Delhi District Court
Manish Vohra vs Afsar Ali on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-02, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM)-107/24
In the matter of:
Mr. Manish Vohra,
S/o Narendra Kumar Vohra,
R/o H-11, Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Afsar Ali
Proprietor of Afsar Furniture & Contractors
Having its office at:
S-146/58, Mohammad Pur,
R.K Puram, New Delhi-110066 ..... Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 16.02.2024
Date of Reserving of judgment : 10.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.02.2025
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff
for a sum of Rs. 8,14,397/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fourteen
Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) against the
defendant.
2.1 Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is
resident of H-11, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi
110024 and the defendant is a sole proprietor of M/s Afsar
Furniture’s and Contractors, who is engaged in the business of
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 1 of 19
Digitally
signed by
NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.28
03:14:51
+0530
construction and renovation of buildings properties.
2.2 That the plaintiff had contacted the defendant for the
renovation of the premises situated at H-11, Ground Floor, Lajpat
Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024 (herein after referred to as
“Property”) and initially the plaintiff had entered into an
agreement/work order dated 14.03.2021 (herein after referred to as
“Work Order”) for the renovation of the plaintiff’s property for an
amount equivalent to Rs. 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs
Only). Further, as per the agreed terms and conditions of the work
order, the defendant was under obligation to complete the assigned
work within 3 months starting from 18.03.2021.
2.3 It was mutually agreed between the parties that in case the
defendant fails to complete the work within 3 months as per the
work order starting from 18.03.2021 in any way whatsoever, then
the defendant shall be liable and responsible to bear the expenses
occurred upon the plaintiff for completion of the renovation work.
It is submitted here that the plaintiff had also rented a house
situated at G-12, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi
110024 at a monthly rent of Rs. 55,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five
Thousand Only) and had vacated the property so that the
defendant can effectively start and complete the work on time.
2.4 It is further submitted here that the defendant agreed and
undertook to use superior quality of materials for completing the
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 2 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.28
03:15:01 +0530
renovation work which was in accordance with agreed terms of
the parties and conditions of the work order, however, the
defendant miserably failed to adhere to such terms & conditions
and has used inferior quality of materials which led to deficiency
in services of the defendant towards the plaintiff. Further, the
defendant had left the work in the middle, due to which the
plaintiff had to bear huge financial losses for completing the
renovation work which was left by the defendant.
2.5 It is pertinent to mention here that due to the lackadaisical
approach and negligence of the defendant in completing the work,
the work was delayed for more than 6 months. Further, the
defendant took 9 months (i.e. 6 extra months), wherein the time
was the main essence in completing the work as per work order,
however had still failed to adhere the agreed terms of the work
order for completing the work on time. It is further submitted here
that due to the negligent and unprofessional services of the
defendant, the plaintiff had to bear huge financial losses of Rs.
6,90,197/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand One Hundred
Ninety Seven Only) for completing the pending/canceled work
which was left by the defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is liable
to pay a sum of Rs. 6,90,197/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety
Thousand One Hundred Ninety Seven Only) to the plaintiff.
2.6 It is further submitted that as per the mutual agreed terms
and understanding, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 3 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:15:10
+0530
make the payment of the extra expenses occurred for completing
the pending/cancelled work (as per the agreed terms between the
parties) on several occasions vide phone calls but the defendant
did not show any heed towards the calls of the plaintiff and did not
accede to the genuine request of the Plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff
has also filed a police complaint against the defendant in Lajpat
Nagar Police Station on 16.03.2022 vide reference no.
8955002200124 dated 26.02.2022 under section 503/507/354 IPC
for harassment and threatening calls made by the defendant to the
plaintiff and his spouses. However, no effective investigation took
place against the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff had issued a
legal notice dated 28.02.2022 upon the defendant through its
counsel to refund of the due and outstanding amount but in vain.
Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons of the suit were ordered to be issued upon the
defendant through all modes of communication on 26.02.2024 by
this court and on the next date of hearing i.e. 29.04.2024, Ld.
Counsel for defendant had appeared and filed written statement on
behalf of defendant. However, the same was not as per the
Mandate of Commercial Courts Act and the documents filed on
behalf of defendant were photocopies and there was no affidavit in
support of those documents. Defendant was directed to file WS as
per the Mandate of Commercial Courts Act within the stipulated
time period alongwith statement of truth and affidavit of
admission/denial of documents by supplying advance copy upon
the plaintiff. However, no steps were taken by the defendant in
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 4 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:15:18
+0530
terms of previous orders and hence, on 15.10.2024, the right of the
defendant to file the WS was closed and thereafter, matter was
fixed for PE. Plaintiff in order to substantiate its claim has filed
evidence by way of affidavit and examined himself as PW-1 who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and proved
the following documents:-
1. Copy of work order dated 14.03.2021 is now Mark A.
2. Copy of calculation sheet is now Mark B.
3. Original invoices and memo receipts are now Ex.PW1/3
(Colly) running from page 27 to 46 (original of page no.40
is not available on record).
4. Copy of notices alongwith envelope are now Ex.PW1/4
(colly) running from page no. 47 to 52 (objected to the
mode of proof).
5. Copy of posters alongwith envelope (objected to the mode
of proof) and police complaint are now Ex.PW1/5 (Colly).
6. Copy of legal notice is now Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of reply to the legal notice is now Ex.PW1/7.
8. Original NSR is now Ex.PW1/8.
4. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant on legal points. The relevant portion of his cross
examination is reproduced as under:
“My affidavit was prepared in the office of my advocate where
I had signed the same. The contents of work order is a matter
of record. It is wrong to suggest that my affidavit in chief filed
today before the court is not properly attested by the Notary
and is not admissible. It is further wrong to suggest that I have
personal knowledge of this case. It is further wrong to suggestCS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 5 of 19
Digitally
signed by
NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.28
03:15:26
+0530
that I am a competent witness to depose before this court. It is
wrong to suggest that the present suit has been filed as a
counter blast to the suit of the defendant filed by him earlier.
It is wrong to suggest that there is any cause of action in the
present suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant
being the counter blast. It is wrong to suggest that the suit of
the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It is wrong to suggest that
the present suit has been filed before the wrong forum and this
court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely”.
Thereafter, PE was closed.
Arguments heard. Record perused carefully.
5. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that in order to
substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff has examined PW-1
and the testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebuted and
uncontroverted without any challenge as the defendant has chosen
not to file Written Statement. It is further argued that plaintiff has
filed the suit on 16.02.2024 and is well within the prescribed
period of limitation. It is further argued that the residential address
of the plaintiff is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
which is also a subject matter of this case as plaintiff had
contacted the defendant for renovation of premises situated at
H-11, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024. It is
further argued that plaintiff had entered into an agreement/ work
order dated 14.03.2021 for renovation of the property of the
plaintiff at the said premises only. It is further argued that as per
the agreed terms and conditions of the work, defendant agreed to
complete the work within 3 months starting from 18.03.2021 and
the agreement was culminated within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court.
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 6 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:15:33
+0530
6. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that
the right of the defendant to file Written Statement has been
closed on 15.10.2024 and on that day defendant has been
proceeded against ex-parte. It is argued that defendant has been
granted a limited right to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff
on legal points and the witness was cross-examined on legal
points. It is argued that affidavit-in-chief filed on behalf of
witness has not been properly attested by the notary and is not
admissible in evidence. It is further argued that PW-1 has no
personal knowledge of the case and accordingly, his deposition
cannot be considered by the Court. It is further argued that
defendant has already filed one suit for recovery against the
plaintiff and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff as a
counter-blast to the suit of the defendant. It is further argued that
the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and furthermore, this
Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
suit. Henceforth, the suit be dismissed with costs.
7. Perusal of record shows that the right of the defendant to file
Written Statement was closed after granting him number of
opportunities to file Written Statement, on 15.10.2024. The
aforesaid order attained finality as no appeal/ revision has been
preferred against the order by the defendant. Needless to say that
right to cross-examine the witness on legal points was exercised
by the defendant. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-1
that the contents of work order is a matter of record. In fact, work
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 7 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.28
03:15:43 +0530
order has not been disputed by the defendant.
8. After considering the facts of the case and contentions raised
by both the parties, following notional issues comes before the
Court for consideration:
1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present suit? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within the period of
limitation? OP Parties
3. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is entitled for a decree
of sum of Rs. 8,14,397/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant? OPPIssue No. 1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present suit? OPP
9. The territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the
present suit is governed by Section 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, which states that a suit can be filed where the
defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of
action, wholly or in part, arises. In commercial disputes, the place
where the contract was executed, where it was to be performed,
and where the consequences of its breach occurred are relevant
factors in determining jurisdiction.
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 8 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.28
03:15:50 +0530
10. In the present case, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted
that this Court has jurisdiction as the work order dated 14.03.2021
was executed for renovation of the property situated at H-11,
Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024. The contract
was entered into between the parties for carrying out work at this
address, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further,
the plaintiff, who is a resident of the same locality, had contacted
the defendant for the renovation work. Since the agreement was
executed within the jurisdiction of this Court, the suit is
maintainable before this Court.
11. It is also relevant to note that the cause of action in this case
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The
plaintiff had engaged the defendant for renovation work at his
property, and as per the terms of the agreement, the defendant was
required to complete the work within three months. However, the
plaintiff has alleged that the defendant failed to complete the work
within the agreed time and used inferior materials, leading to
financial loss. As per settled law, the place where the breach of
contract occurs and where financial loss is suffered forms a crucial
part of the cause of action. Since the work was to be carried out at
the plaintiff’s property in Lajpat Nagar-III and the alleged breach
took place at the same location, this Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit.
12. Ld. Counsel for defendant, in his arguments, has contended
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 9 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.28
03:15:57 +0530
that this Court does not have jurisdiction. However, the defendant
has not denied the execution of the work order in his cross-
examination, which shows that the contract was indeed entered
into and performed at the plaintiff’s property in Lajpat Nagar-III.
Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as our Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in catena of cases has held that jurisdiction lies
in a court where the contract is executed or where the
consequences of its breach are felt.
13. I could lay my hand on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in RSA No.40/2013 titled as Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto
Accessories Pvt. Ltd. decided on 5th March, 2014 bearing citation
2014 SCC OnLine Del 998;AIR 2014 Del 115. The Hon’ble High
Court has held as under:
“22. It is a well established principle of law that where, under
a contract no place of payment is specified, the debtor must
seek his creditor and therefore a suit for recovery is
maintainable at the place where the creditor resides or works
for gain, because a part of the cause of action arises at that
place also with the contemplation of section 20 (c) of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Reference may be made to the
judgments titled as “State of Punjab V. A. K. Raha” reported
as AIR 1964 CALCUTTA 418 (DB), “Jose Paul v. Jose”
reported as AIR 2002 KERALA 397 (DB), “Rajasthan State
Electricity Board V. M/s Dayal Wood Works” reported as
AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 381, “Munnisa Begum V.
Noore Mohd.” Reported as AIR 1965 ANDHRA PRADESH
231 and “State of U.P. v. Raja Ram” reported as AIR 1966
ALLAHABAD 159.
24. In the judgment titled as Sreenivasa Pulvarising vs. Jal
Glass & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported as AIR 1985 Cal 74 it
was “…… In also held:-a contract of the nature now under
consideration performance of the contract consists not only of
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 10 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:16:21
+0530
delivery of the goods but also of payment of the price.
Therefore, cause of action for a suit on breach of such a
contract would arise not only where the goods were to be
delivered but also where the price It would be payable on such
delivery…..” was further held:-
“…….9. Therefore, the law continues to remain the
same and in a suit arising out of a contract, a part
of the cause of action arises at the place where in
performance of the contract any money to which
the suit relates in payable….” Adverting to the facts
of the present case office/factory of the Plaintiff is
situated at Jwala nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. No
place of payment has been specified in the
contract/bills/invoices. The defendants are liable to
make the payment for the goods supplied to them.
No application was made by the defendants to the
plaintiffs for fixing a place of payment and Sec. 49
of the Indian Contract Act cannot apply to the facts
of the case. Therefore, the payment was to be made
at the office of the plaintiff. Further the purchase
order was placed at Jwala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-32 and the goods were supplied from Jwala
nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 Therefore a part of the
cause of action definitely arises at Jawala Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-32. Hence the present suit for
recovery of the sale price can be filed before this
court as the office of the plaintiff is situated within
the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
25. I therefore hold that this court has the territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. This issue is
therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.”
“6. I completely agree with the conclusion of the trial court
because it is settled law that the debtor has to seek the creditor
and since no place of payment was agreed upon, payment
would have been made to the seller/appellant who is residing
and working for gain at New Delhi. Trial court has also
rightly relied upon Section 49 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 that it was upon the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1 to
fix the place of payment and which has not been done, and
therefore payment would have been made by the debtor to the
creditor at the place of the creditor/plaintiff/appellant. As
already stated the first appellate court has not even bothered to
refer to the analysis and reasoning of the trial court for
holding that the courts at Delhi have jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the findings of the first appellate court are setCS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 11 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:16:28
+0530
aside and it is held that the courts at Delhi have territorial
jurisdiction.”
14. I could also also lay my hand on a judgment passed by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CM(M) 604/2020 titled M/S AUTO
MOVERS V. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT.
LTD, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:
“22. When, in the present case, the part cause of action has
arisen also on account of the payments made by the
petitioner/defendant directly into the bank account of the
respondent/plaintiff, even if these were not on regular basis,
since there is nothing to show that the place of payment had
been fixed, even without following the principle that the
‘debtor must seek out the creditor’, it is clear that the Delhi
Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit and the invoice does not
vest jurisdiction in a court which had no jurisdiction at all.”
15. Furthermore, in CS(COMM) 690/2021 TKW
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. SHERIF CARGO
& ANR., Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:
“18. In the present case, the plaintiff has correctly invoked the
doctrine of ‘the debtor must seek creditor’. The defendant has
not denied the fact that the registered office of the plaintiff is
in New Delhi and the various e-mails and WhatsApp
communications have also been sent on behalf of the plaintiff
from New Delhi to the defendants, calling upon the
defendants to pay the outstanding amount. Nor is there any
dispute over the fact that payment under the invoices was to
be made by the defendants in New Delhi.
19. In the judgment dated 14th May, 2012 passed in RFA(OS)
64/2007 titled Union Bank of India v. Milkfood Ltd., a
Division Bench of this Court held that in the absence of any
covenant in the agreement settling a place of payment, the
debtor must seek the creditor to pay at the place where the
creditor is located.
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 12 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:16:42
+0530
20. The aforesaid doctrine has also been invoked in the
context of suits filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC in IUP
Jindal Metals & Alloys Ltd. v. M/s. Conee Chains Pvt. Ltd.,
2013 SCC OnLine Del 1454 and Shradha Wassan & Ors. v.
Anil Goel & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1285 and it has been
observed that where the plaintiff has called upon the
defendants to pay the outstanding amounts from a particular
place, it would be the Courts having jurisdiction over such a
place that would be the appropriate forum to adjudicate the
dispute on the basis of the doctrine ‘debtor must seek creditor’.
21. In Shradha Wassan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this
Court has observed that while considering an application
seeking leave to defend, where leave is sought solely on the
ground of challenge to the territorial jurisdiction, unless a
clear case of ouster of jurisdiction is made out, leave ought not
to be granted on such a plea. Observations of the Court in
paragraph 17 of the judgment are set out below:
“17. Reference in this regard be also made to
L.N.Gupta v. Smt. Tara Mani MANU/DE/0159/1983:
AIR1984 Delhi49 where also after a review of the
entire case law including the judgments of the other
courts it was held that the principle of “Debtor must
seek creditor’ is applicable to India. However, an
exception was carved out with respect to the
promissory notes. Another thing which is relevant is
that the plea of territorial jurisdiction in this case is
raised in an application for leave to defend. The criteria
for determining the said plea in an application for leave
to defend would be different from the criteria when
such a plea is raised otherwise. While the ground by
challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the court,
unless a clear case of ouster of jurisdiction is made out,
leave ought not to be granted on such a plea. In the
present case on the applicability of the general doctrine
aforesaid, no case for granting leave to defend is made
out.”
22. The judgment in Shradha Wassan (supra) has been
followed by me in Transasia Private Capital Limited and
Another v. Parmanand Agarwal and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 1185, wherein the application seeking leave to
defend as well as the application seeking rejection of the
plaint filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 therein, solely
premised on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, were
dismissed.
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 13 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:16:50
+0530
16. Considering the facts and legal position, it is clear that this
Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
suit. The work order was executed for a property situated within
the jurisdiction of this Court, and the alleged breach and financial
loss also occurred within the same jurisdiction. Accordingly, this
issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within the period
of limitation? OP Parties
17. The limitation period for filing a suit for recovery of money
based on a contractual obligation is governed by Article 113 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years
from the date when the cause of action arises. In the present case,
the work order/agreement was entered into on 14.03.2021, and the
defendant was required to complete the renovation work within
three months from 18.03.2021. However, the plaintiff alleges that
the defendant failed to fulfill his obligations under the agreement,
leading to the issuance of a legal notice dated 28.02.2022, which
the defendant replied to on 21.03.2022.
18. As per settled law, the cause of action continues to arise
until there is a clear and final denial of liability by the defendant.
In this case, the defendant, through his reply to the legal notice on
21.03.2022, disputed the plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the
limitation period started running from 21.03.2022. Since the
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 14 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:17:00
+0530
present suit was filed on 16.02.2024, it falls well within the
prescribed three-year limitation period. Ld. Counsel for defendant
has argued that the suit is barred by limitation, but he has not
shown any valid reason why the period should be considered to
have started earlier than 21.03.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
and our own Hon’ble Delhi High Court has consistently held that
in contractual disputes, limitation starts from the date of the last
acknowledgment or denial of liability, which in this case is the
defendant’s reply to the legal notice. Since the suit has been filed
within three years from 21.03.2022, it is within the limitation
period as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore,
this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD
19. A cause of action refers to the bundle of facts that entitle a
party to seek legal remedy from a court. In the present case, the
plaintiff has asserted that he entered into a work order with the
defendant on 14.03.2021 for renovation work at his premises. The
plaintiff has further claimed that the defendant failed to complete
the work as per the agreed terms, leading to the issuance of a legal
notice on 28.02.2022, which was replied to by the defendant on
21.03.2022. These facts indicate that there exists a dispute
between the parties, giving rise to a cause of action for the
plaintiff to approach this Court.
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 15 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
SINGH
NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:17:09
+0530
20. Ld. Counsel for defendant has contended that there is no
cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and that the present suit has
been filed as a counterblast to an earlier suit filed by the
defendant. However, the existence of an independent contractual
agreement between the parties and the subsequent dispute arising
out of its execution is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff has a
valid cause of action. The mere filing of another suit by the
defendant does not negate the plaintiff’s right to seek enforcement
of his alleged claim. Since the plaintiff has pleaded specific facts
leading to the institution of the present suit, and these facts, if
proved, would entitle him to relief, it is evident that a cause of
action does exist in his favor. Accordingly, this issue is decided in
favor of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is entitled for a
decree of sum of Rs. 8,14,397/- in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant? OPP
21. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.
8,14,397/- on the ground that the defendant failed to complete the
work as per the terms and conditions of the work order dated
14.03.2021 (Mark A). The plaintiff has relied on invoices
(Ex.PW1/3) to substantiate his claim. However, upon careful
scrutiny of the evidence presented, it is evident that the plaintiff
has failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 16 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:17:22
+0530
his entitlement to the claimed amount.
22. Firstly, while the plaintiff alleges that the defendant did not
complete the work as per the agreed terms, he has not placed any
documentary or independent oral evidence on record to establish
the nature and extent of incomplete work. In contractual disputes
related to work execution, the onus lies on the aggrieved party to
demonstrate specific breaches by the other party. However, the
plaintiff has neither produced any site inspection reports, third-
party verification, progress reports, or photographic evidence to
substantiate his assertion that the work remained incomplete.
Additionally, there is no record of any formal complaint or
correspondence wherein the plaintiff objected to the alleged non-
completion of work while it was in progress.
23. Secondly, the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff
(Ex.PW1/3) are all handwritten and not supported by any
corroborative evidence such as payment receipts, bank statements,
or acknowledgment of dues by the defendant. It is also pertinent to
note that the plaintiff has not examined the person who prepared
or issued these invoices. In commercial matters, particularly
where financial claims are made, courts require clear and reliable
documentary evidence to establish the legitimacy of the claim.
The absence of such evidence raises serious doubts about the
validity and enforceability of the invoices.
24. Thirdly, the plaintiff has not examined any witness, such as
a site engineer, contractor, or independent third party, who could
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 17 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.02.28
03:17:31
+0530
confirm the extent of the work completed and the deficiencies, if
any, in the defendant’s performance. The court cannot assume, in
the absence of any concrete evidence, that the defendant indeed
failed to fulfill his contractual obligations in a manner that entitles
the plaintiff to monetary compensation.
25. In light of the above facts and reasoning, the court finds that
the plaintiff has failed to provide cogent and admissible evidence
to establish his claim. Mere allegations of non-completion of
work, without substantive proof, are insufficient to grant the relief
sought. The invoices presented do not inspire confidence as they
are handwritten and lack authentication. The absence of key
witnesses and supporting documentation further weakens the
plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, the plaintiff has not been able to
discharge the burden of proof, and this issue is decided in favor of
the defendant and against the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit of
the plaintiff stands dismissed for want of appropriate evidence.
Conclusion
26. In view of the findings on the issues framed, it is evident that
the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his claim with cogent and
admissible evidence. The burden of proof, which lay upon the
plaintiff, has not been discharged as the invoices relied upon are
handwritten and lack proper authentication, and no witness has
been examined to verify their legitimacy. Furthermore, the
plaintiff has not produced any substantive evidence to establish
CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 18 of 19
Digitally signed
by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.02.28
03:17:39 +0530
the alleged non-completion of work by the defendant. In the
absence of sufficient proof, the court finds no justifiable ground to
grant the relief sought. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff stands
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. File be
consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH Announced & dictated in the SINGH Date: 2025.02.28 open Court on this 03:17:46 +0530 28th February, 2025 (NEELAM SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND CS(COMM)-107/24 Mr. Manish Vohra vs. Mr. Afsar Ali Page 19 of 19
