Delhi High Court – Orders
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Rajesh Gupta on 1 April, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 877/2024, CM APPL. 73121/2024
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath ( Standing counsel
for MCD) Mr. Aman Khan (adv).
versus
RAJESH GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 01.04.2026
CM APPL. 73122/2024 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with
Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Appellant seeking Condonation of Delay
in filing the Appeal)
1. An Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking
Condonation of 293 days’ delay in filing the present Appeal.
2. It is submitted in the Application that the Appeal has been preferred
on 26.11.2024 to assail the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2023 on the
ground that the Appellant MCD is a Government Organization, wherein for
filing an Appeal procedural formalities inherent to a Government
Organization have to be complied with. The permissions are required to be
taken from multiple Departments and the approval process involves
compliance with an established hierarchical procedures, which necessitate
additional time. Further, even finalizing of any pleadings including Appeal,
Writ, Counter-Affidavit of such commercial nature also taken procedural
time as the same goes through various approvals. The present issue pertains
to the period prior to the year 2000. Therefore, tracing out exact file and
records was difficult and a time consuming process. The present Suit
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 21:40:57
pertains to the year 1999 and during the same time MCD was a unified
Department. However, in the year 2012 it was trifurcated into three
different Departments. The issue in question came under the jurisdiction of
NDMC when the Suit was filed. However, later in the year 2022 the MCD
was again unified into one municipality. Therefore, tracing out of records
and verifying the same took some more time than expected. In the process
delay of 293 days’ taken place. A prayer is, therefore, made that the delay
be condoned.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has vehemently opposed the
Application and has submitted that it is nothing but a standard response of
the Appellant, a Government Organization to firstly not work with expected
expediency and thereafter come up with the stale same plea of the
procedural delays and the hierarchical permissions that are required to be
taken. It is submitted that there is no merit in the Application which is liable
to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently contended that it
was a case pertaining to Bills of 1999 while the Suit has been filed in the
year 2012. Serious issues of limitation are involved and the Appellant
should not be non-suited on the technical ground of delay of Appeal.
5. In the light of the submissions made, though it is difficult to decipher
even a slightest reason for condonation of delay, but considering the
submissions made, the Application is allowed.
6. The Application stands disposed of accordingly.
RFA 877/2024
7. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2023
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 21:40:57
whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff has been decreed in the sum of
Rs.3,84,710/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from 04.09.2012 till the
date of realization.
8. The facts in brief as stated by the Plaintiff in his Suit for Recovery
was that it was a Contractor who had been engaged by the Appellant MCD
vide Work Order dated 14.01.1999. The Plaintiff successfully completed
the work to the satisfaction of MCD and raised three Bills totaling
Rs.3,84,710/-. The Bills were duly passed by the Accounts Section of the
Defendant and the payment was approved. However, before realization of
the payment, certain CBI inquiry regarding RR cases of Division III. CBI
took the records of various works of the Defendant and thus, the payment
could not be cleared. In April 2010, concerned official advised the
Department to obtain approval from Competent Authority to release the
payments to the Contractor including that of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff thus,
sent the Legal Notices dated 30.08.2011 and 15.09.2011 to the Defendant
despite which there was no compliance. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the Suit
for Recovery of Rs.3,84,710/- along with interest @12% per annum.
9. The Defendant/Appellant in its Written Statement took a
Preliminary Objection that the Suit is not maintainable as after bifurcation of
MCD in three parts in April-May 2012 it is not one entity. Further,
preliminary objection was taken that no legal and valid Notice under Section
477/478 of DMC Act was served upon the Defendant. Furthermore, it was
claimed that averments made in the Plaint were vague and did not disclose
any cause of action. Furthermore, the Suit was barred by limitation as the
alleged work was completed in the year 1999 while the Suit had been filed
in the 2012. On merits, it was stated that vide RC-57(A)/2003-DLI under
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 21:40:57
Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC certain matters relating to RR
cut including the work of the Plaintiff came under direct investigation of
CBI and thus, the Bills of the Plaintiff were put on hold. Because the
Accounts of the Plaintiff were seized by the CBI and therefore, the Bills of
the Plaintiff could not be cleared.
10. On the pleadings Issues were framed on 03.05.2017 as under :
(i) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for recovery of
suit amount? OPP
(ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable against the
defendant on account of bifurcation of MCD in 2012?
OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
OPD
(iv) Relief.
11. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1.
12. The Defendant despite being given an opportunity failed to adduce
any evidence and the DE was closed on 25.05.2023.
13. The learned District Judge vide the impugned Judgment decided that
the issue on limitation in favour of the Plaintiff and on merits decree the Suit
in the sum of Rs.3,84,710/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from
04.09.2012 till the date of realization.
14. The learned counsel for the Appellant has essentially agitated that the
Suit pertained to the Bills of the year 1999 and was patently barred by
limitation when filed in the year 2012. Therefore, the impugned judgment
be set aside.
Submissions heard and record perused.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 21:40:57
15. The issue of limitation has been decided by the learned District Judge
by observing that though the Bills had been approved in the year 1999, but
as per the submissions of the Appellant MCD itself the records were seized
by the CBI and the Bills could not be cleared. The Plaintiff had filed an RTI
dated 30.07.2012 Ex.PW1/14, wherein it was clearly stated that the Bill of
Rs.3,84,710/- had not been cleared and as per the Letter dated 25.08.2011 of
the Accounts Department, S.P Zone, the liability was still pending and
payable by MCD. In the Reply Ex.PW1/15 given in response to RTI it was
clearly stated that the list of outstanding Bills (R/R cut) issued on
25.08.2011 Ex.PW1/13 was payable to the Contractor and were kept
pending on account of CBI investigation. These Letters clearly
acknowledged the outstanding amount due to the Plaintiff. In terms of
Section 25(3) Contract Act it amounts to a fresh contract and, therefore, it
was held that the Suit was not barred by limitation.
16. The issue of limitation has been decided by the learned District Judge
in accordance with law and does not merit any interference.
17. There is no merit in the present Appeal which is hereby dismissed.
18. It is submitted that the Decretal amount has already been deposited
with the learned Registrar General of this Court, which be released to the
Respondent/Plaintiff.
19. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly along with the pending
Application(s).
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
APRIL 01, 2026/va
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 21:40:57
