Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) No. 385/26
Design Phi Studio Through Its Proprietor Wasim Ahmed
Vs. Dr Kashish Kulshreshthra Alias Nidhi Alias Khushi
CNR NO. DLCT01-005531-2026
22.09.2026
Present: Sh. Nasir Ahmed Ld. Counsel for plaintiff (through
VC).
Sh. Loveli Tyagi Ld. Counsel for defendant (through
VC).
1 By this order, I shall dispose of the application
u/o.39 rule 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff.
2 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiff are that
plaintiff is a proprietorship firm and engaged in the
services of interior designing, architecture and
renovation works etc. Defendants approached the
plaintiff for the renovation of their clinic. On
27.07.2025 a meeting was held between the parties
at the office of the plaintiff at their ITO office New
Delhi. On 30.07.2025, plaintiff gave a quotation of
Rs.8,72,455/-. It was agreed that in case, if any,
there any additional work, the defendants will pay
the same separately. GST was payable by the
defendants. Plaintiff started work at site on
02.08.2025 and completed the same and handed
-- 1 of 4 --
over the site to the defendant on 15.10.2025. Some
extra work was done and the total final bill was
Rs.11,54,240/-. Defendants have paid only
Rs.8,05,000/-. Rs.3,49,240/- as principal along with
interest is still pending. The suit is filed for the
recovery of this amount along with interest @24%
per annum from 15.10.2025 till the date of payment.
3 In the written statement (though not necessary for
the disposal of this application), the defendants
stated that no work is done in Delhi. So, this court
does not have any jurisdiction. The entire work is
done in Ghaziabad, UP. Plaintiff left the work
unfinished and the same was got completed from
Mr. Monish Saifi of M/s Monish Wood Work.
Defendant had to further pay Rs.1.95 lakhs. Since
there was a delay in the completion of work,
defendant had to further bear a monthly rent of
Rs.38,000/-. Even some furniture was not supplied
by the plaintiff.
4 In replication, plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the
facts of the plaint and denied those of written
statement.
-- 2 of 4 --
5 In this application u/o.39 rule 1 & 2 CPC, the plaintiff
has reiterated the facts of the plaint and further
stated that defendants become dishonest and they
are denying the payment of balance amount by
making false allegations against the applicant/
plaintiff. Applicant/plaintiff has full apprehension
that to avoid the payment, defendants can make
alteration in the work already done by the
applicant/plaintiff. Due to this reason, ex-parte ad-
interim stay restraining the defendant not to make
any alteration in the interior/renovation work already
done in the clinic of the defendant namely
“Roopantaran Clinic” situated at 331, 1st Floor,
Shakti Khand-10 at Indrapuram, Ghaziabad,
UP-201014 be granted.
6 In reply to this application, the defendant had
narrated the facts of the written statement. It is
stated that there is no prima facie case in favour of
plaintiff. There is no balance of convenience in
favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff shall not suffer
irreparable loss.
-- 3 of 4 --
7 I have gone through the pleadings, material on
record, the application and submissions forwarded
by Ld. Counsels for parties.
8 Admittedly, the plaintiff had filed the present suit on
the basis of the invoices raised due to the work
done by it/him for the defendant. It is not the case
of the defendant that it has any interest in the said
clinic. So, in these circumstances, there is no prima
facie case in favour of plaintiff as it has no interest in
the said clinic.
9 So, in these circumstances, no ground exists for any
stay as sought by the plaintiff. The application
u/o.39 rule 1 & 2 CPC is hereby dismissed. Nothing
express shall be considered as expression on the
merits of the case.
10 Put up for further proceedings and consideration on
05.10.2026.
(Rakesh Pandit)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01/
South/Saket Courts/Delhi/22.09.2026
(Earlier District Judge (COMM)-13) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi)
-- 4 of 4 --