* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 79/2018
% 24th January, 2018
SAURABH BAGLEY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Sinha and
Mr.Anurag Ojha, Advocates.
versus
TAJINDER BABRA ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) RFA No. 79/2018 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 3041/2018 (for stay), 3042/2018 (for condonation of delay of 692 days in filing the appeal)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 4.11.2015 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,39,930.50 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The suit is decreed on account of the balance price of the work done as an interior decorator but not paid by the RFA No. 79/2018 Page 1 of 5 appellant/defendant who had engaged the respondent/plaintiff for the interior work in the property being Flat no. 301, VIPPS Centre, J.K. Building, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, belonging to one M/s Assam Company Limited. Appellant/defendant is an Architect who had engaged the respondent/plaintiff to do the interior work for M/s Assam Company Limited.
2. At the very outset it is required to be noted that whereas the respondent/plaintiff led evidence and proved his case, admittedly, the appellant/defendant did not lead evidence and in fact closed his evidence by making a statement on 10.9.2015. A civil suit is decided on balance of probabilities and once the appellant/defendant has led no evidence and respondent/plaintiff has stepped into the witness box and proved his case, including by proving of documents, there cannot be found therefore any illegality in the judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that he was engaged in the business of interiors and allied works and the appellant/defendant who was an architect appointed the respondent/plaintiff for work to be done of M/s RFA No. 79/2018 Page 2 of 5 Assam Company Limited in its building being flat no. 301, VIPPS Centre, J.K. Building, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi. Respondent/plaintiff had given its detailed quotation dated 17.9.2008 for an amount of Rs.13,41,804/- plus taxes. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded to have completed the work to the satisfaction of the appellant/defendant and that the quality of the work done was duly checked by the appellant/defendant. Respondent/plaintiff issued his final bill dated 25.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.13,39,930.50. This bill was duly checked by the appellant/defendant and accepted for payment and the respondent/plaintiff received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- out of the amount of the final bill of Rs.13,39,930.50/-. Since the balance amount of Rs.4,39,930.50 was not paid therefore after serving the legal notice dated 16.11.2009 the subject suit was filed.
4. Appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff was not engaged by the appellant/defendant but was engaged by M/s Assam Company Limited. As regards payment of Rs.9,00,000/- made to the respondent/plaintiff it was contended that the appellant/defendant was RFA No. 79/2018 Page 3 of 5 only financially helping the respondent/plaintiff so that respondent/plaintiff can make payment for the bills of labour etc.
5. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.5,25,717/- from defendant? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPP
4. Relief."
6. The main issue was issue no. 1 with respect to entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff proved the quotation of work as Ex.PW1/1. The statement of accounts between the parties was proved as Ex.PW1/3. The final bill for Rs.13,39,930.50/- was proved as Ex.PW1/2. Legal notice along with postal receipt was proved as Ex.PW1/4.
7. Respondent/plaintiff was cross-examined but nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff which would in any manner lead to disbelieving of the respondent/plaintiff. As already stated above, since appellant/defendant led no evidence, and the respondent/plaintiff had proved his case by leading evidence, RFA No. 79/2018 Page 4 of 5 therefore, in my opinion the trial court has committed no illegality in decreeing the subject suit.
8. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
JANUARY 24, 2018 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
RFA No. 79/2018 Page 5 of 5