Delhi High Court
Saurabh Bagley vs Tajinder Babra on 24 January, 2018
* 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
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
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
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,
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
