failed to CS No.2488/2016 Page 12 of 13 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14 17:47:47 +0530 establish that the document Ex.PW1/D1 is a forged document.
33. Considering the factual matrix, material came on record and above observations/discussions, this Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove his version/case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, therefore, Issue No.1 to 3 are accordingly decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
34. In view of the above findings, the present suit is dismissed on merits. Present suit is accordingly disposed of. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
35. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
36. File be consigned to the Record Room, after due Digitally signed compliance. by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.03.14 17:47:53 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DEEPANKER MOHAN) on this 14th March, 2026 DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD COURTS DELHI CS No.2488/2016 Page 13 of 13