Delhi District Court
Sh. G. Lal vs The General Manager on 3 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ADJ-04, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Civil Suit No. 6331/16
Sh. G. Lal
S/o Sh. Hazari Lal
R/o F-143, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi. ......... Plaintiff
Versus
1.The General Manager (Deleted defendant) C/o Liberty Shoe Ltd.
Building No. 8, Tower-B, 2nd Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Also at:
C/o Purnima Farm House no. 3, Band Road, Near IIPM, Chandanhola, New Delhi. (Defendant no. 1 was dropped on 15.10.2013)
2. Mr. Adesh Gupta C/o Liberty Shoe Ltd.
Building No. 8, Tower-B, Second Floor, DLF Cyber City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Also at:
Building No. 8, Tower-B, Second Floor, DLF Cyber City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. M/s Sunfeast Infratech & Power Ltd.
Building No. 8, Tower-B, Second Floor, DLF, Cyber City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana ......... Defendants Date of institution of the suit : 30.09.2013 Date reserved for judgment : 16.02.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.04.2017 Suit for recovery of Rs. 5,65,403/-
C.S. No. 6331/16 G. Lal Gupta Vs. Adesh Gupta & Ors. Page No. 1/7
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a contractor and working in all over Delhi and NCR on contract basis. In the year 2010, Sh. Anil Sharma, who is an architect, referred the plaintiff for work on a contract basis at farm house situated at 3, Purnima Farm, Bandh Road, near IIPM, Chandanhola, New Delhi. At the said farm house the defendant no. 2 represented himself to be director of defendant no. 3 and gave turnkey job of material and construction at the said farm house. Plaintiff was informed that the payment towards the work would be joint liability of defendant no. 2 and 3. It was further agreed that the defendant no. 2 and 3 would keep on making part payment and final accounts would be reconciled after the completion of work and furnishing of the last bill by the plaintiff. The plaintiff worked on the said farm house from April 2010 to October 2010. In the beginning the plaintiff received the part payment but later on defendant no. 2 and 3 did not make the payment. The plaintiff had arranged all the building material for construction and also arranged the labour and made payment to them. The defendant no. 2 and 3 failed to make up the following payments as under:
Bill No. Date Amount Pending
1. 27.05.2010 Rs. 31,840/-
2. 05.07.2010 Rs. 67,947/-
C.S. No. 6331/16 G. Lal Gupta Vs. Adesh Gupta & Ors. Page No. 2/7
3. 14.09.2010 Rs. 2,20,505/-
4. 18.10.2010 Rs. 51,541/-
Total unpaid amount Rs. 3,71,833/-
Materials Supplier Pending Payment
Bill No. Date Amount Pending
285-290 01.09.2010 Rs. 1,32,960/-
376-377 20.10.2010 Rs. 60,610/-
Total unpaid amount Rs. 1,93,570/-
2. It is further stated that total unpaid amount due is Rs. 5,65,403/- (371833+193570) but despite repeated requests the defendant no. 2 and 3 failed to make payment. Legal notices were sent on 21.09.2012, 13.01.2013, 22.02.2013 and 26.07.2013 but despite this, the defendant no. 2 and 3 failed to make the payment. It is prayed that a decree for an amount of Rs. 5,65,403/- may kindly be passed alongwith future and pendente-lite interest @ 18% per annum.
3. The summons of the suit were issued to the all defendants but they could not be served. Finally, defendant no. 2 and 3 were served by way of publication in newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated 03.02.2016 but despite service no one appeared for defendant no. 2 and 3 and they were proceeded ex-parte on 08.02.2016. It is important to mention here C.S. No. 6331/16 G. Lal Gupta Vs. Adesh Gupta & Ors. Page No. 3/7 that defendant no. 1 was dropped on the submissions of plaintiff vide order dated 15.10.2013.
4. In order to substantiate his case the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. The affidavit of evidence of PW-1 is Ex.PW-1/A. The plaintiff relied upon documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/1A is a carbon copy of bill dated 27.05.2010, Ex.PW-1/1B is a carbon copy of bill dated 05.7.2010, Ex.PW-1/1C is a carbon copy of bill dated 14.09.2010, Ex.PW-1/1D is a carbon copy of bill dated 18.10.2010, Ex.PW-1/1E is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 376 dated 20.10.2010, Ex.PW-1/1F is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 377, Ex.PW-1/1G is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 285 dated 01.09.2010, Ex.PW-1/1H is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 286, Ex.PW-1/1I is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 287, Ex.PW-1/1J is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 288, Ex.PW- 1/1K is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 289, Ex.PW-1/1L is a carbon copy of materials supplier pending payment bill no. 290, Ex.PW-1/2 is letter dated 12.07.2010, Ex.PW-1/3 is letter dated 28.07.2010, Ex.PW-1/4 is copy of legal notice dated 22.02.2013, Ex.PW- 1/4A is copy of legal notice dated 26.07.2013, Ex.PW-1/5 (colly.) receipts C.S. No. 6331/16 G. Lal Gupta Vs. Adesh Gupta & Ors. Page No. 4/7 of speed post, Ex.PW-1/5A (colly.) are courier receipts, Ex.PW-1/5B (colly.) are speed post receipts.
5. Final arguments heard. Entire records perused and considered.
6. PW-1 deposed that in the year 2010 Sh. Anil Sharma, who is an architect, referred to him (plaintiff) for work on contract basis at farm house situated at 3, Purniam Farm, Bandh Road, near IIPM, Chandanhola, New Delhi. At the said farm house the defendant no. 2 represented himself to be director of defendant no. 3 and gave turnkey job of material and construction at the said farm house to the plaintiff. PW-1 further deposed that he was informed that the payment towards the work would be joint liability of defendant no. 2 and 3. PW-1 further deposed that the defendant no. 2 and 3 would keep on making part payment and final accounts would be reconciled after the completion of work and furnishing of the last bill by him (plaintiff). PW-1 further deposed that he worked on the said farm house from April 2010 to October 2010. In the beginning he (plaintiff) had received the part payment but later on defendant no. 2 and 3 did not make the payment. PW-1 further deposed that he had arranged all the building material for construction and also arranged the labour and made payment to them. The defendant no. 2 and C.S. No. 6331/16 G. Lal Gupta Vs. Adesh Gupta & Ors. Page No. 5/7 3 failed to make up the payments of four bills i.e. bill dated 27.05.2010 for Rs. 31,840/-, bill dated 05.07.2010 for Rs. 67,947/-, bill dated 14.09.2010 for Rs. 2,20,505/- and bill dated 18.10.2010 for Rs. 51,541/- total amounting to Rs. 3,71,833/-. PW-1 further deposed the defendants also failed to make the payment of material supplied to them i.e. for bill no. 285-290 dated 01.09.2010 for Rs. 1,32,960/- and bill no. 376-377 dated 20.10.2010 for Rs. 60,610/-, total amounting to Rs. 1,93,570/-.
7. PW-1 further deposed that total unpaid amount due is Rs. 5,65,403/- (371833+193570) but despite repeated requests the defendant no. 2 and 3 failed to make payment. Legal notices were sent on 21.09.2012, 13.01.2013, 22.02.2013 and 26.07.2013 but despite this, the defendant no. 2 and 3 failed to make the payment.
8. The plaintiff has relied upon the carbon copy of bills dated 27.05.2010 Ex.PW-1/1A, carbon copy of bill dated 05.07.2010 Ex.PW- 1/1B, carbon copy of bill dated 14.09.2010 Ex.PW-1/1C and carbon copy of bill dated 18.10.2010 Ex.PW-1/1D. The plaintiff has relied upon the carbon copy of two bills both dated 20.10.2010 Ex.PW-1/1E and Ex.PW- 1/1F, carbon copy of bill dated 01.09.2009 Ex.PW-1/1G. The bills Ex.PW-1/1H, Ex.PW-1/1I, Ex.PW-1/1J, Ex.PW-1/1K, Ex.PW-1/1L neither bearing the date nor the name of the person against whom the C.S. No. 6331/16 G. Lal Gupta Vs. Adesh Gupta & Ors. Page No. 6/7 same were raised. There is also no receiving on any of the abovesaid bills to show that the same were received by or on behalf of defendant no. 2 and 3. Mere filing carbon copy of bills does not amount to their proof particularly when in most of the bills the name of defendants are not mentioned. Three opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to clarify on this aspect but no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.
9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case that defendant no. 2 and 3 are liable to pay Rs. 5,65,403/- to him. Hence, the suit is dismissed.
10. No order as to cost.
11. The file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court. (PRITAM SINGH)
Dated: 03.04.2017 ADJ-04 (South)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
C.S. No. 6331/16 G. Lal Gupta Vs. Adesh Gupta & Ors. Page No. 7/7