Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the suit seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- (Rupees Six lakh twenty thousand only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest, initially filed u/o 37 CPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are as under: -

CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 1 of 10 AANCHAL 2025.12.09

In total, the plaintiff paid ₹57,19,800/-, thereby inadvertently paying ₹5,00,000/- in excess of the agreed consideration. On realizing the excess payment, CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 2 of 10 AANCHAL Date:

(c) Despite repeated oral assurances, the defendant failed to refund the excess amount of ₹5,00,000/- due to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 26.02.2015, calling upon the defendant to make the payment, but no response or payment was received.

Hence, with the above pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the recovery of abovesaid amount.

3. The summons for appearance u/o 37 CPC were served upon the defendant but rather than appearance, a written statement is filed by the defendant straight away and during the proceedings, this written statement was itself treated as an application for leave to defendant as submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant. Vide order CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 3 of 10Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date:

12. Now this Court is proceeding to examine if the plaintiff has succeeded to prove these two facts.

12.1 Whether the plaintiff had paid the defendant in excess ?

CS No. 1740/2016             Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd.     Page: 7 of 10


                                                                      AANCHAL    Date:


                                -:: 8 ::-

Parties are not at dispute that a flat buyer agreement Ex. PW1/D2 was existing between them and the plan for payment to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant on various dates/times was well mentioned in Annexure A to this agreement. As per this Annexure, the plaintiff had adopted Plan B for payment. As per this plan, the plaintiff had to pay 20% of basic price on the date of booking and thereafter he had to pay 15 equal monthly installments of 5% each starting from 45 days from the date of booking i.e. Rs 2,45,340/- from 10th of December 2005. The plaintiff deposed that he made payment firstly, on 14.11.2005. This payment pertains to the booking of the flat but the same is not 10% of basic sale price. Not only this, it is not the case at all of the plaintiff that he started making payment of 5% on monthly basis. But it is admitted case of the plaintiff that he made the payment for the second time only on 12.10.2007 i.e. after the gap of approximately two years. Not only this, he was not even regular in making the payment. Thereafter, the payments were made by him in the gap of two months/five months/three months/four months. Clause-6 of flat buyer agreement provides that in case of omission in regular payment by the buyer, the agreement was liable to be cancelled and in exceptional circumstances, defendant may condone the delay in payment by charging interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Therefore the contention of defendant that plaintiff was liable to pay interest on account of delayed payment, cannot be brushed aside. During his cross-examination, the plaintiff gave two reasons for making delay in payments. Firstly, no demand was ever made and secondly, the project was delayed by the defendant itself. So CS No. 1740/2016 Arsh Kumar Vs. M/S M.I. Builder Ltd. Page: 8 of 10 Digitally signed by AANCHAL AANCHAL Date: