AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.No.,PARTICULARS,AMOUNT (IN Rs.)
1.,"AGRO MALL, ROHTAK","40,27,980
2.,"OPD, ROHTAK","20,91,514
3.,"ITI, ROHTAK","1,39,610
4.,"CSOI CLUB, DELHI","4,00,000
5.,"SOULSTICE EDUCATIONAL, GORGAON","14,59,073
6.,REWARI,"19,967
7.,"MAANDI FARM, DELHI","6,50,918
8.,CLUB HOUSE,"23,15,052
,TOTAL,"1,11,04,114
I may at the outset state that the only documents filed by the plaintiff are under the list of documents dated 8th July, 2016 and all of which are",,
photocopies. The plaintiff, even if entitled not to file the original documents in terms of dicta of this Court in Aktiebolaget Volvo Vs. R.",,
Venkatachalam (2009) 160 DLT 100, after the written statement of the defendant of denial of any liability, ought to have put the said documents to the",,
defendant during admission/denial and which also the plaintiff has failed to do.,,
As far as the photocopies of the documents filed by the plaintiff are concerned, the plaintiff at serial no.2 of the list of documents has described the",,
document at serial no.2 as “bill raised by the plaintiff and certified by the defendant†as filed at pages 3 to 18. However a perusal of pages 3 to 18,,
shows the document at pages no.3 to 18 to be a document titled summary of payment on the letterhead of the plaintiff and addressed to the defendant,,
but which does not appear to be reflecting any amount as claimed in the plaint and the counsel for the plaintiff herself states that the same is illegible.,,
The figure which can be deciphered from the said document shows the amount of the cumulative bill to be Rs.82,97,064/-. The counsel for the plaintiff",,
on enquiry, states that the defendant failed to certify the other RA bills and thus they have not been filed.",,
I am unable to understand. Even if that be the case of the plaintiff, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to file the same before the Court. Though the",,
counsel for the plaintiff refers to some final RA bills showing the amount claimed to be due but admittedly the same has also not been filed along with,,
the plaint, though the counsel for the plaintiff states that it was filed along with the replication. It is suffice to state that the same is not in Part III file",,
and this being a commercial suit it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to file the documents along with the plaint and no subsequent documents can be,,
taken on record without leave of the Court.,,
I may also mention that though the plaintiff in the plaint has made elaborate pleadings with respect to outstanding of Rs.1,11,04,114/- as set out",,
hereinabove but the counsel for the plaintiff states that the suit claim is not for recovery of the said amount but for recovery of only Rs.2,54,73,672/-",,
which pertains only to the work on the project of National Institute of Immunology, Faridabad.",,
I may in this context also note that there is no averment in the plaint as to of what total value the plaintiff carried out the work with respect to the,,
National Institute of Immunology, Faridabad and out of which Rs. 2,54,73,672/- is claimed to be due. The plaintiff, in para 20 of the plaint has pleaded",,
the factum of having issued legal notice to the defendant and therein having claimed outstanding amount of Rs.3,65,77,787/- including the amount of",,
Rs.2,54,73,672/- pertaining to the project at National Institute of Immunology, Faridabad; else, there is nothing in the plaint with respect to the said",,
amount of Rs. 2,54,73,672/-or the payments with respect thereto. So much so that the plaintiff has not even placed before this Court copies of its own",,
ledgers showing any outstanding from the defendant or copies of its own balance sheets showing any such outstanding. Though the plaintiff along with,,
the plaint has filed a statement of its account with Union Bank of India for the period 1st July, 2013 to 1st August, 2013 but the counsel or the plaintiff",,
is unable to explain the purport of filing the same. The plaintiff, in the plaint has claimed part payment on 26th July, 2013 of Rs.20,00,000/-from the",,
defendant and on the basis of which the claim in the suit is stated to be within time but the counsel for the plaintiff is unable to show even such receipt,,
in the statement of account filed.,,
Ms. Manmilan Sidhu, Advocate appearing for the plaintiff now states that the matter be adjourned for her senior Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Advocate,",,
who has now been engaged, to appear.",,
Suits, especially commercial suits, cannot be conducted by the counsels in this fashion.",,
Not only so, the plaint is found to be disjointed, vague, lacking in material particulars and not disclosing a cause of action for the relief claimed or",,
the suit claim being within time. Inspite thereof, the plaint was entertained and summons thereof issued. Though the defendant, in its written statement",,
has denied its liability, but the plaintiff has not filed any document from which the plaintiff can, in trial, prove its claim. This Court in Godfrey Phillips",,
India Ltd. Vs. P.T.I. Private Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12509 has held that though as per procedure prescribed by CPC ordinary suits have to be,,
mandatorily put to trial, when entail disputed questions of fact but in commercial suits, Courts need not hold trial, even if there are disputed questions of",,
fact, if a Court comes to conclusion that plaintiff lacks real prospect of succeeding in the suit and that commercial suits can be disposed summarily.",,
The plaintiff, in the present case is found to have failed to place any pleading or material before this Court on the basis of which it can be said that",,
plaintiff has any prospect of succeeding.,,
Thus the plaint is rejected. No costs.,,