Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Sankalp Meena vs M/S. Vian Infrastructure Ltd on 30 January, 2012

                                                                       ID No.02401C0182782010


      IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA : ADDL. DISTRICT 
           JUDGE (CENTRAL­07) : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI


                                   CIVIL SUIT NO. 456/2010


Sh. Sankalp Meena 
E­3, MCD Flats,
Bhamashah Market,
Kamla Nagar,
Delhi­110007.                                                             ............ PLAINTIFF



                 VERSUS


M/s. Vian Infrastructure Ltd.
3E­14, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi­110055.                                                         ............ DEFENDANT 


Date of Institution                                             : 04.05.2010
Date when the case reserved for order                           : 30.01.2012
Date of Order                                                   : 30.01.2012




J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.4,22,724/­ along with pendent elite and future interest @ 12 % p.a. against the defendant. 1/5 Sh. Sankalp Meena Vs. Vian Infrastructure Ltd.

2. In the plaint, it is stated that in the year 2006, the plaintiff booked a plot with the defendant. From time to time, he paid Rs.3,77,500/­ to the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that an FIR was registered against the defendant and the defendant had not even acquired the land for development. Therefore, on 23.02.2010, the plaintiff decided to cancel the booking and intimated the defendant to that effect and called upon it to refund the money but of no use. Hence, the present suit.

3. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant. However, the defendant failed appear despite service. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex­parte on 24.11.2010.

4. The plaintiff tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is Ex. PW­1/A. The plaintiff relied upon the receipt dated 31.07.2006 Ex.PW1/1, receipts dated 26.02.2007 Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3, receipts dated 28.12.2008 Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5, receipt dated 21.05.2009 Ex.PW1/6, and letter dated 20.06.2009 Ex.PW1/7.

5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the material available on record including the written submissions.

6. Case of the plaintiff is that in the year 2006, he booked the plot vide customer code no. J­700 and paid Rs. 3 lakhs to defendant towards full consideration of the plot. Vide temporary receipt dated 28.12.2008, the plaintiff paid Rs. 12,500/­ to the defendant towards registration charges. Vide receipt dated 16.01.2009, the plaintiff paid Rs. 45,000/­ to the defendant 2/5 Sh. Sankalp Meena Vs. Vian Infrastructure Ltd. towards allotment of the plot on wide road. Vide receipt dated 22.05.2009, the plaintiff also paid Rs. 20,000/­ as demanded. Vide letter dated 23.02.2010, the plaintiff canceled the allotment and requested the defendant to refund Rs. 3,77,500/­ along with the interest because the plaintiff came to know that an FIR had been lodged against the defendant.

7. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff failed to file the original receipts. Instead the plaintiff relied upon only the temporary receipts alleged to have been issued by the defendant. However, in the plaint, it is nowhere the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had also issued the temporary receipts in addition to the original receipts except the receipt dated 28.12.2008.

8. In the plaint, it is pleaded that in the year 2006, the plaintiff booked the plot and paid Rs. 3 lacs towards full consideration. It implies that the said payment was made in the year 2006. However, the plaintiff has failed to prove the deposit of Rs. 3 lacs with the defendant towards booking charges in the year 2006.

9. Perusal of the receipts Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 reveal that both were issued on the same date i.e. 26.02.2007. Receipt Ex.PW1/2 reveals that the plaintiff paid Rs. 75,000/­ towards the second installment while receipt Ex.PW1/3 reveals that the plaintiff paid third installment for Rs. 60,000/­. Firstly, it is nowhere the case of the plaintiff because as per the plaintiff, he paid the entire consideration in the year 2006 itself. Secondly, it is nowhere the case of the plaintiff that the installments were to be paid on the same date only which is otherwise against the concept of installments. 3/5 Sh. Sankalp Meena Vs. Vian Infrastructure Ltd. Thirdly, the plaintiff has failed to explain if the amounts were paid for two installments on the same date then why two separate receipts were drawn in his name.

10. It is pleaded that vide temporary receipt dated 28.12.2008, the plaintiff paid Rs. 12,500/­ to the defendant towards registration charges. However, the receipt dated 28.12.2008 Ex.PW1/5 reveals that the plainitff deposited Rs. 1,50,000/­ and Rs. 12,500/­ on the said day which is also contrary to the stand of the plaintiff.

11. In the plaint, it is pleaded that vide receipt dated 16.01.2009 the plaintiff deposited Rs. 45,000/­ with the defendant. However, no such receipt is filed on record. On the contrary, the plaintiff filed the receipt dated 28.12.2008 for Rs. 45,000/­ Ex.PW1/4 which is contrary to the plaintiff's own stand.

12. It is pleaded that on 22.05.2009, the plaintiff paid Rs. 20,000/­ to the defendant. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff relied upon the temporary receipt dated 21.05.2009 Ex.PW1/6 which is again contrary to the stand of the plaintiff.

13. Case of the plaintiff is that on 23.02.2010, he cancelled the booking with the defendant. Firstly, no such letter is proved on record. Secondly, perusal of the cancellation form Ex.PW1/7 reveals that the plaintiff intimated the defendant to cancel his booking on 20.06.2009. As such, there exists contradiction as to when the plaintiff sent the intimation 4/5 Sh. Sankalp Meena Vs. Vian Infrastructure Ltd. to the defendant to cancel his allotment. Further, it is nowhere the case of the plaintiff that his said request was accepted by the defendant or he sent any notice to the defendant to inform the plaintiff about his request about cancellation of the booking.

14. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is held that the case of the plaintiff is full of contradictions. The statement of PW1 and the documents relied upon by him are contradictory to each other and do not inspire the confidence of the court. Hence, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the plaint.

RELIEF

15. In view of the foregoing discussions, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint. Therefore, the suit is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, On 30th of January, 2012.

(PANKAJ GUPTA) ADJ(CENTRAL­07)/DELHI 30.01.2012 5/5 Sh. Sankalp Meena Vs. Vian Infrastructure Ltd.