YUVRAJ SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the Defendant seeks leave to defend the suit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Defendant contends that the present suit for recovery does not fall within the scope and ambit of Order XXXVII CPC. No cause of action ever accrued in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Defendant constituted a Committee to look into the matter relating to bills of the Plaintiff which found certain lapses and thus a Vigilance Inquiry has been ordered into the same. The entire records relating to the concerned Division Office and the works in dispute are in the custody of the Vigilance Branch. It is the case of the Defendant that the Claims No. 6 to 10 are beyond the scope of the agreement and the Defendant is not entitled to pay anything to the Plaintiff on the said count. Further as regards the Claim No. 1 the Third Running Bill is under scrutiny and necessary action will be taken only after the administrative decision by the department. Regarding Claim No. 2 it is contended that the security can only be released after the payment of the final bill. The payment, if any, regarding Claim No. 3 can only be made after taking of the administrative decision after the inquiry is over. Regarding Claim No. 4, the payment, if any, for the work executed will be duly considered at the time of payment of the final bill. Further the Claim No. 5 is not tenable as the quantum of work was washed away with water and is not required to be paid by the Defendant. The case of the Plaintiff is unsubstantialed and sham and no case for summary trial is made out. Hence the Defendant be granted unconditional leave to defend to contest.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Plaintiff on the other hand contends that the defence taken by DDA is not defence in the eyes of law and thus the application is liable to be dismissed. Merely because an inquiry is pending before the Vigilance Department of the Defendant, the claim of the Plaintiff cannot be denied. The vigilance inquiry is only against Shri S.K. Sethi, the then Executive Engineer of the Defendant on the complaint of the Plaintiff regarding demand of bribe for releasing the payment. It is an unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant DDA, its officials and the Committee that the plaintiff has done the work for which the plaintiff is entitled to payments.