Delhi District Court
Sudesh Rana vs Deepanshu on 26 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH - II,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS No. 894/23 CNR No. DLNT01-013985-2023
In the matter of :-
Smt Sudesh Rana,
D/o Rajpal Singh Rana,
R/o House of 345, (Prem Nivas),
Gali No-8, Near Bank Of Baroda,
Shahbad Daulatpur,
Delhi-110042
...... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Deepanshu,
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash,
R/o H. No. D-47, Block-D,
Friends Enclave, Village Mundka,
Mundka, Delhi-110041.
.....Defendant
Date of Institution 16.12.2023
Date of Arguments 26.09.2025
Date of Decision 26.09.2025
Relief Decreed
JUDGMENT (EX PARTE)
1. Plaintiff has filed present suit against defendant for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is a builder engaged in the business of development and construction in real estate. It is further averred that the plaintiff approached CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 1 of 8 the defendant for the construction of her house from the ground floor up to the second floor including the mumty. It is further averred that for this purpose, an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 11.06.2022 for a total consideration of ₹28,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakh Fifty Thousand Only).
3. It is further averred that under the said agreement the defendant was required to construct the ground floor to the second floor including the mumty, along with all fittings such as plumbing, electrical wiring, painting and tile work, for the aforesaid consideration. It is specifically averred that the agreement also contained stipulations regarding the specifications and quality of material to be used in the construction. The plaintiff states that a stage-wise payment schedule was incorporated in the agreement and that all payments have been duly made by her in accordance therewith.
4. It is averred that the parties further agreed that the scrap material from demolition of the old structure, such as bricks, doors, windows, and iron, would either be returned to the plaintiff or the proceeds from its sale would be adjusted/refunded. It is contended that although this term was not expressly incorporated in the agreement, the defendant personally assured the plaintiff of returning the scrap or its proceeds. The plaintiff further avers that the defendant thereafter represented that he could sell the bricks at a higher value and promised to adjust the proceeds against future instalments. However, the defendant neither refunded any money nor made any adjustment.
CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 2 of 8
5. It is further averred that the plaintiff has, in fact, paid a sum of ₹29,10,200/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakh Ten Thousand Two Hundred Only), which is more than the agreed consideration. It is further averred that despite receipt of the entire amount and even excess payment, the defendant failed to complete the construction and abandoned the site without notice. It is specifically contended that only the outer structure was constructed and the defendant deliberately deserted the project without valid justification.
6. It is contended that the plaintiff repeatedly contacted the defendant and pressed for completion of the construction, but the defendant kept delaying on one pretext or another. It is averred that the defendant not only abandoned the project midway but also used substandard and inferior quality material in contravention of the agreement.
7. It is averred that while the agreement stipulated use of 16mm saria (iron rods) in the pillars, the defendant used 12mm saria instead and on being confronted, the defendant gave an assurance that the difference would be adjusted in future payments, but no such adjustment was ever made.
8. It is further averred that the defendant was required to use Ultratech or Ambuja Cement as per the contract, but instead, substandard cement was used. It is contended that this compromise in quality not only violated the terms of the agreement but also jeopardised the structural safety of the building, clearly reflecting the mala fide and fraudulent intent of the defendant.
CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 3 of 8
9. It is specifically averred that the construction was to be completed on or before 15.12.2022. It is contended that the project envisaged 10 rooms with attached kitchens, but the defendant abandoned the work midway, leaving the kitchens incomplete. It is further contended that the defendant continued to demand money under false pretences but never intended to complete the project.
10. It is averred that due to the use of inferior material, the construction developed leakage and other defects in several places. It is also averred that the defendant failed to provide a proper drainage system, which caused further damage. It is contended that the agreement cast responsibility on the defendant to remedy defects such as cracks and moisture for a period of 5 years, yet the defendant failed to address the complaints of the plaintiff.
11. It is averred that the plaintiff was compelled to hire independent professionals, such as plumbers, electricians, painters, and daily wage labourers, to complete the unfinished construction work, including plastering, tiling, electrical fittings and finishing. It is contended that the plaintiff incurred an additional expenditure of approximately ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) towards completion and rectification.
12. It is averred that the plaintiff, having already paid more than the contract amount and was forced to borrow funds from relatives to bear the extra burden, which caused her serious financial hardship. It is further averred that the plaintiff also served a legal notice dated 02.02.2023 upon the defendant, which was duly served. It is further averred that the defendant CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 4 of 8 replied the said notice vide letter dated 18.03.2023 raising false allegations that the plaintiff had not paid the entire agreed amount. It is contended that this assertion is wholly false in view of the plaintiff's bank statements, receipts, and handwritten acknowledgments by the defendant himself, all evidencing full payment.
13. It is thus averred that despite having received the entire agreed consideration and even excess payment, the defendant abandoned the project midway, used inferior quality materials, and failed to perform his contractual obligations. It is contended that the plaintiff has consequently suffered financial loss, inconvenience, and mental agony and as such was constrained to file the present suit.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
14. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant. On 22.01.2025, the defendant appeared before the Court along with his counsel and filed his vakalatnama on the same day. On 18.03.2025, learned counsel for the defendant sought adjournment for filing the written statement, which was allowed. Thereafter, neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared, and no written statement was filed. Consequently, vide order dated 21.05.2025, the defendant was proceeded ex parte.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
15. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating the contents CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 5 of 8 of the plaint. In support of her deposition, PW-1 relied upon the following documents :
(i) Ex. PW1/1 is the copy of the construction agreement dated 11.06.2022 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
(ii) Ex. PW1/2 is proof of payment.
(iii) Ex. PW1/3 (Colly) is the legal notice dated
02.02.2023 and reply of defendant dated
18.03.2023.
16. As the defendant was ex-parte, PW-1 remained uncross-
examined and P.E. was closed on 26.09.2025 vide separate statement of plaintiff.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
17. The non-participation of the defendant in the proceedings leaves the plaintiff's case unrebutted. It is a settled proposition of law that where plaintiff's evidence remains uncontroverted due to the absence of the defendant and such evidence is trustworthy, the court is entitled to rely upon it without hesitation.
18. Perusal of record shows that summons of the suit were served upon the defendant and on 22.01.2025, the defendant had appeared before the court alongwith his counsel and vakalatnama was also filed on behalf of defendant on the same day. Record further reflects that on 18.03.2025, Ld. Proxy counsel for the defendant appeared before the court and sought time for filing the WS which was granted by the court and thereafter, none appeared on behalf of defendant. As the defendant failed to appear and file his WS within stipulated period of time, therefore, vide order dated 21.05.2025, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 6 of 8
19. The testimony of PW-1 as well as the documents placed on record by the plaintiff/PW-1 to prove her case have therefore, remained unrebutted and unchallenged and this court has no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff/PW-1 as well the documents placed on record by her.
20. In her testimony as PW-1, the Plaintiff has duly proved that the defendant, despite entering into a binding agreement with the plaintiff and receiving payment of the agreed amount, has failed to complete the construction as promised; used substandard materials; abandoned the work and refused to acknowledge or remedy the issues raised by the plaintiff and all this clearly constitute a breach of the contract. It further stands proved from the testimony of PW1/plaintiff that in view of the breach on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff was forced to incur additional expenses to complete the unfinished work, further exacerbating her financial burden. Further the defendant's inaction in appearing before the court and choosing not the contest the claim of the plaintiff further falsify claims made in his reply/ response to the plaintiff's legal notice.
21. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹10,00,000/- from the defendant. Further, as there is no stipulation regarding interest in the construction agreement Ex. PW-1/1, therefore, in terms of Section 34 of the CPC, the plaintiff is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
RELIEF
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present suit filed by plaintiff is hereby decreed in her favour and CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 7 of 8 against thedefendant. Decree for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs only) is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of present suit till realization. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDER
Announced in the open court RAVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.09.26
16:24:10
on 26.09.2025 +0530
(Ravinder Singh II)
DJ-04, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 894/23 Smt Sudesh Rana Vs. Sh. Deepanshu Page No. 8 of 8