Delhi District Court
Mohd. Qumar vs Sandeep on 23 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIGYA GUPTA;
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER;
NORTH EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI
CS No. 639/2022
CNR No. DLNE03-001203-2022
Mohd. Qumar
S/o Jamaluddin
Proprietor of Gulshan Engineering Works,
R/o. H.No. 765, Street No.10,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, New Mustafabad,
North East, Delhi-110094.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sandeep
Through its Proprietor,
Lakshmi Enterprises
Shop No. 120, Lajpat Rai Market,
Delhi-6.
2) Sh. Ranjeet
Shop No. 120, Old Lajpat Rai Market,
Delhi-6.
.......... Defendants
Date of filing of present suit : 15/11/2022
Date of reserving Judgment : 20/09/2025
CS No. 639/22 Pages 1 of 12
Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
Digitally signed
by PRIGYA
PRIGYA GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
17:06:31 +0530
Date of Judgment : 23/09/2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 2,39,000/- along with damages and pendentalite @ 18 % per annum against the defendants.
2. Brief facts of the present suit are that the plaintiff works as a die maker and runs his own shop under the name and style of Gulshan Engineering and Works at Village Gokul Puri. The defendants run a business of electronics goods under the name and style of Lakshmi Enterprises at Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi-6.
3. It is further averred that on 01/08/2021, the defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff and placed an order for making of die as per their requirement. Accordingly, after detailed discussions with plaintiff, the defendants placed the order and the whole deal was finalized at Rs. 1,95,000/-. Defendants gave an advance of Rs. 50,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- was to be paid after the completion of work as promised by the defendants. The said deal was finalized in front of Mr. Nadeem and the defendants met the plaintiff through Mr. Nadeem.
4. It is further averred that thereafter defendants called the plaintiff and asked for the samples of goods prior to completion of order/die. The said sample was accordingly forwarded to the defendants for checking. The cost incurred for the sample was Rs. 29,500/-. It was further agreed between them that the cost of the sample apart from the agreed amount i.e. Rs. 1,95,000/- shall be paid by the defendants and the die shall be prepared after satisfaction Digitally signed CS No. 639/22 PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA Pages 2 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. . GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 17:06:41 +0530 from the sample. The defendants were very much satisfied with the above sample. It is further averred that the plaintiff informed the defendants that the work has been completed on 26/11/2021.
5. It is further averred that it was agreed between the parties that on completion of the die, the defendants would further give/provide work orders to the plaintiff for making goods, which shall be around 4000 to 5000 pieces per month and the cost of the pieces shall be paid by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants for money for the expenditure for the purchase of raw material for die making but the defendants wanted alteration in the said sample and requested the plaintiff " I am sorry Mr. Kamar ek galti ho gyi hai ek cheez isme bhool gye " and thereafter the plaintiff on the instructions given by the defendants started rework and sent fresh sample to the defendants and the defendants were satisfied with the same. Accordingly, the plaintiff demanded the money i.e. Rs. 65,400/- after alteration work and the same was agreed by the defendants.
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 16/09/2021, he called the defendants and demanded the balance money of Rs. 94,900/- for sample costs and for compliance of agreed conditions, but the defendants started making excuses on one pretext or the other and refused to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 94,900/- to the plaintiff. The defendants further refused to make the payment of die i.e. Rs. 1,95,000/-. One day when defendant answered the plaintiff's phone call, he bluntly refused to pay the consideration/agreed amount of Rs. 2,89,900/-. It is further averred that due to the above-said incident, the business of the plaintiff was adversely effected as the plaintiff had spent his whole lifetime saving in the order placed by the defendants. He Digitally signed PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.23 17:06:51 +0530 CS No. 639/22 Pages 3 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
also lost his peace of life for which the defendant is solely liable.
7. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree for recovery of rs. 2,39,900/- along with interest pendente lite @18% per annum. Plaintiff has further prayed for legal cost of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental harassment and mental trauma to the plaintiff.
8. Vide order dated 24/01/2023, summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. Thereafter, defendants put in appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint.
The defendants, in the written statement, stated that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants at any point of time as mentioned in the plaint. Infact, the present suit filed by the plaintiff lacks cause of action, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is also stated that the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the ground of "Suppressio-Vari and suggestion-falsi"
as the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Hon'ble Court and the suit of the plaintiff is based on completely false, frivolous and concocted facts. Further, there is no liability of the defendants against the plaintiff as alleged. It is further stated by the defendants that there is no partnership between the defendant no. 1 and 2 and they are doing their businesses separately and individually having friendly relations with each other. The defendant no. 1 had discussed all the business dealing with defendant no. 2 in his personal capacity and the defendant no. 2 has no concern with the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant no. 1 placed order to make power supply electronic metal body to the plaintiff and paid Rs. 50,000/- in advance to the plaintiff on Digitally signed PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.23 CS No. 639/22 17:06:59 +0530 Pages 4 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
21/06/2021 but the plaintiff did not give a single piece of electronic metal body to the defendant no. 1 even after making number of oral requests. On 24/09/2021, the plaintiff sent a new quotation for making electronic metal body to the defendant no. 2 in which the plaintiff clearly said "agar aap dieyo ke paise dete ho to 3 no setto par 3 rupee kam ho jayenge" on Whatsapp. On 01/08/2021, a discussion was made by the defendant no. 1 with the plaintiff after seeing the Whatsapp quotation. On 19/05/2022, the plaintiff again sent a quotation on Whatsapp to the defendant no. 2 but the plaintiff did not start the manufacturing of power supply electronic metal body. No price/amount was ever settled between parties for the manufacturing of the die of electronic metal body. The defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff on several occasions and demanded his money back but to no avail. Plaintiff has not paid the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant despite repeated requests, reminders and phone calls, hence, Rs. 50,000/- is still due upon the plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants denying the averments made by the defendants and reiterating the averments made by him in the plaint.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 05/09/2024 and the matter was listed for evidence of plaintiff:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.2,39,900/-
along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.15000/- as legal cost and Rs.50,000/- as compensation, as prayed for?OPP Digitally signed PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA GUPTA 2025.09.23 Date:
CS No. 639/22 17:07:09 +0530
Pages 5 of 12
Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
3. Relief.
10. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 vide his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A. In his examination in chief, the plaintiff (PW-1) re-iterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents :-
a) Affidavit of his evidence - Ex. PW1/A. b) Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act - Ex. PW1/B. c) Whatsapp chats transcript - Ex. PW1/C. d) Audio transcript - Ex. PW1/D. e) Goods sample picture and die photos - Mark-A (colly).
Plaintiff was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants. Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff and order dated 26/03/2025, PE was closed and matter was listed for defendant's evidence.
11. In defendant's evidence, defendant no. 1 examined himself as DW1 by tendering his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/A. He relied upon following documents:-
1. Whatsapp message screenshot dated 24/09/2021 and 19/05/2022 - Already Ex. PW1/D1.
2. GST of defendant no. 1 - Ex. DW1/3.
3. GST of defendant no. 2 - Mark-A. Defendants also examined Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Mandal (defendant no.
2) as DW2 who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW2/A. He relied upon GST of defendant no. 2 - Ex. DW2/1 and the documents relied upon by the DW1. Digitally signed by PRIGYA PRIGYA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 17:07:18 +0530 CS No. 639/22 Pages 6 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
Both the witnesses i.e. DW1 and DW2 were duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter, vide statement of defendant and order dated 16/09/2025, DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
12. I have heard the final arguments from both the sides and perused the record carefully.
13. My issue-wise finds are as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.2,39,900/-
along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.15000/- as legal cost and Rs.50,000/- as compensation, as prayed for?OPP Issue no.1 & 2 being interconnected, are taken up together for consideration.
The onus to prove issue no.1 and 2 was upon the plaintiff. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied upon certain documents, including WhatsApp chat transcripts (Ex. PW1/C), an audio transcript (Ex. PW1/D), and photographs of the samples (Mark A). It is however pertinent to note at the outset that the plaintiff has not placed on record any written agreement, formal purchase order, invoice, bill, delivery challan, or acknowledgment to substantiate the existence of the alleged transaction or the terms thereof. There is also no documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that the defendants had requested the plaintiff to manufacture sample dies before placing the order for metal bodies. He has further completely failed to show that the samples were either requested, CS No. 639/22 PRIGYA Digitally signed by PRIGYA GUPTA Pages 7 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. . Date: 2025.09.23 GUPTA 17:07:28 +0530 received or approved by the defendants. As per the evidence placed on record by the parties, it is an admitted fact that the metal bodies were never supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. What now requires attention is the fact that the plaintiff claims to have supplied the sample dies to the defendants at their request.
14. The defendants, on the other hand, have categorically denied the version presented by the plaintiff and completely refute having requested any sample dies from the plaintiff. While defendant no. 1 admits to have placed an order with the plaintiff, the nature of that order, as per his version, pertained to the manufacture of power supply electronic metal bodies, and not for any die as alleged. He asserts that an advance of ₹50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff on 21.06.2021, but despite the same the plaintiff failed to deliver the ordered items. The defendant no. 1 has further denied having made any request for samples, any communication regarding wrong specifications, or any agreement to bear the sampling costs. In essence, he disputes both the contract as pleaded by the plaintiff and the liability arising therefrom.
15. In such a scenario, the onus squarely lies upon the plaintiff to establish his version by way of cogent and credible evidence. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof resting upon him. In business transactions as alleged by the plaintiff, especially those involving substantial monetary claims, it is expected that parties maintain records, written communications, or at the very least contemporaneous documentary proof to establish the existence of the contract and its terms. However, as observed earlier, the plaintiff has not produced a single document such as a written agreement, Digitally signed PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.23 17:07:35 +0530 CS No. 639/22 Pages 8 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
invoice, delivery challan, receipt, or even a written acknowledgment from the defendant demonstrating that the alleged order was placed or that any samples were delivered. He relies solely on WhatsApp chat transcripts and an audio transcript, neither of which clearly supports the material averments of the plaint. The same are insufficient to meet the standard of proof required in civil proceedings.
16. Further, the WhatsApp chats (Ex. PW1/C) are vague and general in nature and do not establish any agreement regarding the manufacturing and cost of the die or the sample charges. The WhatsApp chat transcript (Ex. PW1/C) does not contain any unequivocal reference to a request for die manufacturing or the agreed cost of ₹1,95,000/-. There is also no reference to sampling instructions or the defendant's approval or rejection of the samples or any undertaking to reimburse the sample costs. Nothing in the said WhatsApp chats is indicative of the fact that a contract was ever entered into between the parties or that an agreement in respect to sample dies was reached. The chat is vague, lacks material specificity and does not corroborate the material averments of the plaint. There is no reference to any quantifiable obligation undertaken by the defendant. The audio transcript (Ex. PW1/D), apart from being vague and inconclusive, has not been proved in accordance with law. Pertinently, the audio recording itself is not on record and only the transcript and certificate are filed. In the absence of the original audio recording or an admissible copy thereof, merely filing the certificate and the transcript of the audio is insufficient to prove the contents of the audio. The certificate serves as a foundation to admit electronic evidence, but it does not replace the need to produce the original electronic data. In the absence of the recording, the transcript remains uncorroborated by the original Digitally signed PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA CS No. 639/22 GUPTA Date: 2025.09.23 17:07:45 +0530 Pages 9 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
evidence. Furthermore, the transcript's veracity and accuracy cannot be tested or challenged effectively without the recording being brought on record. Thus, the transcript alone does not meet the standard of proof required for electronic evidence and no attempt has been made by the plaintiff to establish its authenticity or admissibility. In this context, the evidentiary value of both the chat and the transcript is negligible.
17. Moreover, the plaintiff has also failed to prove that he incurred the alleged cost of ₹94,900/-. No bills, receipts, procurement records, or other financial documentation have been placed on record to substantiate the alleged expenditure. In a claim for recovery based on alleged losses, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff not only to prove the existence of a contractual obligation but also to establish that he in fact suffered the loss claimed and the quantum thereof. There is not even a single documentary or ocular proof placed on record by the plaintiff to substantiate his claim that he had indeed purchased raw material for the manufacture of the metal bodies or dies at the instance of the defendant. The plaintiff, during his cross examination, duly admitted that he had not filed any document to show that he had spent Rs. 1,95,000/- for manufacturing the die. He also admitted that he had not filed the bill in respect to purchase of the raw material for the completion of the order placed by the defendant no.1. It is also pertinent that the plaintiff himself admitted that no order was ever placed by the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the claim remains speculative and unsubstantiated.
18. Additionally, it may also be noted that the plaintiff during his cross examination has duly admitted that he had sent a message to the defendant suggesting that he might reduce the price by Rs 3/- per set if the Digitally signed PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 CS No. 639/22 17:07:53 +0530 Pages 10 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
defendant paid the price for the dies ("agar aap dies Ke paise dete ho to teeno seto par teen rupey jam ho jayenge"). The said offer extended by the plaintiff to the defendant is indicative of the fact that no agreement or final order was settled between the parties. It is infact suggestive of the fact that the parties were still in the stage of negotiations, which has been the stance of the defendant throughout the trial.
Furthermore, it is relevant to note that the plaintiff has placed on record photographs of the alleged sample goods and dies Mark-A. However, mere production of such photographs cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, establish that the defendant had placed an order for the sample goods or the dies in question. The photographs, by themselves, do not aid the plaintiff in proving that he had incurred any costs towards the manufacturing of the dies, nor do they demonstrate that the dies were infact manufactured by him. Accordingly, the said photographs do not support the plaintiff's case.
19. While it is true that civil suits are decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the plaintiff's version still requires to be credible, consistent, and supported by at least some reliable evidence. The plaintiff's sole reliance on his own oral testimony, unsupported by any independent witness (such as Shri Nadeem) or corroborative documentary material, fails to inspire confidence.
20. The defence raised by the defendant is consistent and plausible, and effectively rebuts the plaintiff's claim. In this background, and in the absence of any cogent proof from the plaintiff, the Court finds no merit in the suit. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to prove that any order for the manufacture of a die was placed by the defendant or that any such contractual Digitally signed PRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.23 17:08:02 +0530 CS No. 639/22 Pages 11 of 12 Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .
arrangement existed regarding reimbursement of sampling costs. He has equally failed to establish that he suffered a financial loss as claimed.
Both the afore-said issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue No. 3 : Relief
21. In view of the above discussions, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the reliefs sought. Hence, the present suit is dismissed. No order as to cost.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to record room as per rules and after due compliance.
Digitally signed
PRIGYA by PRIGYA
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.23
17:08:17 +0530
Pronounced in the (Prigya Gupta)
Open Court on 23/09/2025 Sr.Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (N.E)
KKD Courts/Delhi.
CS No. 639/22 Pages 12 of 12
Mohd. Qumar vs. Sandeep & Anr. .