Delhi High Court
K.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs D.D.A. on 11 October, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: October 11, 2012
+ RFA (OS) 27/2011
K.R. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Raman Kapur,
Sr.Advocate instructed by
Mr.Dhiraj Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Dr.P.K.Mittal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. We are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and
decree dated November 19, 2010 pertaining to rejection of following
claims of the appellant :
(i) `1,30,028.02 claimed on account of balance amount due and
payable pertaining to extra items/ substituted items.
(ii) `99,708/- claimed on account of excess amount deducted and
RIS/DIS.
(iii) `29,78,007/- claimed towards deviation limit in quantities
(iv) `42,346.48 claimed towards balance due as per clause 10 CC of the
agreement.
(v) `15,000/-, `14,000/-, `10,000/-, `20,000/- and `72,000/- claimed
on account of QC observation from running bills; rectification of
defects from running bills; on account of bar chart from 26 running
account bills, deviations in quantities actually executed at site and
pending due towards remaining flats.
(vi) `1,58,400/- claimed on account of watch and ward from October
22, 1998 till April, 28, 2001.
2. Qua other claims rejected, learned counsel for the appellant
does not want any adjudication.
3. The reason is that without noting the evidence and
discussing anything afore noted claims have been perfunctorily rejected
while disposing of the suit filed by the appellant.
4. With respect to the claim at Sl.(i) Ex.P-10 and admission
made by DDA's witness i.e. DW-1have not been discussed. With respect
to the claim at Sl. No.(ii) similar is the position i.e. neither Ex.P-10 nor
admissions made by DDA's witness DW-1 have been considered. With
respect to the claim at Sl.No.(iii), the learned Single Judge has not even
noted that the agreement between the parties had a deviation limit upto
20%, to be paid at the contract rates, and beyond the same as per the
applicable clause of the agreement. Ex.P-3, P-4, P-5, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10,
P-18, P-19 and P-20 as also the admission made on the subject by DW-1
had just not been considered. With respect to claim at Sl.No.(iv) the
details provided by the appellant in a tabular form have just not been
considered. With respect to the claim at Sl.No.(v), learned Judge has
decreed `62,995/-without any analysis of admissions made by DW-1 that
all works were completed when possession of the flats were handed over
to the allottees. Pertaining to the claim at Sl.No.(vi) above we find no
discussion with respect to Ex.P-1 and P-15 and admissions made on the
subject by DW-1. Suffice would it be to state that a suit has to be
disposed of by discussing relevant evidence.
5. Appeal stands disposed of setting aside the impugned
judgment and decree dated November 19, 2010. CS(OS) 251/2002 is
restored for fresh adjudication but limited to the six claims above noted
and it is hoped and expected that the relevant evidence; documentary as
well as testimonial would be discussed.
6. Parties shall bear their own costs in the appeal.
7. Upon application filed by the appellant with advance copy to
counsel for DDA the matter would be listed before the learned Single
Judge for directions by the Registry.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 11, 2012
skb
