1. RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd v. M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions and Another M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions
Case Details
RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- Reserved on: Reserved on:-05.09.2025 Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 Date of Decision : 1. RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant VERSUS M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions and Another M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions ....Respondents 2. RSA-2224-2025 2025 (O&M) Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. ....Appellant VERSUS M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions and Another M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate with Mr. J.S.Sohal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. J.S.Sohal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. J.S.Sohal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Ms. Sanya Shangari, Advocates Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Ms. Sanya Shangari, Advocates Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Ms. Sanya Shangari, Advocates for respondent No.2. for respondent No.2. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. The above-mentioned two Regular Second Appeals The above Regular Second Appeals i.e. RSA-2734 2734- 2024 and RSA shall stand dispose of by this common judgment. RSA-2224-2025 shall stand dispose of by this common judgment. 2. RSA-2734-2024 has been filed by the appellant/defendant RSA M/s filed by the appellant/defendant No.1-M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. against the respondents/plaintiff Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. M/s Bitureks Fire inst the respondents/plaintiff-M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) -2- -
Legal Reasoning
defendant No.2- -M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., and filed by and RSA-2224-2025 has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.2 appellant/defendant No.2-Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. ( wrongly Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. (alleged to be wrongly M/s mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom) against respondents/plaintiff-M/s mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom) mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom) Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and defendant No.1-M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Chauhan, and defendant challenging the M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd., challenging the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court and the concurrent findings of the learned trial Lower Appellate Court ourt and the Lower Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff – M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions whereby the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions for mandatory injunction was decreed and the appeal preferred injunction was decreed by M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. and the appeal preferred by M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed was dismissed. Brief Facts 3. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that defendant The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that defendant The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that defendant The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that defendant o.1, after mutual discussions, allotted job work to the plaintiff for installation of No.1, after mutual discussions, allotted job work to the plaintiff for installation of o.1, after mutual discussions, allotted job work to the plaintiff for installation of o.1, after mutual discussions, allotted job work to the plaintiff for installation of fire suppression systems and plumbing and sanitary works at the premises of fire suppression systems and plumbing and sanitary works at the premises of fire suppression systems and plumbing and sanitary works at the premises of fire suppression systems and plumbing and sanitary works at the premises of o.2 vide work order dated 26.05.2012. The value of the work was defendant No.2 vide work order dated 26.05.2012. The value of the work was o.2 vide work order dated 26.05.2012. The value of the work was o.2 vide work order dated 26.05.2012. The value of the work was fixed at ₹37,35,404 ₹37,35,404/- for fire suppression systems and for plumbing for fire suppression systems and ₹36,88,225/- for plumbing and sanitary works. and sanitary works. 4. It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of sion of additional flexible sprinkler drops which were not part Hindware and provision of additional flexible sprinkler drops which were not part sion of additional flexible sprinkler drops which were not part Hindware and provi of the original BOQ. After reminders, the revised rates for the changed items were of the original BOQ. After reminders, the revised rates for the changed items were of the original BOQ. After reminders, the revised rates for the changed items were of the original BOQ. After reminders, the revised rates for the changed items were approved through emails dated 10.12.2012 and 14.12.2012. approved through emails dated 10.12.2012 and 14.12.2012. approved through emails dated 10.12.2012 and 14.12.2012. 5. nal bill dated The plaintiff completed the work and raised a final bill dated The plaintiff completed the work and raised a fi The plaintiff completed the work and raised a fi 19.03.2013 for ₹82,05,964.28, comprising ₹51,99,988/ 19.03.2013 for fighting ₹82,05,964.28, comprising ₹51,99,988/- towards fire-fighting system and ₹30,05,975/ towards plumbing and sanitary works. Out of this, the ₹30,05,975/- towards plumbing and sanitary works. Out of this, the towards plumbing and sanitary works. Out of this, the defendants paid a total of ₹58,34,000/-, leaving a balance of defendants paid a total of , leaving a balance of ₹27,71,964/ ₹27,71,964/- TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) -3- - outstanding. The plaintiff further claimed The plaintiff further claimed ₹5,00,000/ as compensation for ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for release of payment. financial loss caused due to non-release of payment. financial loss caused due to non 6. It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice dated 19.07.2013, the defendants failed to pay. Instead, defendant dated 19.07.2013, the defendants fai o.1 issued a led to pay. Instead, defendant No.1 issued a baseless penalty notice dated 28.03.2013 and thereafter proposed a “Memorandum baseless penalty notice dated 28.03.2013 and thereafter proposed a “Memorandum baseless penalty notice dated 28.03.2013 and thereafter proposed a “Memorandum baseless penalty notice dated 28.03.2013 and thereafter proposed a “Memorandum of Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013, which was wholly unfair and of Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013, which was wholly unfair and of Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013, which was wholly unfair and of Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013, which was wholly unfair and unreasonable and was rejected. The delay in execution of the job, according to the unreasonable and was rejected. The delay in execution of the job, according to the unreasonable and was rejected. The delay in execution of the job, according to the unreasonable and was rejected. The delay in execution of the job, according to the f, was entirely attributable to the defendants, who had failed to hand over plaintiff, was entirely attributable to the defendants, who had failed to hand over f, was entirely attributable to the defendants, who had failed to hand over f, was entirely attributable to the defendants, who had failed to hand over the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay ₹28,71,964/- directing the defe (balance plus compensation) with (balance plus compensation) with interest at 24% per annum from the date of submission of the final bill till interest at 24% per annum from the date of submission of the final bill till interest at 24% per annum from the date of submission of the final bill till interest at 24% per annum from the date of submission of the final bill till realization. 7. Defendant no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections Defendant no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections Defendant no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections Defendant no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections le in the form of mandatory injunction and that the that the suit was not maintainable in the form of mandatory injunction and that the le in the form of mandatory injunction and that the that the suit was not maintainab proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was payment of proper court liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of proper court liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non fee. 8. aintiff was negligent in execution, It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was negligent in execution, aintiff was negligent in execution, It was further pleaded that the pl failed to complete the job within the stipulated 90 days, and caused heavy losses of failed to complete the job within the stipulated 90 days, and caused heavy losses of failed to complete the job within the stipulated 90 days, and caused heavy losses of failed to complete the job within the stipulated 90 days, and caused heavy losses of ₹98 lakhs to defendant no.1, including penalties imposed by defendant no.2. about ₹98 lakhs to defendant no.1, including penalties imposed by defendant no.2. ₹98 lakhs to defendant no.1, including penalties imposed by defendant no.2. ₹98 lakhs to defendant no.1, including penalties imposed by defendant no.2. s and manpower, failed to The plaintiff was alleged to have inadequate resources and manpower, failed to The plaintiff was alleged to have inadequate resource The plaintiff was alleged to have inadequate resource supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. 9. Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook to including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook t including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook t including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook t TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) -4- - It is further submitted that complete jobs by 10.01.2013, but failed to do so. It is further submitted that complete jobs by 10.01.2013, but failed to do so. complete jobs by 10.01.2013, but failed to do so. o.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more defendant No.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more o.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more o.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more es of the plaintiff, than 60 unfinished jobs. It was further pleaded that due to lapses of the plaintiff, than 60 unfinished jobs. It was further pleaded that due to laps than 60 unfinished jobs. It was further pleaded that due to laps o.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the defendant No.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the o.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the o.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the y to labour charges. Defendant bills, while restricting the plaintiff at places only to labour charges. Defendant bills, while restricting the plaintiff at places onl bills, while restricting the plaintiff at places onl ₹77 lakhs to defendant no.2 (₹30 o.1 also pleaded that it had to pay a penalty of ₹77 lakhs to defendant no.2 (₹30 o.1 also pleaded that it had to pay a penalty of No.1 also pleaded that it had to pay a penalty of ₹47 lakhs for delay), which loss was lakhs on account of incomplete job and ₹47 lakhs for delay), which loss was ₹47 lakhs for delay), which loss was lakhs on account of inco caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was accordingly prayed for. accordingly prayed for. 10. o.2, namely M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not contest Defendant No.2, namely M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not contest o.2, namely M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not contest Defendant N e of notice and was proceeded against ex parte. the proceedings despite service of notice and was proceeded against ex parte. the proceedings despite servic 11. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the s made in the written statement of defendant No.1. plaint and denying the allegations made in the written statement of defendant No.1. s made in the written statement of defendant No.1. plaint and denying the allegation 12. rned trial court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the lea From the pleadings of the parties, the lea following issues: following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Relief. 13. Both the parties led the evidence in Both the parties led the evidence in support of their case. Findings of the Trial Court: Findings of the Trial Court: 14. ourt, after hearing the parties and examining the The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and examining the ourt, after hearing the parties and examining the The oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm had duly carried out the installation of the fire- had duly carried out the installation of the fire fighting system and plumbing and -fighting system and plumbing and ndant no.2 on the instructions of defendant sanitary works in the premises of defendant no.2 on the instructions of defendant ndant no.2 on the instructions of defendant sanitary works in the premises of defe TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) -5- - no.1. It was observed that after completion of the work, the plaintiff submitted its no.1. It was observed that after completion of the work, the plaintiff submitted its no.1. It was observed that after completion of the work, the plaintiff submitted its no.1. It was observed that after completion of the work, the plaintiff submitted its final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14). On appreciation of the record, the court held final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14). On appreciation of the record, the court held final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14). On appreciation of the record, the court held final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14). On appreciation of the record, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of ₹23,71,864/- from the defendant defendants on account of the said final bill. on account of the said final bill. 15. It was further noticed that the execution of the works by the plaintiff It was further noticed that the execution of the works by the plaintiff It was further noticed that the execution of the works by the plaintiff It was further noticed that the execution of the works by the plaintiff stood admitted, and the defendants had in fact benefited from such works. stood admitted, and the defendants had in fact benefited from such works. stood admitted, and the defendants had in fact benefited from such works. stood admitted, and the defendants had in fact benefited from such works. hat the plaintiff had successfully proved its claim to the Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff had successfully proved its claim to the hat the plaintiff had successfully proved its claim to the Therefore, the court held t extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the suit against defendants against defendants. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court: Findings of the 16. ciding the appeal The learned Additional District Judge, while deciding the appeal The learned Additional District Judge, while de The learned Additional District Judge, while de preferred by appellant/ defendant no.1, examined in detail the grounds raised. The appellant/defendant no.1, examined in detail the grounds raised. The defendant no.1, examined in detail the grounds raised. The principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for a suit mandatory injunction was not maintainable and that the proper remedy was a suit mandatory injunction was not maintainable and that the proper remedy was mandatory injunction was not maintainable and that the proper remedy was for recovery. The appellate court, however, held that the court is not bound by the for recovery. The appellate court, however, held that the court is not bound by the for recovery. The appellate court, however, held that the court is not bound by the for recovery. The appellate court, however, held that the court is not bound by the nomenclature of the relief claimed and is required to decide the matter on the basis nomenclature of the relief claimed and is required to decide the matter on the basis nomenclature of the relief claimed and is required to decide the matter on the basis nomenclature of the relief claimed and is required to decide the matter on the basis With regard to the objection that the plaintiff ought to With regard to the objection that the plaintiff ought of pleadings and evidence. With regard to the objection that the plaintiff ought of pleadings and evidence. have filed a suit for recovery and paid ad valorem court fee, the appellate court have filed a suit for recovery and paid ad valorem court fee, the appellate court have filed a suit for recovery and paid ad valorem court fee, the appellate court have filed a suit for recovery and paid ad valorem court fee, the appellate court held that although in practice suits for injunction are sometimes filed to save court held that although in practice suits for injunction are sometimes filed to save court held that although in practice suits for injunction are sometimes filed to save court held that although in practice suits for injunction are sometimes filed to save court fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the payment of court fees. It was efendants had not raised any such plea of non-payment of court fees. It was efendants had not raised any such plea of non defendants had not raised any such plea of non clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief based on facts proved. based on facts proved. 17. On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been ₹37.35 lakhs otted the work vide job order dated 26.05.2012 (Ex. P1) valuing ₹37.35 lakhs otted the work vide job order dated 26.05.2012 (Ex. P1) valuing allotted the work vide job order dated 26.05.2012 (Ex. P1) valuing TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) -6- - ₹36.88 lakhs for plumbing and sanitary works. The for fire suppression and ₹36.88 lakhs for plumbing and sanitary works. The ₹36.88 lakhs for plumbing and sanitary works. The for fire suppression and defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, uced changes in specifications, including replacing Hindware and thereafter introduced changes in specifications, including replacing Hindware uced changes in specifications, including replacing Hindware and thereafter introd with Jaguar fixtures. Emails and communications placed on record (Exs. P2, P3, with Jaguar fixtures. Emails and communications placed on record (Exs. P2, P3, with Jaguar fixtures. Emails and communications placed on record (Exs. P2, P3, with Jaguar fixtures. Emails and communications placed on record (Exs. P2, P3, P5, P9, P10, P11, etc.) showed that such changes and delays were attributable to P5, P9, P10, P11, etc.) showed that such changes and delays were attributable to P5, P9, P10, P11, etc.) showed that such changes and delays were attributable to P5, P9, P10, P11, etc.) showed that such changes and delays were attributable to f. It was also noticed that the plaintiff had the defendants and not the plaintiff. It was also noticed that the plaintiff had f. It was also noticed that the plaintiff had the defendants and not the plaintif completed the installation work and raised the final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14) completed the installation work and raised the final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14) completed the installation work and raised the final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14) completed the installation work and raised the final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14) ₹82,05,964.28, supported by legal notice Ex. P17, but the same remained for ₹82,05,964.28, supported by legal notice Ex. P17, but the same remained ₹82,05,964.28, supported by legal notice Ex. P17, but the same remained ₹82,05,964.28, supported by legal notice Ex. P17, but the same remained unpaid. 18. rejected the plea that the plaintiff was negligent The Appellate Court rejected the plea that the plaintiff was negligent rejected the plea that the plaintiff was negligent The or that the CVSL company was responsible, holding that no such agreement or that the CVSL company was responsible, holding that no such agreement or that the CVSL company was responsible, holding that no such agreement or that the CVSL company was responsible, holding that no such agreement regarding CVSL had ever been initiated by either party. It was also noticed that the regarding CVSL had ever been initiated by either party. It was also noticed that the regarding CVSL had ever been initiated by either party. It was also noticed that the regarding CVSL had ever been initiated by either party. It was also noticed that the ents caused due to unfit defendants themselves had acknowledged impediments caused due to unfit defendants themselves had acknowledged impedim defendants themselves had acknowledged impedim condition of the premises and had even tendered apology (Ex. P9). The changes in condition of the premises and had even tendered apology (Ex. P9). The changes in condition of the premises and had even tendered apology (Ex. P9). The changes in condition of the premises and had even tendered apology (Ex. P9). The changes in brand from Hindware to Jaguar, and the subsequent approvals, were proved by brand from Hindware to Jaguar, and the subsequent approvals, were proved by brand from Hindware to Jaguar, and the subsequent approvals, were proved by brand from Hindware to Jaguar, and the subsequent approvals, were proved by emails, and delay caused thereby could not be attributed to the plaintiff. emails, and delay caused thereby could not be attributed to the plaintiff. emails, and delay caused thereby could not be attributed to the plaintiff. 19. ourt also disbelieved reliance placed on the “Memorandum of The Court also disbelieved reliance placed on the “Memorandum of ourt also disbelieved reliance placed on the “Memorandum of The C Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013 (Ex. P16) by the defendants, noting that Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013 (Ex. P16) by the defendants, noting that Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013 (Ex. P16) by the defendants, noting that Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013 (Ex. P16) by the defendants, noting that the same was never accepted by the plaintiff and did not explain the breakup of the the same was never accepted by the plaintiff and did not explain the breakup of the the same was never accepted by the plaintiff and did not explain the breakup of the the same was never accepted by the plaintiff and did not explain the breakup of the total claim. It was further observed that defendant no.1, in cross total claim. It was examination, further observed that defendant no.1, in cross-examination, ₹60 lakhs, but could not explain admitted having made payments of only about ₹60 lakhs, but could not explain admitted having made payments of only about admitted having made payments of only about how this amount was adjusted against the total claim. how this amount was adjusted against the total claim. how this amount was adjusted against the total claim. 20. llegality in Consequently, the appellate court found no irregularity or illegality in Consequently, the appellate court found no irregularity or i Consequently, the appellate court found no irregularity or i the findings of the trial court. The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and the findings of the trial court. The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and the findings of the trial court. The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and the findings of the trial court. The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) -7- - dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were affirmed. 21. numbered Regular Second Appeals have Feeling aggrieved, the above-numbered Regular Second Appeals have numbered Regular Second Appeals have Feeling aggrieved been preferred. 22. Upon notice, respondents have contested the appeals. Upon notice, respondents have contested the appeals. Upon notice, respondents have contested the appeals. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: 23.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended plaintiff for mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended that the plaintiff’s claim was essentially for recovery of money, and under Section that the plaintiff’s claim was essentially for recovery of money, and under Section that the plaintiff’s claim was essentially for recovery of money, and under Section that the plaintiff’s claim was essentially for recovery of money, and under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for injunction cannot be maintained 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for injunction cannot be maintained 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for injunction cannot be maintained 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for injunction cannot be maintained cious remedy of recovery is available. Reliance was placed when an equally efficacious remedy of recovery is available. Reliance was placed cious remedy of recovery is available. Reliance was placed when an equally effica State of U.P. and another v. on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and another v. on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in , wherein it was held that where Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876, wherein it was held that where Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876 Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876 es, the remedy of injunction is barred. It the claim is for recovery of contractual dues, the remedy of injunction is barred. It es, the remedy of injunction is barred. It the claim is for recovery of contractual du was argued that therefore, irrespective of court fee paid, the suit as framed was was argued that therefore, irrespective of court fee paid, the suit as framed was was argued that therefore, irrespective of court fee paid, the suit as framed was was argued that therefore, irrespective of court fee paid, the suit as framed was incompetent and the learned courts below erred in decreeing the same. incompetent and the learned courts below erred in decreeing the same. incompetent and the learned courts below erred in decreeing the same. 24. der of It was next contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of It was next contended that the suit was bad for non It was next contended that the suit was bad for non necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master contractor and the principal party to the transaction. Instead, the plaintiff wrongly contractor and the principal party to the transaction. Instead, the plaintiff wrongly contractor and the principal party to the transaction. Instead, the plaintiff wrongly contractor and the principal party to the transaction. Instead, the plaintiff wrongly impleaded M/s MGF Toyota Showroom, which was neither a real nor juristic impleaded M/s MGF Toyota Showroom, which was neither a real nor juristic impleaded M/s MGF Toyota Showroom, which was neither a real nor juristic impleaded M/s MGF Toyota Showroom, which was neither a real nor juristic as urged that CVSL being the main contractor was a necessary party, entity. It was urged that CVSL being the main contractor was a necessary party, as urged that CVSL being the main contractor was a necessary party, as urged that CVSL being the main contractor was a necessary party, without whom no effective decree could be passed. Reliance was placed on the law without whom no effective decree could be passed. Reliance was placed on the law without whom no effective decree could be passed. Reliance was placed on the law without whom no effective decree could be passed. Reliance was placed on the law