Delhi District Court
Deepak S/O. Sh. Madan Mohan vs Dr. Satish Chandra Mishra on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02,
SOUTH, SAKET, DELHI
CS (COMM) 621/22
1.Sh.Deepak
S/o. Sh.Madan Mohan
Proprietor of M/s.S.H.K.Interiors
with its office at G-1911,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Village Tigri,
New Delhi-110062.
....Plaintiff
Versus
1.Dr. Satish Chandra Mishra
C-2/201, Puri Diplomatic Green,
Sai Kunj Sector-111
Gurugram, Haryana.
....Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 03.11.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 30.01.2026
Date of judgment : 12.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.8,85,460/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the time of realisation, filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 1 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra
2. In brief, as per plaint, plaintiff is a qualified (running) Contractor and is carrying on business activity of interior and renovation work in the name and style of M/s.S.H.K Interiors, which is his proprietorship concern.
3. It is stated that in the month of June, 2021 defendant approached plaintiff at his office at G-1911, Tigri Village, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi through known common persons for getting his flat at C-2/201 Puri Diplomatic Green for its interiors and renovation work and discussed with plaintiff the desired work to be carried out. It is stated that after site visit, deliberations and negotiations, defendant negotiated the rates for renovation of his flat, which came to an estimate of Rs.41,04,202/- (excluding applicable taxes) as per the agreed scope of work. The said quotation was sent by plaintiff to email ID of defendant on 23.06.2021 which was duly accepted by defendant. All the discussion and meeting were held at the office of plaintiff at New Delhi.
4. It is stated that upon acceptance of said quotation, plaintiff started working on the same. As per the terms of agreement defendant was obligated to pay 50% of the advance prior to commencement of work and 40% during the course of work and 10% as retention money after successful completion was to be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of completion of the work. After having received an initial amount of Rs.16,50,000/- (including taxes) plaintiff immediately commenced the renovation CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 2 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra work. As per the term, 40% of the agreed amount was to be released during the course of work, however, plaintiff carried out the entire work without insisting for the same.
5. It is further stated that by the end of October 2021, almost entire work was completed by plaintiff and approved by defendant who physically checked and inspected the work. After carrying out the entire work when plaintiff requested for payment as per the agreed terms and also for additional work, defendant started avoiding the issue of payment and started pointing out snags to avoid payments. It is stated that defendant had been calling him to give the final finishing touches without even considering the release of his overdue payments. It is stated that defendant has refused to adhere to the time-lines as agreed in the quotation which has been duly accepted by defendant and has failed to pay the amount as agreed leading to breach of understanding and agreed terms. Defendant has also failed to consider the payments of additional work which has been carried out at his behest.
6. It is further stated that under such circumstances, plaintiff was constrained to stop final finishing work unless the payment as agreed between the parties was made, since he from his own resources had made expenditure while incurring losses and the same was to be made good at the earliest for him to continue and finish the same. It is stated that plaintiff would not have taken more than seven days time to finish the work as most of the work was CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 3 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra completed and only finishing touches were left to be given.
7. It is stated that finding no other option plaintiff sent legal notice dt.23.11.2021 through his counsel demanding the due amount/outstanding liability accrued on defendant and the same was duly delivered to defendant on 27.11.2021, however, no response or payment was received by plaintiff as per demand raised in legal notice till the date of filing of the suit. Thereafter, due to above compelling circumstances, in December 2021 plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.29,36,498/- against defendant which was registered as CS(COMM) No.418 of 2021 and was assigned to the court of Sh.Vinay Kumar Khanna, Ld.DJ (COMM), Saket Courts, New Delhi. After receiving the summons of court, defendant approached plaintiff for settlement and parties entered into new settlement agreement on 04.03.2022 revising the earlier agreement and entering into fresh understanding and terms to complete the work. In terms of agreement dt.04.03.2022 plaintiff further carried out the work as agreed by defendant. It is stated that as per settlement defendant had to pay balance amount of Rs.8,85,460/-. The plaintiff accordingly issued the invoice for balance amount of Rs.8,85,460/- dt.22.05.2022, which has remained unpaid despite repeated follow up. Since the earlier suit CS(COMM) 418/2021 filed by plaintiff had become infructuous in view of terms having been revised by CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 4 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra settlement agreement dt.04.03.2022, the same was withdrawn.
8. Defendant filed written statement. It is stated that the defendant had engaged the plaintiff for furnishing of his house. It is stated that the suit property was in a very good condition, however, the plaintiff in the name of redoing everything damaged major portions including the wiring and false ceiling. The plaintiff was paid an advance of Rs.16,54,000/-, however, he started demanding more money. The defendant who was working at Sonipat could not be at the flat on day to day basis and plaintiff taking benefit of it got everything changed including air conditioning system which was of very high quality. The plaintiff botched up the complete wiring. It is stated that plaintiff told the defendant that internal wooden doors needed redesigning. The defendant was reluctant, however, the plaintiff persuaded the defendant to let him do two doors and assured him the best quality possible. On 05.10.2021, however, defendant received call from society guard that plaintiff was taking away 10 doors which was never permitted by the defendant and on asking the plaintiff stated that he would redesign all the 10 doors together and that it was done to avoid carrier charges. It is stated that the defendant got electric audit done which showed that plaintiff and his labour had completely destructed wiring of his house. It is stated that plaintiff started demanding Rs.7 lakhs for return of door which he had taken away. The defendant paid Rs.3 lakhs, however, CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 5 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra the plaintiff stopped taking defendant's calls. The defendant filed a complaint in consumer forum at consumerhelpline.gov.in. It is stated that after several persuasion, deliberations and negotiations by the mediators the parties signed an agreement on 04.03.2022, whereby the plaintiff agreed to complete the pending work within 35 days. It is stated that plaintiff, however, did not complete the work. The plaintiff was paid total of Rs.35,83,886/- through bank transfers and some cash payments. It is stated that plaintiff had not issued the receipts of cash payments. The plaintiff also did not handover the warranties and other documents of material used. Third parties were involved for completion of work. It is stated that pictures taken on 03.04.2022 show that there was malba left by the plaintiff. There were 'Gutka' stains and unhygienic use of labour. The Toilet seat was not replaced. The defendant has denied the contents of plaint on merit.
9. Following issues were framed for trial by the court on 18.04.2023:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover balance amount of Rs.8,85,460/- on account of services provided to the defendant? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest from the defendant? If so, whether at the claimed rate of 18% per annum? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff had failed to completely perform its obligation under the contract/settlement agreement CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 6 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra dt.04.03.2022 and is therefore, not entitled to claim amount?OPD
4. Relief including costs.
10.Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the following documents:- Ex.PW1/B is certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (Ld. Counsel for defendant objects to document stating that document is not as per Commercial Courts Act); Ex.PW1/1 is Electrical material purchase bill (at page 21 to 25); Ex.PW1/2 is Paint material purchase bill (at pages 26 to 36) (page no.30 is not legible); Ex.PW1/3 is hardware material purchase bill (at pages 37 to 43); Ex.PW1/4 is Wooden material purchase bill (age pages 44 to 45); Ex.PW1/5 is cement, dust, brick material purchase bill (at pages 46 to 47);
Ex.PW1/6 is plumbing material purchase bill (at pages 48 to 49); Ex.PW1/7 is Wooden work labour contractor bill (at pages 50 to 52); Ex.PW1/8 is paint work, labour contractor bill (at pages 53 to 54); Ex.PW1/9 is daily basis labour amount (at pages 55 to 85); Ex.PW1/10 is Ist BOQ dt. 23.06.2021 (at pages 86 to 96); Ex.PW1/11 is payments receipts and sale invoice (at pages 97 to 99); Ex. PW1/12 is additional work summary and revised BOQ (at pages 100 to 109); Ex.PW1/13 is chat correspondence (at pages 110 to 117) (Ld.Counsel for defendant objected to exhibition as the documents were not supported with a proper 65-B application.); Ex.PW1/14 is site drawings (at pages 118 to 123); Ex.PW1/15 is floor protection invoice CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 7 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra (at pages 124 to 126); Ex.PW1/16 is P.O.P vendor running bill (at pages 127 to 136); Ex.PW1/17 is ply and lamination and molding bill (at pages 137); Ex.PW1/18 are legal notice (at pages 138 to 141); Ex.PW1/19 is proof of delivery (at page 142); Ex.PW1/20 is settlement deed dt. 04.03.2022 (at pages 143 to 147); Ex.PW1/21 is legal notice dt. 22.07.2022 (at pages 148 to 149); Ex.PW1/22 is proof of delivery (at page 150) (Ld. Counsel for defendant has objected to tendering of documents as all the documents are photocopies).
11.In his cross-examination he stated that the procurement of supplies by plaintiff was through regular shops and regular vendors. He volunteered that at times when articles were not available with these vendors he would purchase from open market depending upon location if it was at a distance from the vendor he would buy from local market.
The condition of the flat (to be renovated) was raw as handed over by the builder. The total amount agreed for the work to be done was Rs.23 lakhs plus. Initially, he had received 50% payment through cheque. He did not deal in cash in business at all.
Witness on being shown Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) page no.25 a purchase bill showing payment in cash stated that he meant that he took all payments from clients in cash; This bill was of a purchase made by him and when some articles were required at the site purchases were to be made in cash. He stated that according to him all work was done and the work that was pending was only for a period CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 8 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra of 7 days. He admitted that all the documents i.e bills that he had filed were prior to the period of 2022. The witness was shown page nos.21 to 25 (EX.PW1/1) (colly.) on which witness stated that Sh.Kalka Electricals was one of the vendors of the plaintiff. He stated that delivery of goods which were smaller in size and could be carried, was made at his office and larger goods/articles were delivered at the site. It was stated that the billing was always done at his address since it was he who was directly dealing with the vendors and he got the GST input. Admitting that he had filed some bills which were handwritten and did not have any details mentioned on them witness volunteered that when articles were purchased from market, some vendors gave proper bill while many of them issued kaccha bill. Witness was shown Ex.PW1/13, which showed pictures of interior being shared by the defendant and his family with the plaintiff on a Whatsapp group. Witness stated that those pictures were only for the purpose of references sent by the defendant and was not of actual work done.
12.Witness stated that he did not know whether he had filed any document to show that any work was done subsequent to the execution of the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. He stated that he had received the first tranche of payment and subsequently the second payment as well and volunteered that if he had not done the work defendant would not have given him second tranche of payment. Witness admitted that he did not ask CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 9 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra for payment from defendant after the settlement and volunteered that after settlement everything was being done through Om Logistic Group. He stated that he did not know if he had filed any such communication with Om Logistic Group in the court.
13.Defendant examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon following documents:-. Rent Agreement dated 30.04.2021 is Ex. DW1/1; Payment receipt of Rs.50,000/- made to plaintiff dated 09.04.2021 is Ex. DW1/2; Payment receipt made by defendant to plaintiff dated 25.06.2021 is Ex. DW1/3; Statement of account of defendant showing payment of Rs.12,54,000/- to plaintiff is Ex.DW1/4; Account statement of defendant showing payment of Rs.9,00,000/- to plaintiff on 07.03.2022 is Ex. DW1/5; Retail invoice dated 06.10.2021 is Ex. DW1/6; Alpha Window Quotation dated 24.06.2021 is Ex.DW1/7; Original Electrical Inspection Audit Report dated 26.11.2021 is Ex. DW1/8; Tax invoice online payment of Rs.2,00,000/- made to plaintiff dated 07.10.2021 is Ex.DW1/9 for the payment of Electrical Safety and Energy Audit is Ex. DW1/10; Online payment of Rs.3,00,000/- made to plaintiff dated 27.04.2022 is Ex.DW1/11; Online payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made to plaintiff dated 12.10.2021 is Ex. DW1/12; Online payment receipt of Rs.7,29,364/- made to plaintiff dated 30.03.2022 is Ex.DW1/13; Online complaint at the Grievance cell consumer helpline dated 26.11.2021 against plaintiff is Ex. DW1/14; Copy of CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 10 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra whatsapp conversation between plaintiff and defendant alongwith mediator under a common group named as C2/201 interior works is Ex. DW1/15; Photographs of house showcasing the unfinished work of the house is Ex. DW1/16; Whatsapp conversation between plaintiff and defendant alongwith interior designer under the group name of G2-201, DG, Gurugram is Ex. DW1/17;
Whatsapp conversation between defendant and defendant's wife with the plaintiff is Ex. DW1/18; Copy of exchange of email between defendant and plaintiff is Ex.DW1/19; Copy of Room booking at Defence Services officers Institute dated 30.04.2022 and 08.05.2022 is Ex.DW1/20. (OSR); Proposal of Balance of interiors by Space Studio is Ex.DW1/21; Online Payment receipt of Rs.70,553/- made to aapkapainter.com is Ex.DW1/22; Online payment of Rs.30,000/- made for the marble polish dated 30.04.2022 is Ex.DW1/23; Payment receipts made to Mr. Chirag for completion of furniture work is Ex.DW1/24; Certificate u/s.63 of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.DW1/25 with regard to electronic evidence/documents.
14.In his cross-examination the witness stated that the basis of his acceptance of plaintiff for the work was multiple videos and photographs of high end works undertaking by him for high end societies. He stated that he had taken quotation from the plaintiff, which included initially limited amount of work which was increased on his suggestions progressively. The witness stated that assertion made at point A1 and A2 in WS was typographical error CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 11 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra and the assertion made at point B to B1 that an agreement was made on 04.03.2022 in his evidence affidavit was correct.
15.The witness admitted that as per settlement agreement Ex.PW1/20, the quoted price of Rs.41,04,206/- submitted by the plaintiff in the original quotation was accepted to be the amount payable to the plaintiff however, the same was with conditions. He admitted that until the date of this agreement i.e. 04.03.2022, only a sum of Rs.16,54,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and balance of Rs.24,50,206/- was payable as per the said agreement. He denied that packing cost was to be paid additionally. However, after seeing the document Ex.PW1/20 admitted that cost of packing was reimbursable at actuals and was not mentioned as included in the balance amount. He stated that till the date of evidence he had paid Rs.35,86,000/- plus through bank and Rs.5,80,000/- in cash. He stated that no receipt regarding cash payment was filed as no cash receipt was given to him by plaintiff. He admitted that amount of Rs.5,80,000/- is not mentioned in WS at para 22, page 18 and volunteered that in the next line in the same para it is written that there were cash payments made which were paid at the asking of plaintiff. He admitted that electrical audit was got done on 26.11.2021 prior to the settlement agreement dated 04.03.2022. In answer to the question that he had agreed for payment as per the original quotation without factoring the audit report dated 26.11.2021 in the balance payment to be paid as per settlement dated CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 12 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra 04.03.2022, witness stated that the revised agreement was for everything else except for electrical work because plaintiff refused to do the electrical correction, for which he had to engage different electricians separately and plaintiff agreed that he had already damaged the electrical work.
In answer to the question as to defendant agreed for balance payment without making reference to electric audit, witness stated that the plaintiff was unwilling to start to work and withheld his 10 interior doors at his house and pressurized him to accept the agreement drafted by his lawyer. The witness further stated that this assertion was made in his complaint to Consumer helpline, where a ransom of Rs.7 lacs was asked from him for returning his doors. In order to have his doors, after multiple attempt, he had to accept this final settlement agreement in the interest of completing the work.
16.Witness stated that the mediators from his side were employees of Om Logistics and were neutral persons. He stated that he had not put in writing to the plaintiff that he was discarding and not accepting the faulty work and would get the same done through third party vendor. He stated that he had paid about Rs.5-6 lacs to the third party through whom he got the work finished excluding the price of material. He has given details of payment in evidence but admitted that he had not given notice to the plaintiff before making payments to the persons concerned.
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 13 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra
17.I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh.Dhananjai Jain & Sh.Bhoop Singh, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff as also by Sh.Sanyam Khetrapal, Ms.Prakriti Anand & Sh.Rahul Gupta, Ld.Counsels for defendant. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by parties.
18.In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon judgment in Union of India Vs.Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 269, wherein it was reiterated that it is well settled that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he cannot take advantage of the weakness in the defendant's case; in Rangammal Vs.Kuppuswami, (2011) 12 SCC 220, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the cardinal principle of civil justice that the burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue, and that failure to discharge such burden is fatal to the claim. The plaintiff, asserting performance and entitlement to further payment, has adduced no credible evidence to meet this standard and in Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it." Unless the plaintiff proves the factum of work and the basis of the amount claimed, no decree for recovery can follow.
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 14 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra
19. Issue No.1:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover balance amount of Rs.8,85,460/- on account of services provided to the defendant? OPP And
20.Issue 3- Whether plaintiff had failed to completely perform it's obligation under the contract/ settlement agreement dated 04.03.2022 and is therefore, not entitled to claim amount ? OPD
21.The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that his services were engaged by defendant for the renovation of his flat. The plaintiff claims that by the end of October 2021 the work was substantially completed, but the defendant, to avoid payment, raised objections by alleging defects in the work. Owing to non-payment, the plaintiff withheld the final finishing work and was constrained to file a recovery suit in December 2021 for Rs.29,36,498/-. Thereafter, at the request of the defendant, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 04.03.2022, pursuant to which the suit was withdrawn. It is contended that the work was carried out and accepted under the said settlement, and hence there is no justification for the defendant to withhold the payment.
On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff did not execute agreed work. It is further stated that soon after commencement of the work, the plaintiff began demanding exorbitant amounts on the pretext of aligning the workforce. It is alleged that the plaintiff carried out the CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 15 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra wiring work in a defective and improper manner, thereby botching the entire electrical system of the premises. It is further alleged that the plaintiff removed ten doors from the premises and demanded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for their return. The plaintiff in this regard had filed a consumer complaint Ex.DW1/14, wherein the facts were mentioned. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has not completed even a single item of work in a proper and finished manner and no amount is due or payable to the plaintiff.
22.As per PW-1' cross-examination the total amount agreed for the work was Rs.23 lakhs plus and he had got 50% amount through cheque. It is the case of defendant that the plaintiff kept on adding the things and started asking exorbitant amount, the plaintiff, however, says that the defendant had made him do additional work and hence the amount became higher. Another relevant document in this regard would be legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, which is Ex.PW1/18, wherein the plaintiff has written the initial quoted amount as Rs.25,61,403/-; additional work as Rs.6,64,100/- and additional paint work and door work @ Rs.5,77,360/- and Rs.84,000/-. As per plaintiff's demand therefore, the defendant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.38,86,863/-. As per the settlement agreement this amount was further raised to Rs.41,04,202/-. Thus, something that was agreed to be done initially for Rs.23 lakhs plus was finally settled for Rs.41,04,202/-.
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 16 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra
23.The plaintiff received an initial amount of Rs.16,50,000/- and commenced the work at the site. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties leading the defendant to file a consumer complaint on 22.11.2021 (Ex.DW1/14). The plaintiff also instituted a suit for recovery of alleged dues in December 2021. Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 04.03.2022, pursuant to which the proceedings filed by the parties were withdrawn.
24.The settlement agreement dated 04.03.2022 stipulated that the plaintiff would complete the pending work to the satisfaction of the defendant, and that the defendant would thereafter make the balance payment in installments. In terms of the agreement, the first installment of Rs.9,00,000/- was payable prior to the dispatch of all ten doors lying in the plaintiff's workshop; the second installment of Rs.7,29,364/- was payable after mobilisation of workmen and labour at the site; the third installment of Rs.2,05,210/- was payable after fifteen days from the commencement of repair, painting, and POP work; the fourth installment of Rs.2,05,210/- was payable upon delivery and inspection of all furniture and assets; and the final installment of Rs.4,10,420/- was payable after proper inspection of the work. It was further stipulated in Clause 5 of the settlement agreement that the plaintiff was required to complete the entire work within a period of thirty-five days from the date of the agreement.
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 17 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra
25.The dispute between the parties arose as the defendant was not satisfied with the quality of work executed by the plaintiff, on which ground the defendant withheld further payment. It is the case of the defendant that even after the execution of the settlement agreement, the plaintiff failed to complete the work within the stipulated time and ultimately abandoned the site in May 2022, compelling the defendant to get the remaining work executed through third parties. As per evidence a WhatsApp group was created for coordination of the work, in which both the plaintiff and the defendant were members. The chat correspondences relied upon by the plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/13) were exchanged in the WhatsApp group titled "C2-201, DG, Gurgaon", which is the very same group in which the defendant also had raised complaints regarding the unsatisfactory and delayed execution of work by the plaintiff. PW-1 admitted during his testimony that this WhatsApp group existed between the parties. It would be relevant to note that the plaintiff filed only some of the portions of chats alongwith the plaint. It deliberately did not file the portions wherein defendant had raised issues with the construction/delay. The record shows that subsequent to the message of plaintiff relied upon as Ex.PW1/13 the defendant had also sent messages stating that the tile work was shoddy, AC vents were not sufficiently wide, 70 days had spilled over to 120 days etc. The plaintiff also did not file several messages of 18.10.2021, 19.11.2021 and subsequent chats wherein the defendant can be seen messaging about his dissatisfaction CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 18 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra with the work of plaintiff. These chats exchanged in the said group filed by the defendant indicate that the defendant repeatedly raised complaints regarding the quality of work carried out by the plaintiff. Plaintiff gave a statement of truth stating that all the documents in his power, possession, control and custody, pertaining to the facts have been disclosed and copies filed. Under such oath the plaintiff was expected to file all the documents which were relevant for disposal of suit and not the ones which suited his case.
The defendant to corroborate his case that he was not satisfied with the work carried out by the plaintiff has also relied upon the consumer complaint filed by him against the plaintiff on 22.11.2021. The defendant thus is relying upon contemporaneously created documents showing the laxity in the work of plaintiff and to assert that the plaintiff had even before left the work unfinished.
26.It is further the case of the defendant that the plaintiff botched up the entire electrical connections in the premises. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the electrical audit report. The electrical audit report records contains observations regarding unfit electrical connections, along with relevant photographs. Significantly, even prior to the conduct of the said audit, the defendant had informed the plaintiff about these issues through WhatsApp messages exchanged in the above- mentioned group. It is further relevant to note that the plaintiff did not file any statement of admission and denial CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 19 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra with respect to the documents relied upon by the defendant and, consequently, may be deemed to have admitted the said documents. In any case these documents were not challenged in the cross-examination also.
27.The photographs relied upon by the defendant, stated to have been taken on 03.04.2022, show that malba was still lying in the premises, the toilets were stained with gutka marks, and the door frames were damaged. The toilet seats were not fixed and the doors were lying on the floor. The walls were damaged and the flooring was also damaged. The unfinished wooden articles were lying on the floor. As noted hereinabove, the plaintiff chose not to file admission and denial of these documents and has offered no explanation in respect of the photographs otherwise. In the absence thereof, the photographs shall be deemed to have been proved which show that there was incomplete work at the site as on 3rd April, 2022.
28.It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant had entered into settlement after the audit reports which has been admitted by DW-1 in his cross-examination and therefore, these document loose credence. Relevantly, the plaintiff has also relied upon all the documents prior to the date of execution of agreement. The plaintiff has also not placed anything on record to show the work carried by it subsequent to the entering of agreement. If a period of 35 days was agreed between the parties for carrying the left over work, it would definitely have been some work and it was for the CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 20 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra plaintiff to show as to how much was the left over work and how and when did he complete the same. It would be relevant to mention again at the cost of repetition that defendant is relying upon photographs, which are undisputed, to claim that work was not completed till 03.04.2022 and the payments made to third parties to show that he engaged people to complete the work. The plaintiff on the other hand has no document to show that the work was completed. The plaintiff produced a part of whatsapp chat in the evidence of DW-1 to ask if the payment of the invoice sent through the chat was made to the plaintiff. DW-1 stated that there were several negotiations and therefore, he could not comment if this particular invoice was paid by him. The plaintiff has not filed complete communication in this document also. There is no confirmation taken by plaintiff or given by defendant on the Whatsapp group to say that the work was completed to the satisfaction of defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant otherwise stated that this document was not supported with necessary certificate u/s. 63-A BSA.
29.PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that he did not know whether he had filed any document to show that any work was done subsequent to the execution of the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. He stated that he had received the first tranche of payment and subsequently the second payment as well and that if he had not done the work defendant would not have given him second tranche of payment. There is no document on CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 21 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra record as stated hereinabove to show the work done by plaintiff subsequent to execution of agreement. PW1 stated in his cross that had he not done the work the defendant would not have paid him second installment; the logic can be taken further to conclude that the balance money was not paid by defendant as work was not completed to the satisfaction of defendant. The witness stated that he did not ask for payment from defendant after the settlement and volunteered that after settlement everything was being done through Om Logistic Group. He stated that he did not know if he had filed any communication with Om Logistic Group in the court. PW1 having categorically stated that all the communications were being done through Om Logistic would have had some communications with Om Logistic, which he could have brought on record to show that the complete work was done. Unlike the defendant who has placed on record plenty of documents before and after execution of agreement including Whatsapp chat, electric audit, the photographs and the payments made by him to third parties to show that there were deficiencies in the work of plaintiff and that he had to get work done by other parties because of work having been left incomplete by plaintiff; the plaintiff has not filed any document to show the complete finished work.
30.It would not be out of place to mention at this stage that the parties were already in dispute when the settlement agreement was arrived at and therefore, the plaintiff was CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 22 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra aware of the objections that defendant might take regarding the work carried by him. Yet the plaintiff did not deem it proper to maintain a record of completed work. This could be in form of pictures or communications with defendant or third parties or such other mode as the plaintiff found fit. There is however, absolutely no evidence on record that the work was completed by the plaintiff to the satisfaction of defendant before or after the execution of agreement.
31.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the cross- examination of DW-1, wherein he admitted that no written notice was given to the plaintiff with respect to the incomplete work. Ld. Counsel for defendant, however, argued that defendant was already a lot harassed by the conduct of plaintiff who had at one point of time taken away the doors of defendant, which is an admitted fact as per the settlement agreement also, therefore, the defendant did not want to indulge further with the plaintiff and decided to get his work finished through third parties. This, however, cannot mean that the work was not left incomplete, which can be seen from other evidence produced by DW-1.
32.Coming to the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff has sought a lump-sum of Rs.8,85,460/- without giving any bifurcation of money in the plaint. The plaintiff has not given any computation of what the amounts were received by him before or after the execution of agreement and when and CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 23 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra how. No details of extra work has also been provided in the plaint anywhere. The defendant has given documents of payments made by it to the plaintiff before and after the execution of agreement. Leaving the payments made before the agreement and the cash which the defendant claims was paid aside, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.9 lakhs vide Ex.DW/15 on 07.03.2022, Rs.7,29,364 vide Ex.DW1/13 on 30.03.2022 and Rs.3,00,000/- vide Ex. DW1/11 on 27.04.2022. The defendant thus has paid an amount of Rs.19,29,364/- to the defendant after the execution of agreement. If we go by the agreement the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of Rs.24,50,206/- for the complete work. The defendant has succeeded in showing that the work was not completed by plaintiff.
33.As per defendant because of defective work done by the plaintiff he had to spend a lot of money in doing the corrections. In this regard he has placed reliance on Ex.DW1/23, which is the payment of Rs.30,000/- made on account of polishing of marble on 30.04.2022. The details have been obtained from online portal of SBI, wherein the purpose was categorically written in the same way as it was written in all the receipts relied by the defendant. The defendant has relied upon document showing payment of Rs.70,553/- made to the aapkapainter.com. in support of its claim that the whitewash was to be done again as the plaintiff had left the work unfinished. The payments have been made in May & June, 2022 after the plaintiff had allegedly completed the work. He has also relied upon CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 24 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra Ex.DW1/24 showing a payment of Rs.88,700/- made online for furniture. The defendant has filed a certificate u/s. 63 of BSA (Ex.DW1/25) in support of these electrical documents. Plaintiff apart from giving a suggestions that these documents are forged has not stated anything further which could raise dispute regarding genuineness of these documents having been obtained electronically from the portals of third parties.
In any case as argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant it was for the plaintiff to prove that he had completed the work even if the defendant failed to prove that he had to get the extra work done from a third party, the defendant having shown through documents that the work was not completed by the plaintiff.
34.Further, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff relied upon the agreement to say that plaintiff was entitled for actual cost of transportation and packaging which the plaintiff is claiming @ Rs.3 lakhs odd. There is no document absolutely on record to show any justification for this amount. There is no document on record to show that any goods were packaged and additional work was done after the execution of agreement. If there was any transportation or packaging prior to execution of agreement it would be deemed to have been taken care of at the time of execution of agreement. If it was not so the plaintiff had the onus to prove such transportation/packaging, as they were to be paid to the actuals.
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 25 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra
35. In so far as additional work is concerned, considering the fact that the amount was raised from Rs.23 lakhs plus initially agreed to Rs.41 lakhs at the time of execution of agreement, it was for the plaintiff to show as to what extra work was done after the settlement agreement for the amount of Rs.41 lakhs. The plaintiff has not specified as to what additional work beyond what was agreed between the parties in the settlement agreement was carried by him after the execution of agreement. The plaintiff thus has failed to prove its claim on account of packaging/transporting/additional work after the execution of agreement.
36. It is settled law that mere pleading of a party cannot be substituted for evidence. The one who pleads something also has the onus of proving it by producing evidence in support of such plea. (Reliance placed on Manager Reserve Bank of India, Banglore Vs S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100, Hon'ble Supreme court relied upon the judgment of the Court in Essen Deinki Vs Rajiv Kumar, (2002) 8 SCC 400).
37.Having regard to the material on record, including the photographs and the payment receipts evidencing payments made by the defendant to third parties, the balance of probabilities lies in favour of the defendant's version that the plaintiff failed to complete the work in a satisfactory manner.
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 26 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra
38.The defendant has claimed the plaintiff did not complete the work and the plaintiff has failed to prove that he completed the work by producing any reliable document. The defendant thus has succeeded in proving the issue no.3. Consequently and on same basis the plaintiff would loose on issue no.1. Both these issues are decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
39.Issue No.2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest from the defendant? If so, whether at the claimed rate of 18% per annum? OPP
40. Since issues no.1 & 3 have been decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. Issues No.2 is therefore, decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
41. Issue No.4:- Relief including costs. In view of discussion held hereinabove, suit of plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Suit stands disposed off. File be consigned to record room.
(Anuradha Shukla) District Judge(Commercial Court)-02 South, Saket, Delhi.
Announced in open court Digitally signed
by anuradha
on 12.02.2026 anuradha shukla
(digitally signed and
uploaded on 13.02.2026) shukla Date:
2026.02.13
14:23:50 +0530
CS (COMM) 621/2022 Page 27 of 27 Deepak Vs. Dr.Satish Chandra Mishra