Facts
The Appellant, a civil contractor, was engaged by Respondents No. 1 and 2 in May 2008 for renovation and repair work at two sites (Moti Nagar and Karol Bagh)
Source reference: p. 2No written contract was executed
Source reference: p. 5, 12The Appellant claimed he completed 70% of the work at Site-1 and 99% at Site-2 by September 10, 2008, and sought a recovery of Rs. 18,57,335/- for unpaid bills
Source reference: p. 3The Respondents contended that the work was to be completed by July 31, 2008, to avoid heavy rental losses under their lease agreement
Source reference: p. 5-7The Respondents argued they had already paid Rs. 23,00,000/- without receiving formal bills and that the Appellant abandoned the work midway
Source reference: p. 7The Trial Court dismissed the suit on June 19, 2020, leading to this appeal
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the Appellant failed to complete the job work within the agreed timeframe
Source reference: p. 82. Whether the Appellant proved the extent of work done and is entitled to the recovery of the claimed amount
Source reference: p. 83. Whether the hand-written, undated bills submitted by the Appellant constitute reliable evidence
Source reference: p. 16Law Applied
The Court applied Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, regarding the powers of the Appellate Court
Source reference: p. 1The principle that the initial burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to prove the scope and completion of work in a recovery suit
Source reference: p. 14, 18S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853, regarding the requirement to approach the court with clean hands
Source reference: p. 4Gyan Chand & Bros & Anr. v. Ratan Lal @ Ratan Singh regarding the shifting of the onus of proof
Source reference: p. 11Reasoning
The Court found the Appellant’s testimony regarding the timeline (claiming a 6-month period) was an afterthought not reflected in the pleadings
Source reference: p. 12Conversely, the Respondents proved that "time was the essence of the contract" via a registered Lease Deed [Ex.DW1/1], which granted a 3-month rent-free period for renovations, establishing a deadline of July 31, 2008
Source reference: p. 12-13The Court noted that the Appellant failed to provide a specific "scope of work" or "rate list"
Source reference: p. 14Site plans [Ex.PW1/1] and photographs [Ex.PW1/8] were deemed insufficient because they were neither signed, dated, nor linked to specific sites, and the Appellant failed to confront the Respondents’ witnesses with these documents during cross-examination
Source reference: p. 15-16Crucially, the handwritten bills [Ex.PW1/4] lacked dates, signatures of the preparer, and supporting vouchers, and the Appellant could not identify which of the Respondents' employees allegedly received them
Source reference: p. 16-17Holding
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the execution of additional work beyond what was covered by the admitted payment of Rs. 23,00,000/-
The Court held that the Appellant was not entitled to any further recovery
Source reference: p. 18The Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit
Source reference: p. 18Original Court PDF
Sulakhan SinghvsKanwarjit Singh Kochar & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in