Arpit Sunil Bhargava vs Mahak Arpit Bhargava on 9 April, 2019
Sh. Sunil Kumar v Sh. Amit Bhargava
Page No.9 of 25
after going through the designs of Ms. Rashmi Singh, Architect/Designer, the
plaintiff had prepared a fresh estimate of Rs.28,00,000/ and intimated to the
defendant;8 that only when the defendant had agreed to the fresh estimate of
Rs.28,00,000/, on phone, the plaintiff had started doing the requisite work at the
flat of the defendant and completed it, during 01.02.2012 to 07.09.2012; that after
completion of requisite work at the flat of the defendant, as per the satisfaction of
the defendant, the plaintiff had served a full and final bill of Rs.27,19,749/,
Ex.PW1/D(colly) upon the defendant, in his presence and in the presence of Sh.
Vijay Kumar;9 that the photographs, Ex.PW1/E(colly) depict the status of the flat
of the defendant, at the different stages of work; that in his presence, the
defendant had sought time to pay the balance sum of Rs.12,39,749/ to the
plaintiff10 and that despite requests and reminders, the defendant has not paid
the said balance sum to the plaintiff. During crossexamination, PW2 Sh. Sunil
Gupta had interalia deposed that his driving license is Ex.PW2/D1(OSR); that
his correct name is Sh. Sunil Dutt and not Sh. Sunil Gupta; that he has been
working with M/s. Pooja Interior for last 18 years; that there are about 1718
employees in M/s. Pooja Interior; that he does not know at how many places M/s.
Pooja Interior was doing work in the year 2012; that in 2011, he had met Sh. Raj
8 In the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff has not made any pleading qua the said fresh estimate of
Rs.28,00,000/. Therefore, the said aspect of the testimony of PW2 Sh. Sunil Gupta, appears to
be a classical case of plaintiff leading evidence, beyond pleadings.
9 This testimony of PW2 Sh. Sunil Gupta, introduced through the affidavit, Ex.PW2/A, prepared on
06.10.2015 i.e. after the last crossexamination of the plaintiff viz. PW1 Sh. Sunil Kumar, on
13.08.2015, is contrary to the testimony of the plaintiff viz. PW1 Sh. Sunil Kumar to the effect that
the defendant had refused to accept the final bill, Ex.PW1/D(colly) at his residence in the
presence of the carpenter, Sh. Vijay Kumar.