SAURABH BAGLEY Vs. TAJINDER BABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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)

(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.