JUDGMENT
S.L. Bhayana, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge dated 20th January, 2004, whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/-. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff was working as a contractor and as an interior decorator under the name and style of M/s. Pace Technical Services. In the month of April, 2000, both the parties entered into an agreement and the plaintiff agreed to provide labour, building material and got the construction work done under his supervision in respect of a plot bearing No.1689, Sector 23, Gurgaon. The plaintiff carried out the construction in the said building in November, 2000 and handed over the possession of the same to the defendant. The plaintiff raised a bill in the sum of Rs. 3,30,217.14 paise dated 18.07.2000 to the plaintiff in respect of the job work done by him. In the month of July, 2000, the defendant requested the plaintiff to undertake some additional work. On the request of the defendant, the plaintiff also carried out the additional work and submitted a final bill for a sum of Rs. 5,36,629.48 paise dated 23.11.2000 for the work done by him. But the defendant did not make payment of the amount outstanding against her. The plaintiff served a legal notice dated 05.02.2003 for demanding this amount to which the defendant sent a vague reply to his notice dated 10.03.2003. The plaintiff has prayed that the suit be decreed with costs against the defendant.
2. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was submitted that the entire payment had been made to the plaintiff for the work done by him. The plaintiff had left the work incomplete and had not completed the work despite repeated requests and reminders made by the defendant. The plaintiff was to construct the ground floor, first floor and terrace @ Rs. 336 per sq. ft. for which the defendant had agreed to pay him a sum of Rs. 4,88,016/-. The defendant made payment of a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the plaintiff for the work done by him. The work which was carried out by the plaintiff was defective and the defendant had to get the same demolished and redone by another contractor. The defendant further stated that some payment was made by her to the plaintiff in cash and some payment was made by cheque. The defendant admitted the receipt of legal notice which was replied by her suitably.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- Along with interest @ 24% p.a.? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has not executed the contract in full and left the work incomplete?OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed for? OPD.
4. Relief.
4. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidence on record, the learned trial court decided issues No.1 and 3 together. The plaintiff in his cross examination admitted that the terms and conditions for execution of the work were all verbal and were not in writing. The plaintiff admitted certain documents which are in his own handwriting and are Ex.PW1/D1 to D4. The plaintiff has admitted in the cross examination that Ex.PW1/1 is the bill in respect of the work done and the same is dated 18.07.2002. In this bill, the rate and the areas are mentioned in detail. The receipt of the bill is not disputed. Ex.PW1/D1 to D4 are the documents which gave the details of the work done, the rate on which the work has been done and the amount received by the plaintiff. In these documents, the details of the work as aforesaid has been mentioned in the handwriting of the plaintiff. These documents are filed by the defendant and were shown to the plaintiff in the cross examination which were admitted by him. After submission of bill dated 18.07.2000, all the further terms and conditions were finally settled in Ex.PW1/D1 and D4 which is dated 05.10.2000. As per these documents, the total amount to which the plaintiff was entitled to was Rs. 4,88,016/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff received Rs. 20,000/- by way of cheque dated 23.10.2000 and the plaintiff in all has received a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- from the defendant. The plaintiff has admitted that he received Rs. 3,40,000/- on 05.10.2000 whereas in the plaint he has stated that he has received Rs. 2,25,000/- which is admittedly false on the face of the record. The plaintiff has also admitted in the cross examination that whatever bills were submitted by him were also acknowledged by the defendant. But the bill dated 23.11.2000 has not been acknowledged by the defendant at all. So, as per the admitted documents of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/D1 to D4, the plaintiff has carried out the total work valuing at Rs. 4,88,016/- against which he has received Rs. 3,60,000/- and the balance amount outstanding against the defendant is Rs. 1,28,016/-.
5. The learned trial court further observed that plea of the defendant that the work done by the plaintiff was defective and it was got completed by some other contractor has not been corroborated by any evidence produced by the defendant. So, this point raised by the defendant does not stand proved on record. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- from the defendant. The learned trial court has also granted interest on this amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. The suit has been decreed with costs.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent and perused the record carefully. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has not considered pleas raised by the appellant to the effect that the entire payment had been made to the plaintiff in respect of the work done by him and nothing remained to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. He further submitted that the plaintiff had admitted in cross examination that he had received a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- from the defendant and the plaintiff had done work only to the tune of Rs. 3,60,000/-. The defendant had also suffered damages on account of the defective work done by the plaintiff and the defendant had to engage another contractor to complete the work which was left incomplete by the plaintiff. The defendant had suffered damages on account of the incomplete and defective work done by the plaintiff. He further submitted that the learned trial court had wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/-. The judgment and decree may be set aside and the appeal may be accepted.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned trial court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/-. Even the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff has carried out the work amounting to Rs. 4,88,016/- against which the defendant has made payment in the sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the plaintiff leaving a balance of Rs. 1,28,016/- which remains unpaid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
8. We have gone through the statement of the plaintiff, PW1 Shekhar Paliwal. In the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, he has stated that he executed the work of the appellant/defendant at her house at Gurgaon and in the month of July, he submitted a bill in the sum of Rs. 3,30,217.14 paise dated 18.07.2000. He has further submitted that the terms and conditions were settled as per details given in Ex.PW1/1 which was duly signed by both the parties. He has further submitted that he sent a final bill on 23.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 5,36,629.48 paise after he completed the construction work at the house of the defendant. After giving deduction of the amount already received by him, a sum of Rs. 3,11,629.48 paise remains due and outstanding against the defendant which the defendant has failed to pay to the plaintiff. We have also gone through the cross examination of PW.1 In the cross examination, PW1 Shekhar Paliwal has admitted that whatever amount he has received from the defendant was noted down by him. He has admitted that the documents Ex.PW1/D1 to D4 are in his handwriting. He has also admitted that whatever bills he has given to the defendant were duly signed by the defendant except one bill which was not signed by the defendant which is Ex.PW1/2. We have gone through the documents Ex.PW1/D1 to D4. As per these documents, the total amount settled for the work done was at Rs. 4,88,016/-. The plaintiff has admitted in the cross examination that the documents Ex.PW1.D1 to D4 are in his handwriting and as per these documents, the total work carried out by him was to the tune of Rs. 4,88,016/- against which he had received a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Since, these documents are in the handwriting of the plaintiff himself, so, as per these documents the total outstanding due against the defendant comes to Rs. 1,28,000/- only.
9. In our opinion, the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs,1,28,000/- to the plaintiff. We have also gone through the statements of the defendant DW2 Ms. Sangeeta Wahi. She has stated in her affidavit that the plaintiff had not completed the work properly and the quality of construction was inferior and defective and there were functional defects in the construction carried out by the plaintiff and she had to demolish major portion of the work done by the plaintiff and got it reconstructed from another contractor. But the defendant has failed to produce any other witness to prove that the work done by the plaintiff was defective and that she had spent some amount on getting the the same demolished and got it reconstructed from another contractor. All these issues have not been proved by any cogent and reliable evidence produced by the defendant. We, therefore, hold that the defendant has failed to prove her case successfully that the plaintiff had done defective work or that the said work had to be demolished or that the defendant suffered some loss on account of the same. We, therefore, agree with the finding arrived at by the learned trial court that the defendant has failed to prove her case before it. After going through the evidence on record, we have come to the conclusion that the learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.