Delhi District Court
Sarabjit Singh vs The Chairman Mata Sundri College For ... on 27 November, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA DISTRICT JUDGE-06:
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI Court: DELHI
Digitally
CS DJ No.13939/16 signed by
SHIVALI
In the matter of:-
SHIVALI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.11.27
Sh. Sarabjit Singh 15:10:28
Proprietor Asiana Construction Co. +0530
705, Sector-7C, Faridabad-121006,
Haryana. ..........Plaintiff.
versus
1. The Chairman
Mata Sundri College For Women
Mata Sundri Lane, New Delhi-02.
2. The Principal
Mata Sundri College For Women
Mata Sundri Lane, New Delhi-02.
3. Mata Sundri College For Women
Through its Chairman, Governing Body,
Mata Sundri Lane, New Delhi-02. ......Defendants
Date of institution : 28.05.2014
Date of Reserving Judgment : 19.11.2025
Date of decision : 27.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery for an amount of Rs.18,05,320/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendants along with interest at the rate 12 % per annum till realization. Initially the suit was filed only against defendants no. 1 & 2. Defendant no.3 was impleaded on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.1/24 vide order dated 20.07.2015. Although amended memo of parties was filed after impleadment of defendant no.3 but no amended plaint was filed by the plaintiff.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on the pretext that he is a Contractor executing works contracts with private and other local bodies in the name and style of his sole proprietorship firm M/s Aasiana Construction Company.
3. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants for the work of proposed additions and alterations in Mata Sundri College for Women i.e. 5 numbers laboratories and 3 numbers computer rooms for contract value of Rs.20,12,285/- for the specified rate and quantities given in the schedule of quantities vide work order no.001/LAB/COMPUTER/dated 10.05.2010. The said work was completed by due performance in terms of the contract. The plaintiff had submitted his final bill on 09.05.2011 for an amount of Rs.19,75,793/- out of which the defendants have released the payment of Rs.17,35,944/- on various dates. The last payment was released by the defendants in the month of July 2011 as verified by their Architect and the balance payment of Rs.2,39,849/- is still due and payable. The plaintiff had also executed the Aluminum Work with powder quoting for which Rs.6,19,575/- were also due and payable but the same has not been paid by the defendants as per the bill submitted by the plaintiff and CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.2/24 also the undertaking/indemnity bond given by the plaintiff on 28.07.2011. The plaintiff was also awarded the work of additional alterations of the Toilet Blocks on 22.06.2010 as per the letter dated 23.06.2010 which was also executed by the plaintiff to the complete satisfaction of the defendants. On 01.06.2011, the final bill was submitted for an amount of Rs.22,84,038/- by the plaintiff whereas after verification, the defendants verified the final bill for an amount of Rs.14,10,396/- only. However, only an amount of Rs.7 lacs has been paid to the plaintiff in the month of July 2011. The balance amount of Rs.7,10,396/- is still due and payable to the plaintiff.
4. On 29.09.2010, another work order for addition and alteration in Principal's Office and basement in Phase-A was awarded and the same was executed and completed by the plaintiff to the satisfaction of the defendants. Thereafter, on 01.06.2011, the final bill for an amount of Rs.3,47,529/- was submitted by the plaintiff out of which the defendants have only approved Rs.3,34,500/- as verified by their Architect. But only an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and the balance payment of Rs.89,500/- including security deposit are due and payable by the defendant. On 09.07.2010, the plaintiff was also awarded the work of additional alterations and finishing and painting work and the said work was also executed and completed by him with due performance. The defendants have released the payment for the said work executed but security deposit of Rs.40,000/- is still due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.3/24
5. The plaintiff had left at the site (i) 2 numbers floor grinding machine of Rs.50,000/-, (ii) 1000 sq. feet katni marble of Rs.40,000/-,
(iii) 400 cu feet stone dust of Rs.8,000/- and (iv) 400 cu feet of stone aggregate of Rs.8000/-. The total material costing Rs.1,06,000/- belonging to the plaintiff was left by him at the site. The plaintiff was not allowed to take back his materials nor any payment was given against cost of the material lying at the site as intimated by the plaintiff on 16.06.2013. Thus, the defendants are also liable to compensate the plaintiff the cost of the materials to the tune of Rs. 1,06,000/-. The work was supervised by the Architect appointed by the defendants and bills were verified by them. All the materials were used and works were carried out to the satisfaction of the Architects appointed by the defendants. Repeated reminders by way of letters dated 03.11.2011, 09.02.2012, 15.02.2012, 27.06.2012 and 16.06.2013 were sent by the plaintiff for the outstanding payment to the defendants but no response has been received.
6. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.18,05,320/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit till the date of realization.
DEFENDANT'S CASE:
7. Defendants no. 1 & 2 filed their joint Written Statement preliminarily objecting to the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that it was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.4/24 stated that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract and despite the same, the College Committee with the indulgence of the erstwhile managing Committee of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee at the behest of the plaintiff, settled the matter with the plaintiff regarding his payments in full and final. On account of the plaintiff's own failure to complete the work and also on account of giving inflated bills, the management committee of the college had to engage the services of another contractor thereby incurring more costs.
8. On merits, it is stated that the alleged contracts were between the plaintiff and College Management and not with defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 in their personal capacity. It is specifically alleged that the job works assigned to the plaintiff were not duly completed by him. All the amount due to plaintiff was already paid and there were no dues except for the interest free security deposit of Rs. 40,000/-. It is also denied that plaintiff had left any material or goods at site. The suit amount was an imaginary figure without support of any ledger accounts. With these contentions the suit has been controverted.
9. No Written Statement was filed by defendant no.3 after impleadment.
REPLICATION:
10. Replication was filed to the Written Statement of the defendants wherein the contents of the Written Statement were denied except the admissions made and the contents of the plaint were reiterated.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.5/24 ISSUES:
11. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 14.07.2016 :
I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.18,05,320/- along with an interest, liquidated damages, cost and expenses, as per prayer (a) and (c) of the plaint? OPP II. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD III. Whether there is no cause of action in the suit?OPParties IV. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD V. Whether the work assigned was not completed by the plaintiff, if so, its effect?OPD VI. Relief, if any.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
12. In order to prove his case, plaintiff Sarabjit Singh examined himself as PW-1 and stated and reiterated on oath the contents of the plaint in his examination-in-chief recorded before the Court vide his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Mark A is the copy of work order dated 10.05.2010.
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 is the work order dated 22.06.2010.
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 is the work order dated 23.06.2010.
(iv) Ex.PW1/4 is the work order dated 09.07.2010.
(v) Mark B is the letter of acceptance of the work dated 29.09.2010.
(vi) Ex.PW1/6 is the final bill.
(vii) Ex.PW1/7 is the letter dated 10.06.2011 as per which the bill CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.6/24 was verified by the Architect.
(viii) Ex.PW1/8 is the final bill for an amount of Rs.3,47,429/-.
(ix) Mark C is the verified bill.
(x) Mark D is the bill for an amount of Rs.6,19,575/-.
(xi) Ex.PW1/11 is the indemnity bond dated 28.07.2011.
(xii) Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/16 are the letters dated 03.11.2011, 09.01.2012, 15.02.2012, 27.06.2015 and 16.06.2013.
13. PW-1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defendants.
14. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:
15. Sh. Manjit Singh, officiating AO on behalf of Mata Sundri College for Women, examined himself as DW-1 and stated and reiterated on oath the contents of the Written Statement filed by the defendants in his evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon following documents which were already marked and exhibited in the examination of PW-1:
1. Mark A is the work order no.00a/LAB/COMPUTER dated 10.05.2010.
2. Ex.PW1/D2 is letter dated 15.05.2011 sent by the plaintiff to the defendants.
3. Mark E is the details of the payment as also the TDS and security deduction are given in a payment voucher dated 21.07.2011.
4. Mark D is indemnity bond dated 28th July, 2011.
5. Ex.PW1/D-1 is legal notice dated 24.02.2011.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.7/24
6. Mark F is notice dated 05.05.2011.
16. DW-1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
17. Ms. Ujala Sinha, Senior Manager from Punjab and Sindh Bank is examined as DW-2. She could not bring the summoned record i.e. statement pertaining to accounts bearing nos. 07841000001680 & 07841100000003 belonging to Mata Sundri College for Women due to Migration of Online Package. No other witness has been examined by Defendants.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS:
18. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the record. Written Submissions are also carefully perused.
19. Now, I shall proceed to give my issue wise findings.
ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
20. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The defendants have pleaded in the Written Statement that the suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties as the same has been filed against the Chairman and Principal of Mata Sundri College for Women and the Management Committee/Management of the College had not been impleaded as a party. The Chairaman and the Principal of the college have no personal liability for the works contracts that was CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.8/24 granted to the plaintiff by the Management Committee of the College despite the fact that the work order might have been signed by them as they were acting only on behalf of management committee/ management of the college.
21. Accordingly, the suit is alleged to be bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties. This objection was taken in the Written Statement filed by the defendants no. 1 & 2 on 13.01.2015. However, thereafter, vide order dated 20.07.2015, the Managing Committee/Governing body of the College was impleaded as a party to the suit and accordingly, the objection taken by defendant no.1 & 2 regarding non-joinder of the necessary party was removed by the plaintiff.
22. As regard defendants no.1 and 2, since the trial of the suit has already completed there is no reason to drop them at this stage holding that they were not necessary party nor the suit is required to be dismissed on this ground. Liability, if any, of defendants no.1 and 2 towards the claim of the plaintiff can be considered when finally the issues in this regard are decided.
23. In view of reasons given above, this issue has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
ISSUE NO.3: Whether there is no cause of action in the suit?OPParties
24. The onus to prove this issue was on the parties. It is a settled law that the cause of action for filing a suit has to be seen from the contents CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.9/24 of the plaint and documents annexed there with. The defence of the defendant is not required to be seen while deciding whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. The cause of action is the bundle of facts which enables a person to bring a legal action against the other party. In the present case, the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that he was assigned certain work orders by the defendant which he were duly completed but against which payments were outstanding. The plaintiff has sought the recovery of outstanding bill amounts by way of present suit. Considering these pleadings, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaint discloses cause of action for filing the present suit for recovery. This issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4 Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD
25. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants who have alleged the suit to be barred by limitation. The present suit was instituted against defendants no.1 & 2 on 14.08.2014 and against defendant no.3 on 20.07.2015 when the application for impleading defendant no.3 was allowed or on 09.04.2015 when the said application was filed by the plaintiff. The present suit for recovery has not been filed on the basis of a running account as no books of account have been filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the same has to be considered on the basis of different work orders/bills relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought recovery in respect of outstanding amounts qua five separate work orders. I shall be dealing with them one by one.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.10/24
26. The first work order is dated 10.05.2010 in respect of computer lab work which is Mark-A. As per clause 2.1 of this work order the entire work was to be completed by 30.07.2010. Clause 3.1 provides that monthly running account bills were to be furnished by the plaintiff during first week of each month and Clause 3.2 provides that payment against the final bill shall be released within 60 days from the date of submission of the bill. As per paragraph 3 of the plaint, work against this work order was duly completed and plaintiff had submitted the final bill to the defendants on 09.05.2011 for a sum of Rs. 19,75,793/- out of which the defendants had released Rs. 17,35,944/- on various dates and the last payment was released in July, 2011. The balance outstanding is alleged to be Rs. 2,39,849/-. However, interestingly neither the plaintiff has placed on record copy of final bill or the payments made against the same. As per work order dated 10.05.2010(Mark A) the work was to be completed by 30.07.2010 and the payment was to be released within 60 days of the submission of final bill. Since the plaintiff has not led any evidence to show the date when the final bill was submitted by him, there is no clarity as to by what date the payment was to be released. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff the final payment qua this bill was made in the month of July 2011. Again there is no supportive evidence to prove the said facts.
27. However, since the defendant has also not led any contradictory evidence nor has disputed this averment of the plaintiff in his WS in paragraph no. 3 to 7 on reply on merits, the said averment of the plaintiff regarding the last payment against this bill having been made CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.11/24 in the month of July 2011 can be held to be duly proved on record on the preponderance of probabilities.
28. Present suit has been filed on 28.05.2014 against defendants no.1 and 2 and is thus, within a period of limitation of 3 years qua them. Defendant no. 3 on the other hand has been impleaded on an application filed on 09.04.2015 which was allowed vide order dated 20.07.2015. Accordingly, the recovery of outstanding amount qua the work order dated 10.05.2010 (Mark A) is barred by limitation qua defendant no.3.
29. The second work order is dated 22.06.2010 issued to plaintiff vide letter dated 23.06.2010 (Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3). As per this work order, the work of toilet block was to be completed within a period of 45 days. As per the case of the plaintiff the final bill in respect of this work order was submitted vide letter dated 13.12.2010 (Ex.PW1/6). It is the case of the plaintiff that this bill for an amount of Rs.22,84,038/- was approved by the architect of the defendant for an amount of Rs.14,10,396/- out of which a payment of only Rs.7,00,000/- were made by the defendant in July 2011 and an amount of Rs.7,10,396/- was still outstanding. Again the plaintiff has not produced on record any evidence to show as to when and how this payment of Rs7,00,000/- was made by the defendant. However, since the defendant has also not led any contradictory evidence nor has disputed this averment of the plaintiff in his Written Statement in paragraph no.3 to 7 on reply on merits, the said averment of the plaintiff regarding the last payment against this bill having been made in the month of July 2011 can be said to have been proved on record on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.12/24 Defendant has also relied upon a voucher of payment (Mark E) which is dated 21.07.2011 regarding the payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff. This also supports the contention of the plaintiff that last payment was made to him in the month of July 2011.
30. Present suit has been filed on 28.05.2014 against defendants no.1 and 2 and is, thus, within the period of limitation of 3 years qua them. Defendant no.3 on the other hand had been impleaded on an application filed on 09.04.2015 which was allowed by order dated 20.07.2015. Accordingly, the recovery of outstanding amount qua the work order dated 22.06.2010 (Ex.PW1/2) is barred by limitation qua defendant no.3.
31. As regards the third work order for finishing/painting work the same is dated 09.07.2010 which is Ex.PW1/4. The case of the plaintiff is that the payment against this work order was released by the defendant but the security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- is still due and payable to the plaintiff. Interestingly, the work order (Ex.PW1/4) does not mention any amount of security deposit or the period in which the same was refundable. The plaintiff has also not pleaded when he had sought the recovery of the said security deposit when and how it was paid and since when it was recoverable/returnable . As per work order Ex.PW1/4, the work was to be completed by 17.07.2010. In the absence of any pleadings and evidence as regards when this security deposit of Rs.40,000/- was recoverable, at the most, it can be held that it was recoverable after completion of the work i.e. after 17.07.2010.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.13/24
32. Present suit having been filed on 28.05.2014 is clearly barred by limitation in respect of recovery of this security amount.
33. As regards the fourth work order the case of the plaintiff is that he was awarded the additional work of principal room and basement vide fourth work order dated 29.09.2010 (Mark B). He had submitted the full and final bill of Rs.3,47,429.50/- qua said work order by undated letter (Ex.PW1/7). The said bill was approved for a sum of Rs.3,34,500/- against which a payment of Rs.2,45,000/- was made to him and the balance outstanding amount of Rs.89,500/- is payable by the defendants. Again, neither the final bill (Ex.PW1/7) bears any dates nor there is any evidence as to when part payment was made by the defendant. However, as per evidence affidavit of PW-1 as well as his plaint the final bill was submitted on 01.06.2011. This fact has not been disputed in the Written Statement or counter affidavit of the defendants. Present suit has been filed on 28.05.2014 against defendants no.1 and 2 and is thus, within the period of limitation of 3 years qua them. Defendant no. 3 on the other hand had been impleaded on an application filed on 09.04.2015 which was allowed vide order dated 20.07.2015. Accordingly, the recovery of outstanding amount qua the work order dated 29.09.2010 (Mark B) is barred by limitation qua defendant no.3.
34. In addition to this, a recovery for a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- has been sought by the plaintiff qua the materials belonging to the plaintiff left at the defendant's site. It is alleged that cost of these materials was demanded by the plaintiff vide letter dated 16.06.2013. Copy of this letter is Ex.PW1/15.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.14/24 Perusal of this letter shows that it is completely silent as to since when return of these articles/materials was denied by the defendants. There is no whisper in the letter as to when the demand in this regard was made by the plaintiff. In the absence of any such details and any evidence as to when and in what circumstances the articles belonging to the plaintiff were left at the defendants' site or when they were demanded by the plaintiff, no finding can be given as to whether the claim of the plaintiff qua the recovery of this amount is within the period of limitation or beyond the same. However, since as per the case of the plaintiff himself the last payment was released to him in the month of July 2011, it gives an indication that there was no relation between the parties after July 2011. Accordingly the question of demand of these articles after two years i.e. in June 2013 does not arise. In the absence of any evidence led by the plaintiff regarding this claim, the same is held to be barred by limitation.
35. Another recovery has been sought in respect of Bill of Aluminum work submitted vide letter received on 29.05.2011 (Mark C) for a sum of Rs.619575/-. Again, this Bill has not been duly proved on record as only a photocopy has been relied upon by the plaintiff. There is also no clarity as to when this amount was payable. If the terms as per the first Work order (Mark A) are considered, the payment was to be realsed within 60 days of submissions of final Bill i.e. on or before 29.07.2011. Accordingly, cause of action for non payment of amount due under this Bill arises w.e.f 30.07.2011. Present suit has been filed on 28.05.2014 against the defendants no.1 and 2 and is, thus, within the period of limitation of 3 years qua them defendant no.3. On the other hand, had been impleaded on an application filed on 09.04.2015 which was CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.15/24 allowed vide order dated 20.07.2015. Accordingly, the recovery of outstanding amount qua this Bill allegedly received by the defendant on 29.05.2011 (Mark C) is barred by limitation qua defendant no.3.
36. No other bills have been filed and no other payments have been sought by the plaintiff. In view of the reasons given above the present issue is decided holding that the entire claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation against defendant no.3. However, recoveries qua work order no.1, 2 and 4 as well as Bill (Mark C) detailed above are within the period of limitation against defendants no. 1 and 2.
ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.18,05,320/- along with an interest, liquidated damages, cost and expenses, as per prayer (a) and (c) of the plaint? OPP AND ISSUE NO.5 : Whether the work assigned was not completed by the plaintiff, if so, its effect?OPD
37. These two issues are being taken up together as both of them are interconnected and require same appreciation of evidence.
38. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had completed work order for the defendants against which part payments were made by the defendants. However, balance outstanding amount was not paid despite repeated demands. Plaintiff has categorically pleaded and deposed that all the work orders were duly completed by him to the satisfaction of the defendants and architect appointed by them, the bills were duly submitted before the defendants but they failed to release the payments in a timely manner.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.16/24 Plaintiff has sought the recovery of following outstanding amounts from the defendants.
S.No. Details Outstanding amount 1. Work order dated 23.06.2010 Rs. 7,10,396/- 2. Work order dated 29.09.2010 Rs. 89,500/- 3. Work order dated 09.07.2010 Rs. 40,000/- 4. Cost of material lying at site Rs. 1,06,000/-
5. Renovation of lab letter dated 19.06.2011 Rs. 2,39,849/-
6. Aluminum work dated 29.05.2011 Rs. 6,19,575/-
Total Rs. 18,05,320/-
39. As discussed above, the plaintiff has not proved or placed on record any statement of account in respect of the running account of the defendants maintained by him in his books of account. He is simply relying upon the work orders as well as the bills submitted by him for payment. He has alleged that certain payments have been received against some of the bills but he has not led any evidence to show as to what were the payments actually released to him and how. As detailed above there are 6 basic claims raised by the plaintiff.
40. First is work order dated 10.05.2010 (Mark A). However, no corresponding bill to this work order has been placed or proved on record. There is no clarity as to what amount against this bill is outstanding.
41. Second is the work order dated 23.06.2010 (Ex.PW1/2) in respect of toilet block qua which final bill is stated to have been submitted vide letter CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.17/24 dated 13.12.2010 (Ex.PW1/6) for a sum of Rs.22,84,234/- which was approved for a sum of Rs.14,10,396/- out of which payment of Rs.7,00,000/- was received by him and Rs.7,10,396/- was still outstanding. Again there is no evidence as to when this payment of Rs.7,00,000/- was released to the plaintiff by the defendants. The approval of Bill by the architect to show due completion of the work has not been proved by the plaintiff as the concerned Architect has not been examined.
42. Third is the work order dated 09.07.2010 (Ex.PW1/4) against which a sum of Rs.40,000/- paid towards security deposit is alleged to be outstanding. However, the work order (Ex.PW1/4) does not mention deposit of any security deposit with the defendants and the terms and conditions in which the security deposit was refundable.
43. The fourth recovery of a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- is sought in respect of certain goods belonging to the plaintiff which were allegedly left at the site of the defendants. The goods allegedly left at the defendant's side are mentioned in para no. 12 of the evidence affidavit of the plaintiff Ex. PW- 1/A. However, no Bills in respect of the said goods has been proved or annexed by the plaintiff on record. The goods detailed by the plaintiff include two number of floor grinding machine, 1000 sq. feet khatni Marble, 400 cubic stone of stone dust and 400 cubic feet of stone. The plaintiff has neither placed on record any Bills to show that these goods belonged to him nor there is any pleading or evidence regarding the time when these goods were brought to the site of the defendants, when they were left there or when they were demaned back from the defendants. There is no pleading or CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.18/24 evidence that the defendants had refused to return the said goods nor there is any complaint made against the defendants to this regard. Para No. 12 of evidence affidavit of PW-1 (Ex.PW-1/A) is completely silent on all these aspects. Accordingly, practically there is no evidence on record to prove that the said goods belonging to the plaintiff were lying at the site of the defendant and the defendant had refused the plaintiff to take back the said articles. These averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint have been categorically denied by the defendants.
44. The fifth payment sought by the plaintiff is against work order dated 29.09.2010 (Mark B) in respect of which an undated Bill for a sum of Rs.34,74,29.50/- (Ex. PW-1/7) is stated to have been submitted, which was approved for a sum of Rs.3,34,500/- out of which a payment of Rs.2,45,000/- was made to the plaintiff and balance outstanding amount was Rs.89,500/-. Again there is no evidence regarding the approval of this Bill for a sum of Rs.3,34,500/- by the architect of the defendants. The relevant architect has not been examined to prove that the work was duly completed and executed by the plaintiff. There is also no evidence of receipt of Rs.2,45,000/- against this Bill by the plaintiff from the defendants. The work order itself is not duly proved on record as the original were never produced by the plaintiff.
45. The last payment of Rs.6,19,575/- is sought against a work order for aluminum work in respect of which a Bill for the sum of Rs.6,19,575/- was submitted by the plaintiff to the defendants on 29.05.2011. This Bill is Mark C and the original of the same has not been produced by the plaintiff.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.19/24
46. Although the plaintiff has pleaded and deposed that all the work orders were duly completed by him. However, no evidence in this regard has been led by him. The plaintiff could have produced the photographs of the completed work or the concerned architect who was overseeing the completion of the work as a witness to prove the said fact. However, the same has not been done by the plaintiff. Plaintiff/PW-1 has also duly admitted in his cross-examination that no certificate of completion of work was issued to him. He could not even tell the dates on which each of the work was completed and simply stated that he did not remember the said dates. Neither there is any pleading nor evidence on record led by the plaintiff to show the timeline when the respective work orders were duly executed by him. Plaintiff is merely relying upon his ocular testimony on this aspect wherein he simply stated that the work orders were duly completed by him.
47. Per contra, the defendants have, from the very beginning, disputed the fact that the plaintiff has duly completed the work orders assigned to him. It is specifically pleaded that on account of plaintiff's own failure to complete the work in a timely manner and plaintiff's conduct of giving inflated Bills, the management committed of the college had to engage the services of another contractor and thus, incurred additional cost for which the plaintiff was liable to indemnify the defendants. On behalf of the defendants, officiating AO of the accounts department of the college has been examined as DW-1 who has specifically deposed in his evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A that the plaintiff had abandoned the works assigned CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.20/24 to him and did not restart and complete the work orders despite repeated reminders. It is specifically deposed in para No. 7 that the defendants had to engage the services of another contractor namely M/s Hardeep Construction Company to get the work completed on time. It is further deposed in para No. 11 of the evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A that as per the request made by the plaintiff vide letter dated 21.07.2011, the disputes between the plaintiff and defendants were solved by the intervention of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Committee and the defendants made a payment of Rs.10,89,538/- to the plaintiff out of which an amount of Rs.6,07,079/- was paid to M/s Ashiana Construction Company , Rs.2,50,000/- to Sh. Dhruwa Prasad, Rs.90,000/- to Mr. Nida Alimuddin and Rs.44,400/- to Shristi Sales Corporation. All the payments were made by cheques and are reflected in payment voucher dated 11.07.2011 which is Mark E. Plaintiff/PW-1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that payments were made by the defendants to the vendors of the plaintiff on his request. Accordingly, the defendants have no liability towards the plaintiff and the entire account has already been settled except for interest free security deposit of Rs.40,000/-.
48. The defendants also did not file any document in support of their contentions that the work was not duly completed by the plaintiff within scheduled time. Neither any written notice in this regard has been filed on record nor any official has been examined by the defendants such as the architect who was admittedly overseeing the work of the plaintiff and would have personal knowledge in this regard. Similarly, defendants have not proved on record any document to show that they had to engage the services of some other contractor to get the work assigned to the plaintiff CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.21/24 completed to their satisfaction. The defendants are also relying upon the sole testimony of DW-1 who is a witness from the accounts department of the college and has shown his ignorance about the physical completion of the work.
49. Both the parties have merely relied upon ocular testimonies to prove due completion or non completion of the work by the plaintiff in respect of the admitted work orders. Since, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of the outstanding amount against the Bills for the work orders assigned to him, the onus was upon him to prove the due execution of the work orders on record. The best evidence was also available with the plaintiff who could have summoned the concerned architect to prove the said facts. However, he has miserably failed to prove the same.
50. As regards the outstanding amount, the plaintiff has neither proved on record his books of account to show the outstanding amount nor he has duly proved on record all the Bills submitted by him and the payments received against them on the basis of which outstanding amount could be calculated. No legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendants demanding the outstanding amount is also proved on record by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has relied upon various communication made by him to the defendant which are Ex.PW-1/12 to Ex.PW-1/16. However, none of these letters mention the amount which is outstanding against the duly completed works by the plaintiff. Letter dated 16.06.2013 (Ex. PW-1/5) regarding the goods lying at the college site belonging to the plaintiff also does not mention as to since when the said articles were lying in the CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.22/24 custody of the college and when the plaintiff was prevented from taking back the said articles. Thus, the evidence led by the plaintiff is highly insufficient for holding that the defendants are liable to pay any outstanding amount to the plaintiff.
51. It is also interesting to note that although plaintiff has alleged that certain payments were made to him against various work orders but he has failed to provide the details of the said payments received by him. He also did not disclose that on his request, payments were also released by the defendants to his vendors. When plaintiff/PW-1 was confronted with the said payments made to his vendors by the defendants on his behalf, he admitted the said fact. He also admitted that these payments were released not only for the materials supplied for the work in the college, but also against other accounts of the plaintiff. These concealments on behalf of the plaintiff coupled with the fact that he has failed to produce on record any statement of account is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has miserably failed to back his claim for recovery with sufficient evidence.
52. In view of the reasons given above, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff has failed to support his case with proper evidence as required in law. In view of the insufficiency of evidence led by the plaintiff, the case of the defendant that full and final payments were released to the plaintiff after settlement of account vide payment voucher (Mark E) appears to be more probable on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.23/24 RELIEF :
53. In view of my issue wise findings given above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
54. No order as to costs.
55. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by
56. File be consigned to the Record Room. SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 2025.11.27
15:10:35
TODAY i.e. 27th NOVEMBER 2025 +0530
(Shivali Sharma)
District Judge-06, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.11.2025
CS DJ No.113939/16 Sarabjit Singh v. The Chairman Page no.24/24