RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. RSA-2734-2024 M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions 2. RSA-2224-2025 Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate with Mr. J.S.Sohal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Ms. Sanya Shangari, Advocates for respondent No.2. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. The above 2024 and RSA 2. RSA Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Reserved on: Date of Decision : 2024 (O&M) M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions and Another 2025 (O&M) Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. VERSUS M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions and Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate with Mr. J.S.Sohal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Ms. Sanya Shangari, Advocates for respondent No.2. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. The above-mentioned two Regular Second Appeals RSA-2224-2025 shall stand dispose of by this common judgment. RSA-2734-2024 has been filed by the appellant/defendant Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. against the respondents/plaintiff Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:-05.09.2025 Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 ....Appellant ....Respondents ....Appellant ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate with Mr. J.S.Sohal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Ms. Sanya Shangari, Advocates Regular Second Appeals i.e. RSA-2734 shall stand dispose of by this common judgment. filed by the appellant/defendant No.1-M/s inst the respondents/plaintiff-M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and - 2734- M/s M/s Bitureks Fire 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 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) defendant No.2- the appellant/defendant No.2 mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom) Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and defendant concurrent findings of the learned trial whereby the suit of the plaintiff injunction was decreed Ltd. was dismissed Brief Facts 3. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that defendant No.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 defendant No.2 vide work order dated 26.05.2012. The value of the work was fixed at ₹37,35,404 and sanitary works. 4. It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of Hindware and provi 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. 5. The plaintiff completed the work and raised a fi 19.03.2013 for system and ₹30,05,975/ defendants paid a total of 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) -M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., and appellant/defendant No.2-Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. ( mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom) Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, and defendant No.1-M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. concurrent findings of the learned trial Court and the whereby the suit of the plaintiff – M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions injunction was decreed and the appeal preferred was dismissed. 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 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 ₹37,35,404/- for fire suppression systems and and sanitary works. It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of Hindware and provision of additional flexible sprinkler drops which were not part 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. The plaintiff completed the work and raised a fi 19.03.2013 for ₹82,05,964.28, comprising ₹51,99,988/ ₹30,05,975/- towards plumbing and sanitary works. Out of this, the defendants paid a total of ₹58,34,000/-, leaving a balance of -2- and RSA-2224-2025 has been filed by Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. (alleged to be wrongly mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom) against respondents/plaintiff-M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd., challenging the ourt and the Lower Appellate Court M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions for mandatory and the appeal preferred by M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. 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 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 for fire suppression systems and ₹36,88,225/- for plumbing It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of sion of additional flexible sprinkler drops which were not part 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. The plaintiff completed the work and raised a final bill dated ₹82,05,964.28, comprising ₹51,99,988/- towards fire-fighting towards plumbing and sanitary works. Out of this, the , leaving a balance of ₹27,71,964/ - filed by wrongly M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jatinder challenging the Lower Appellate Court for mandatory by M/s Modular Infratech Pvt. 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 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 for plumbing It was alleged that while the work was in progress, the defendants required certain changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in place of sion of additional flexible sprinkler drops which were not part of the original BOQ. After reminders, the revised rates for the changed items were nal bill dated fighting towards plumbing and sanitary works. Out of this, the ₹27,71,964/- TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) outstanding. The plaintiff further claimed financial loss caused due to non 6. It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice dated 19.07.2013, the defendants fai 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 unreasonable and was rejected. The delay in execution of the job, according to the plaintiff, was entirely attributable to the defendants, who had failed to hand over the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defe 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 that the suit was not maintainab proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non fee. 8. It was further pleaded that the pl failed to complete the job within the stipulated 90 days, and caused heavy losses of about ₹98 lakhs to defendant no.1, including penalties imposed by defendant no.2. The plaintiff was alleged to have inadequate resource supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. 9. Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook t 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) The plaintiff further claimed ₹5,00,000/ financial loss caused due to non-release of payment. It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice dated 19.07.2013, the defendants failed to pay. Instead, defendant 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 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 the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay ₹28,71,964/- interest at 24% per annum from the date of submission of the final bill till Defendant no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable in the form of mandatory injunction and that the proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was negligent in execution, 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. The plaintiff was alleged to have inadequate resource supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook t -3- ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for release of payment. It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice led to pay. Instead, defendant No.1 issued a 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 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 the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction (balance plus compensation) with interest at 24% per annum from the date of submission of the final bill till Defendant no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections le in the form of mandatory injunction and that the proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of proper court aintiff was negligent in execution, 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. The plaintiff was alleged to have inadequate resources and manpower, failed to supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook t - as compensation for It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, including legal notice o.1 issued a 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 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 the premises in time, altered specifications midway, and took time in finalising new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction (balance plus compensation) with interest at 24% per annum from the date of submission of the final bill till Defendant no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections le in the form of mandatory injunction and that the proper remedy was a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint was payment of proper court aintiff was negligent in execution, 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. s and manpower, failed to supply materials in time, and repeatedly defaulted despite meetings and reminders. Defendant no.1 relied upon correspondence between the parties, including minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertook to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) complete jobs by 10.01.2013, but failed to do so. defendant No.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more than 60 unfinished jobs. It was further pleaded that due to laps defendant No.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the bills, while restricting the plaintiff at places onl No.1 also pleaded that it had to pay a penalty of lakhs on account of inco caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was accordingly prayed for. 10. Defendant N the proceedings despite servic 11. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the plaint and denying the allegation 12. From the pleadings of the parties, the lea following issues: 1. injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. 3. 13. Both the parties led Findings of the Trial Court: 14. The oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm had duly carried out the installation of the fire sanitary works in the premises of defe 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) complete jobs by 10.01.2013, but failed to do so. o.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more than 60 unfinished jobs. It was further pleaded that due to laps o.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the bills, while restricting the plaintiff at places onl o.1 also pleaded that it had to pay a penalty of lakhs on account of incomplete job and ₹47 lakhs for delay), which loss was caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was accordingly prayed for. Defendant No.2, namely M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not contest the proceedings despite service of notice and was proceeded against ex parte. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the plaint and denying the allegations made in the written statement of defendant No.1. From the pleadings of the parties, the lea following issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Relief. Both the parties led the evidence in Findings of the Trial Court: The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm had duly carried out the installation of the fire- sanitary works in the premises of defendant no.2 on the instructions of defendant -4- complete jobs by 10.01.2013, but failed to do so. It is further submitted that o.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more than 60 unfinished jobs. It was further pleaded that due to lapses of the plaintiff, o.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the bills, while restricting the plaintiff at places only to labour charges. Defendant o.1 also pleaded that it had to pay a penalty of ₹77 lakhs to defendant no.2 (₹30 ₹47 lakhs for delay), which loss was caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was o.2, namely M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not contest e of notice and was proceeded against ex parte. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the s made in the written statement of defendant No.1. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD the evidence in support of their case. ourt, after hearing the parties and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm -fighting system and plumbing and ndant no.2 on the instructions of defendant - It is further submitted that o.2 also addressed communication dated 18.01.2013 pointing out more es of the plaintiff, o.2 procured certain items directly and deducted amounts from the y to labour charges. Defendant ₹77 lakhs to defendant no.2 (₹30 ₹47 lakhs for delay), which loss was caused solely by the plaintiff’s defaults. Dismissal of the suit with costs was o.2, namely M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not contest Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the s made in the written statement of defendant No.1. rned trial court framed the Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD ourt, after hearing the parties and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm fighting system and plumbing and ndant no.2 on the instructions of defendant TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) 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 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on account of the said final bill. 15. 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. Therefore, the court held t extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the suit against defendants Findings of the 16. The learned Additional District Judge, while de preferred by appellant/ principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for 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 nomenclature of the relief claimed and is required to decide the matter on the basis of pleadings and evidence. 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 fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the defendants had not raised any such plea of non clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief based on facts proved. 17. On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been allotted the work vide job order dated 26.05.2012 (Ex. P1) valuing 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) 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 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of on account of the said final bill. 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. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff had successfully proved its claim to the extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the against defendants. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court: The learned Additional District Judge, while de appellant/defendant no.1, examined in detail the grounds raised. The principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for 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 nomenclature of the relief claimed and is required to decide the matter on the basis of pleadings and evidence. With regard to the objection that the plaintiff ought 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 fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the efendants had not raised any such plea of non clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief based on facts proved. On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been otted the work vide job order dated 26.05.2012 (Ex. P1) valuing -5- 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 a sum of ₹23,71,864/- from the defendant 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. hat the plaintiff had successfully proved its claim to the extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the The learned Additional District Judge, while deciding the appeal defendant no.1, examined in detail the grounds raised. The principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction was not maintainable and that the proper remedy was a suit 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 With regard to the objection that the plaintiff ought 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 fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the efendants had not raised any such plea of non-payment of court fees. It was clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been otted the work vide job order dated 26.05.2012 (Ex. P1) valuing ₹37.35 lakhs - 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 defendants 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. hat the plaintiff had successfully proved its claim to the extent of the amount claimed towards the final bill, and accordingly decreed the ciding the appeal defendant no.1, examined in detail the grounds raised. The principal contention of the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff for a suit 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 With regard to the objection that the plaintiff ought to 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 fees, in the present case the plaintiff had paid court fees, and in any event, the payment of court fees. It was clarified that the court is not bound by mere nomenclature and may mould relief On appraisal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff had been ₹37.35 lakhs TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) for fire suppression and defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, and thereafter introd 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 the defendants and not the plaintif completed the installation work and raised the final bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P14) for ₹82,05,964.28, supported by legal notice Ex. P17, but the same remained unpaid. 18. The 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 defendants themselves had acknowledged impedim 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 emails, and delay caused thereby could not be attributed to the plaintiff. 19. The C 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 total claim. It was admitted having made payments of only about how this amount was adjusted against the total claim. 20. 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 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) for fire suppression and ₹36.88 lakhs for plumbing and sanitary works. The defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, and thereafter introduced changes in specifications, including replacing Hindware 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 the defendants and not the plaintiff. It was also noticed that the plaintiff had 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 The Appellate Court rejected the plea that the plaintiff was negligent 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 defendants themselves had acknowledged impedim 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 emails, and delay caused thereby could not be attributed to the plaintiff. The Court also disbelieved reliance placed on the “Memorandum of 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 total claim. It was further observed that defendant no.1, in cross admitted having made payments of only about how this amount was adjusted against the total claim. 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 -6- ₹36.88 lakhs for plumbing and sanitary works. The defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, uced changes in specifications, including replacing Hindware 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 f. It was also noticed that the plaintiff had 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 rejected the plea that the plaintiff was negligent 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 defendants themselves had acknowledged impediments caused due to unfit 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 emails, and delay caused thereby could not be attributed to the plaintiff. ourt also disbelieved reliance placed on the “Memorandum of 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 further observed that defendant no.1, in cross-examination, admitted having made payments of only about ₹60 lakhs, but could not explain how this amount was adjusted against the total claim. Consequently, the appellate court found no irregularity or illegality in the findings of the trial court. The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and - ₹36.88 lakhs for plumbing and sanitary works. The defendants had delayed handing over the premises in a fit condition for execution, uced changes in specifications, including replacing Hindware 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 f. It was also noticed that the plaintiff had 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 rejected the plea that the plaintiff was negligent 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 ents caused due to unfit 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 ourt also disbelieved reliance placed on the “Memorandum of 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 examination, ₹60 lakhs, but could not explain llegality in 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 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were affirmed. 21. Feeling aggrieved been preferred. 22. Upon notice, respondents have contested the appeals. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended 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 when an equally effica on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876 the claim is for recovery of contractual du 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. 24. It was next contended that the suit was bad for non necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master 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 entity. It was 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 laid down in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733, reiterated by the Hon’ble Su 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were Feeling aggrieved, the above-numbered Regular Second Appeals have Upon notice, respondents have contested the appeals. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended 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 when an equally efficacious remedy of recovery is available. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876 the claim is for recovery of contractual dues, the remedy of injunction is barred. It 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. It was next contended that the suit was bad for non necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master 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 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 Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733, y the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan v. -7- dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were numbered Regular Second Appeals have Upon notice, respondents have contested the appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended 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 cious remedy of recovery is available. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and another v. Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876, wherein it was held that where es, the remedy of injunction is barred. It 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. It was next contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master 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 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 Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733, and further Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan v. - dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.03.2018 were numbered Regular Second Appeals have Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was contended 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 cious remedy of recovery is available. Reliance was placed State of U.P. and another v. , wherein it was held that where es, the remedy of injunction is barred. It was argued that therefore, irrespective of court fee paid, the suit as framed was der of necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to implead CVSL, which was the master 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 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 and further Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan v. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) 27.09.2011. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents: 25. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the objection of maintainability raised by the appellant is without merit. It was contended that once the plaintiff had duly affixed ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed, the mere description of the relief as one of “mandatory injunction” instead of “recovery” could law is well settled that the court is not to be guided merely by the form of the relief but by the substance of the pleadings and cause of action. 26. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab an Haryana High Court in another, RSA No. 3297 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2018 although technically a suit for recovery would be the proper remedy, yet where the plaintiff has affixed ad valorem court fee, the mere nomenclature of the suit as one for injunction does not render it incompetent. It was observed that once the court fee has been paid, a technical misdescription cannot defeat substantive rights. 27. Counsel further reli 332 and Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58 contend that the court has wide discretion to mould relief to do complete justice, and misdescription of the relief cannot nullify an othe 28. It was through evidence that work was executed and the final bill remained unpaid, the decree granted by the courts below was just and proper, and could not be set aside on the hyper-technical ground of maintainability. 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) C.A No.5755/5756 of 2011, decided on Submissions on behalf of the Respondents: Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the maintainability raised by the appellant is without merit. It was contended that once the plaintiff had duly affixed ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed, the mere description of the relief as one of “mandatory injunction” instead of “recovery” could not defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The law is well settled that the court is not to be guided merely by the form of the relief but by the substance of the pleadings and cause of action. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab an Haryana High Court in Food Corporation of India and others v. Kaka Ram and another, RSA No. 3297 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2018 although technically a suit for recovery would be the proper remedy, yet where the ixed ad valorem court fee, the mere nomenclature of the suit as one for injunction does not render it incompetent. It was observed that once the court fee has been paid, a technical misdescription cannot defeat substantive rights. Counsel further relied on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC 332 and Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58 contend that the court has wide discretion to mould relief to do complete justice, and misdescription of the relief cannot nullify an othe It was further submitted that since the plaintiff had established through evidence that work was executed and the final bill remained unpaid, the decree granted by the courts below was just and proper, and could not be set aside technical ground of maintainability. -8- C.A No.5755/5756 of 2011, decided on Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the maintainability raised by the appellant is without merit. It was contended that once the plaintiff had duly affixed ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed, the mere description of the relief as one of “mandatory not defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The law is well settled that the court is not to be guided merely by the form of the relief but by the substance of the pleadings and cause of action. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab an Food Corporation of India and others v. Kaka Ram and another, RSA No. 3297 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2018, wherein it was held that although technically a suit for recovery would be the proper remedy, yet where the ixed ad valorem court fee, the mere nomenclature of the suit as one for injunction does not render it incompetent. It was observed that once the court fee has been paid, a technical misdescription cannot defeat substantive rights. Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC 332 and Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58, to contend that the court has wide discretion to mould relief to do complete justice, and misdescription of the relief cannot nullify an otherwise valid claim. submitted that since the plaintiff had established through evidence that work was executed and the final bill remained unpaid, the decree granted by the courts below was just and proper, and could not be set aside technical ground of maintainability. - C.A No.5755/5756 of 2011, decided on Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the maintainability raised by the appellant is without merit. It was contended that once the plaintiff had duly affixed ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed, the mere description of the relief as one of “mandatory not defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The law is well settled that the court is not to be guided merely by the form of the relief Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Food Corporation of India and others v. Kaka Ram and , wherein it was held that although technically a suit for recovery would be the proper remedy, yet where the ixed ad valorem court fee, the mere nomenclature of the suit as one for injunction does not render it incompetent. It was observed that once the court Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC , to contend that the court has wide discretion to mould relief to do complete justice, submitted that since the plaintiff had established through evidence that work was executed and the final bill remained unpaid, the decree granted by the courts below was just and proper, and could not be set aside TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) Findings of this Court 29. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for determination in this RSA: Maintainability of the Suit (Injunction v. Recovery): 30. The appellant’s strongest objection rests upon the contention that the suit was not maintainable as framed, since an injunction cannot be granted where an equally efficacious remedy of recovery exists, in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. R 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876 seeking recovery of contractual dues cannot disguise such relief as one for injunction. That judgment indeed laid down money under a contract, injunction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy of a recovery suit. 31. However, the reliance on this judgment is mi case. The plaintiff herein did not attempt to evade his obligation of court fee or disguise the claim. Rather, he affixed full ad valorem court fee on the claim amount of ₹23,71,964/ Punjab & Haryana High Court, in 3297 of 2017), has dealt with an identical objection and held that once proper court fee is paid, a mere misdescription of the relief as “mandatory injunction” does not render the suit non is not shackled by nomenclature, but must mould relief in accordance with the pleadings and evidence. 32. Therefore, while the principle in governs cases where injunction is invoked to bypass recovery proceedings, in the 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Findings of this Court After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for determination in this RSA: Maintainability of the Suit (Injunction v. Recovery): The appellant’s strongest objection rests upon the contention that the suit was not maintainable as framed, since an injunction cannot be granted where an equally efficacious remedy of recovery exists, in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876, where the Allahabad High Court held that a plaintiff seeking recovery of contractual dues cannot disguise such relief as one for That judgment indeed laid down that where the real relief is recovery of money under a contract, injunction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy of a recovery suit. However, the reliance on this judgment is mi case. The plaintiff herein did not attempt to evade his obligation of court fee or disguise the claim. Rather, he affixed full ad valorem court fee on the claim ₹23,71,964/-, which is precisely the fee payable for a recover Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Food Corporation of India v. Kaka Ram (RSA , has dealt with an identical objection and held that once proper court fee is paid, a mere misdescription of the relief as “mandatory injunction” does not render the suit non-maintainable. The coordinate bench emphasized that the Court is not shackled by nomenclature, but must mould relief in accordance with the pleadings and evidence. Therefore, while the principle in Tara Singh Jaiswa governs cases where injunction is invoked to bypass recovery proceedings, in the -9- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following points Maintainability of the Suit (Injunction v. Recovery): The appellant’s strongest objection rests upon the contention that the suit was not maintainable as framed, since an injunction cannot be granted where an equally efficacious remedy of recovery exists, in view of Section 41(h) of the State of U.P. v. Tara Singh Jaiswal, , where the Allahabad High Court held that a plaintiff seeking recovery of contractual dues cannot disguise such relief as one for that where the real relief is recovery of money under a contract, injunction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy of a recovery suit. However, the reliance on this judgment is misplaced in the present case. The plaintiff herein did not attempt to evade his obligation of court fee or disguise the claim. Rather, he affixed full ad valorem court fee on the claim , which is precisely the fee payable for a recovery suit. The Food Corporation of India v. Kaka Ram (RSA , has dealt with an identical objection and held that once proper court fee is paid, a mere misdescription of the relief as “mandatory injunction” does not maintainable. The coordinate bench emphasized that the Court is not shackled by nomenclature, but must mould relief in accordance with the Tara Singh Jaiswal’s case (supra) governs cases where injunction is invoked to bypass recovery proceedings, in the - After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following points The appellant’s strongest objection rests upon the contention that the suit was not maintainable as framed, since an injunction cannot be granted where an equally efficacious remedy of recovery exists, in view of Section 41(h) of the State of U.P. v. Tara Singh Jaiswal, , where the Allahabad High Court held that a plaintiff seeking recovery of contractual dues cannot disguise such relief as one for that where the real relief is recovery of money under a contract, injunction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific splaced in the present case. The plaintiff herein did not attempt to evade his obligation of court fee or disguise the claim. Rather, he affixed full ad valorem court fee on the claim y suit. The Food Corporation of India v. Kaka Ram (RSA , has dealt with an identical objection and held that once proper court fee is paid, a mere misdescription of the relief as “mandatory injunction” does not maintainable. The coordinate bench emphasized that the Court is not shackled by nomenclature, but must mould relief in accordance with the l’s case (supra) governs cases where injunction is invoked to bypass recovery proceedings, in the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) facts at hand the plaintiff has complied with all substantive requirements, including payment of the requisite court fee. The ratio of direct decision of this Court, is fully applicable. Hence, the suit is maintainable. 33. In the present case, the pleadings, the evidence led, and the documents produced all clearly establish that the plaintiff executed the works, raised its bill, and remained u styled differently, the courts below rightly moulded the relief to do complete justice. The objection of maintainability therefore fails. 2. Exhibit P-14 (Final Bill or Summary): 34. Regarding Bill Ex.P counsel for the appellant, Ex.P value as follows: • Fire • Plumbing & sanitary works: • Total: • Less paid: • Balance due: 35. The appellant contends that Ex. amount” and thus cannot be relied up Court finds no force in that bears acknowledgment of receipt. Substantial payments ( admittedly made by the defendants with direct reference to Ex. P14. In cross examination, DW defendants have acted upon Ex. P14 by releasing major payments, they are estopped from disputing its character as the final operative bill. 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) facts at hand the plaintiff has complied with all substantive requirements, including payment of the requisite court fee. The ratio of decision of this Court, is fully applicable. Hence, the suit is maintainable. In the present case, the pleadings, the evidence led, and the documents produced all clearly establish that the plaintiff executed the works, raised its bill, and remained unpaid for the balance. Thus, even if the relief could have been styled differently, the courts below rightly moulded the relief to do complete justice. The objection of maintainability therefore fails. 14 (Final Bill or Summary): Regarding Bill Ex.P-14 not to be relied upon as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, Ex.P-14, dated 19.03.2013 records the total contract value as follows:- Fire-fighting system: ₹51,99,988.78 Plumbing & sanitary works: ₹30,05,975.50 tal: ₹82,05,964.28 Less paid: ₹58,34,000.00 Balance due: ₹23,71,964.28 The appellant contends that Ex.P14 was and thus cannot be relied upon to direct appellant to make payment. Court finds no force in that plea. Ex. P14 was duly served on the defendants and bears acknowledgment of receipt. Substantial payments ( admittedly made by the defendants with direct reference to Ex. P14. In cross examination, DW-1 conceded that these amounts had bee defendants have acted upon Ex. P14 by releasing major payments, they are estopped from disputing its character as the final operative bill. -10- facts at hand the plaintiff has complied with all substantive requirements, including payment of the requisite court fee. The ratio of Kaka Ram’s case (supra), being a decision of this Court, is fully applicable. Hence, the suit is maintainable. In the present case, the pleadings, the evidence led, and the documents produced all clearly establish that the plaintiff executed the works, raised its bill, npaid for the balance. Thus, even if the relief could have been styled differently, the courts below rightly moulded the relief to do complete justice. The objection of maintainability therefore fails. be relied upon as contended by learned 14, dated 19.03.2013 records the total contract ₹51,99,988.78 ₹30,05,975.50 P14 was only a “summary of bill to direct appellant to make payment. This plea. Ex. P14 was duly served on the defendants and bears acknowledgment of receipt. Substantial payments (₹58–60 lakhs) were admittedly made by the defendants with direct reference to Ex. P14. In cross 1 conceded that these amounts had been released. Once the defendants have acted upon Ex. P14 by releasing major payments, they are estopped from disputing its character as the final operative bill. - facts at hand the plaintiff has complied with all substantive requirements, including , being a In the present case, the pleadings, the evidence led, and the documents produced all clearly establish that the plaintiff executed the works, raised its bill, npaid for the balance. Thus, even if the relief could have been styled differently, the courts below rightly moulded the relief to do complete be relied upon as contended by learned 14, dated 19.03.2013 records the total contract only a “summary of bill This plea. Ex. P14 was duly served on the defendants and 60 lakhs) were admittedly made by the defendants with direct reference to Ex. P14. In cross- n released. Once the defendants have acted upon Ex. P14 by releasing major payments, they are TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) 36. Also an Settlement”) is futile, as i carries no legal force. On the contrary, the culmination of Ex. P14 coupled with part payments demonstrates beyond doubt that the balance of remained due. There is no illegality in the by the learned Lower Courts on the admissibility of Ex.P/14. 3. Liability of Defendant No.2: 37. The and defendant no.2. However, on a careful perusal that the liability cannot be extended to defendant no.2. The work order (Ex. P1) was admittedly issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. All negotiations, correspondence, and payments were made by defendant no.1 alone. Th privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. Merely because the works were executed at the premises of defendant no.2 and for its benefit, defendant no.2 cannot be saddled with direct liability in the absence of any contractual undertaking. The principle of contractual privity requires that payment liability rests solely on the party with whom the plaintiff contra defendant No.1. its name as Capital Vehic impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below making him liable to pay the decretal amount along with defendant No.1. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom instead of Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. 38. Without commenting upon the correctness of the name of defendant No.2, this Court concludes that defendant No.2 cannot be made liable to pay the 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Also an attempt to rely on Ex. P16 (“Memorandum of Final Bill Settlement”) is futile, as it was never signed or accepted by the plaintiff, and thus carries no legal force. On the contrary, the culmination of Ex. P14 coupled with part payments demonstrates beyond doubt that the balance of There is no illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Lower Courts on the admissibility of Ex.P/14. Liability of Defendant No.2: The learned trial Court decreed the suit against both defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. However, on a careful perusal that the liability cannot be extended to defendant no.2. The work order (Ex. P1) was admittedly issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. All negotiations, correspondence, and payments were made by defendant no.1 alone. Th privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. Merely because the works were executed at the premises of defendant no.2 and for its benefit, defendant no.2 cannot be saddled with direct liability in the absence of any ndertaking. The principle of contractual privity requires that payment liability rests solely on the party with whom the plaintiff contra o.1. It is relevant to mention here that defendant No.2 by mentioning its name as Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. filed RSA No.2224 impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below making him liable to pay the decretal amount along with defendant No.1. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant-Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. that its name has been wrongly mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom instead of Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. Without commenting upon the correctness of the name of defendant No.2, this Court concludes that defendant No.2 cannot be made liable to pay the -11- attempt to rely on Ex. P16 (“Memorandum of Final Bill t was never signed or accepted by the plaintiff, and thus carries no legal force. On the contrary, the culmination of Ex. P14 coupled with part payments demonstrates beyond doubt that the balance of ₹23,71,964.28 impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Lower Courts on the admissibility of Ex.P/14. ourt decreed the suit against both defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. However, on a careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the liability cannot be extended to defendant no.2. The work order (Ex. P1) was admittedly issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. All negotiations, correspondence, and payments were made by defendant no.1 alone. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. Merely because the works were executed at the premises of defendant no.2 and for its benefit, defendant no.2 cannot be saddled with direct liability in the absence of any ndertaking. The principle of contractual privity requires that payment liability rests solely on the party with whom the plaintiff contracted, namely It is relevant to mention here that defendant No.2 by mentioning les Sales Ltd. filed RSA No.2224-2025 challenging the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below making him liable to pay the decretal amount along with defendant No.1. It is further submitted on Ltd. that its name has been wrongly mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom instead of Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. Without commenting upon the correctness of the name of defendant No.2, this Court concludes that defendant No.2 cannot be made liable to pay the - attempt to rely on Ex. P16 (“Memorandum of Final Bill t was never signed or accepted by the plaintiff, and thus carries no legal force. On the contrary, the culmination of Ex. P14 coupled with ₹23,71,964.28 impugned judgments and decrees passed ourt decreed the suit against both defendant no.1 of the record, this Court finds that the liability cannot be extended to defendant no.2. The work order (Ex. P1) was admittedly issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. All negotiations, ere is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. Merely because the works were executed at the premises of defendant no.2 and for its benefit, defendant no.2 cannot be saddled with direct liability in the absence of any ndertaking. The principle of contractual privity requires that payment cted, namely It is relevant to mention here that defendant No.2 by mentioning 2025 challenging the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below making him liable to pay the decretal amount along with defendant No.1. It is further submitted on Ltd. that its name has been wrongly mentioned as M/s MGF Toyota Showroom instead of Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. Without commenting upon the correctness of the name of defendant No.2, this Court concludes that defendant No.2 cannot be made liable to pay the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2734-2024 RSA-2224-2025 (O&M) decretal amount along with defendant No.1. A defendant no.1 for the balance it fastens liability upon defendant no.2 cannot be sustained and is set aside. Conclusion: 39. The suit, though styled as one for mandatory injunction, was maintainable in substance as a recovery suit affixed. 40. Ex. defendants and acted upon by releasing part payments is due. 41. Defendant no.1 alone is liable for the decretal amount. against defendant no.2 is unsustainable and is set aside. 42. With these observations both the Appeals are partly allowed to the extent that the dated 22.03.2018 the same against defendant no.1 the sum of ₹23,71,964/ 43. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. September 09, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) decretal amount along with defendant No.1. Accordingly, while the decree against defendant no.1 for the balance sum of ₹23,71,964/ it fastens liability upon defendant no.2 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The suit, though styled as one for mandatory injunction, was maintainable in substance as a recovery suit Ex.P14 constituted the operative final bill, acknowledged by defendants and acted upon by releasing part payments Defendant no.1 alone is liable for the decretal amount. against defendant no.2 is unsustainable and is set aside. With these observations both the partly allowed to the extent that the dated 22.03.2018 and 24.04.2024 against defendant against defendant no.1-M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions, ₹23,71,964/- with interest as awarded by the courts below. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. , 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No. -12- ccordingly, while the decree against ₹23,71,964/- is upheld, the decree insofar as it fastens liability upon defendant no.2 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The suit, though styled as one for mandatory injunction, was maintainable in substance as a recovery suit since ad valorem court fee was P14 constituted the operative final bill, acknowledged by defendants and acted upon by releasing part payments, the balance of ₹23,71,964/ Defendant no.1 alone is liable for the decretal amount. The decree against defendant no.2 is unsustainable and is set aside. With these observations both the above-numbered Regular Second partly allowed to the extent that the impugned judgments and decree st defendant No.2 are set aside. However, M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions, are maintained for with interest as awarded by the courts below. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. - ccordingly, while the decree against is upheld, the decree insofar as The suit, though styled as one for mandatory injunction, was since ad valorem court fee was P14 constituted the operative final bill, acknowledged by ₹23,71,964/- The decree Regular Second decrees However, maintained for TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document