Delhi District Court
Ms. Instant Colour Scan P. Ltd vs A. D. Qureshi on 13 March, 2026
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITEN MEHRA, DISTRICT JUDGE - 10,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CS DJ NO. 614143/16
CNR NO. DLCT01-000346-2008
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S INSTANT COLOUR SCAN PVT. LTD.
Through its Director, Mr. O.S Pandey
R/o E-45/11, Ground Floor,
Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi
Also at:
Block 5, House No. 6
Charm Wood Village,
Surajkund Road, Faridabad
Haryana. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. A.D QURESHI
R/o E-45/12, Ground Floor,
Okhla Industrial Area,
New Delhi.
2. WASIM
R/o E-45/12, Ground Floor,
Okhla Industrial Area,
CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.1/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
New Delhi.
3. SUNIL PANDEY
S/o D.R Pandey
R/o B-36/44, B-2
Shakti Nagar
Nawab Ganj, Varanasi,
Uttar Pradesh. .....Defendants
Date of institution: 29.09.2008
Date on which reserved for judgment: 20.11.2025
Date of decision : 13.03.2026
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, POSSESSION AND
MESNE PROFITS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF
ACT,1963.
JUDGMENT:
1. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that the present suit had been originally filed by Mr. O.S. Pandey in his individual capacity against the defendants no.1 and 2 only and was titled as ' O.S. Pandey vs. A.D. Qureshi and Wasim'. In the said suit, Mr. O.S. Pandey had sought for possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) as well as the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants no.1 and 2. After the filing of the joint written statement by the defendants no.1 and 2, Sh. O.S. Pandey then moved an application under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to implead Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey as CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.2/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. the defendant no.3, which was allowed vide order dated 08.09.2009.
2. Thereafter, Mr. O.S. Pandey moved an application under Order VI rule 17 CPC dated 11.12.2009 seeking to amend his plaint. In the said application, it was stated that he sought to "add M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. as plaintiff through Mr. O.S. Pandey". He also sought to amend para no.14 of the plaint and the reliefs claimed to include the relief of mesne profits from the defendants. The said application of the plaintiff under Order VI rule 17 of the CPC was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2012 and the cause title of the suit was changed to 'M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.' and the plaintiff company was also substituted in place of Mr. O.S. Pandey as the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's version as per the amended plaint.
3. The plaintiff company states that it is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is running its business in the name and style of 'M/s Instant Colour Pvt. Limited' since the year 1995. The present suit has been instituted on behalf of the plaintiff company by it's Director Sh. O.S. Pandey, who CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.3/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. is duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 10.09.2009 to sign, verify and institute the present case on behalf of the plaintiff company.
4. It is stated that for running its business, the plaintiff took portion of the ground floor ad-measuring 1500 feet of the premises bearing No. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi ("Suit Property") on rent from Mr. D. R. Katyal, who represented himself as the landlord of the suit property, at a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- apart from electricity, water charges etc., as shown in the site plan Annexure- A and the suit property shown in green colour. The property No. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial , New Delhi is stated to be bound as under:
East - Factory premises No. 45/12 West - Factory Premises No. E 45/ 10 North - Road leading to Mata anandmayee Marg South - Service Lane
5. As per the plaintiff, a lease / license deed was executed between the plaintiff and Mr. D. R. Katyal in June 1995 initially for a period of 12 months in June 1995, with effect from 01.07.1995. As per the said licence deed, the license / tenancy could be further renewed after the CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.4/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. expiry of 12 months time on execution of fresh license deed by the plaintiff on an enhanced rate of license fee which was to be Rs.8,720/-.
6. That the plaintiff started paying the rent amount to Mr. D. R. Katyal in terms of the license deed till completion of its tenure as stated and after its expiry, the license was renewed for a further period of 12 months vide a fresh license deed dated 01.07.1996, which was duly executed between them. It is further stated that the plaintiff then started paying enhanced license fee @ Rs. 9,505/- per month to Mr. D. R. Katyal.
7. It is stated in paras no. 4 and 5 of the plaint that the plaintiff continued to run its business from the suit property and paid rent amount to the landlord regularly without default and even thereafter the business of the plaintiff continued uninterrupted and smoothly and profitably till August 2000 from the suit property. It is further stated that "Thereafter, the plaintiff began incurring losses in his business and was forced to join a private job in August 2002. The plaintiff then appointed Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey as caretaker / custodian of his CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.5/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. business plant and machinery etc, who took possession of the suit property as representative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also authorized Mr. Sunil Pandey to run the company with limited financial resources of his company".
8. As per the plaintiff company, Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey got married in the year 2003 at his native place in Varanasi and after his marriage, he brought his wife to Delhi and both Mr. Sunil Pandey and his wife started staying in the factory premises/suit property with the consent and permission of the plaintiff as his representative. It is stated that Mr. Sunil Pandey was having charge/custody of the entire business of the plaintiff as caretaker who had been continuously in possession of the suit property till 30.03.2008.
9. It is the case of the plaintiff company that it had been in continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted possession of the suit property against one and all from June, 1995 till 30.03.2008, when 'his' possession was illegally taken by the defendants, in a fraudulent manner, in collusion and connivance with Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey who had been acting as caretaker of 'his' business in the suit property. CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.6/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
10. It is further stated that during his official tour to Pune on 03.04.2008, the plaintiff received a call from his neighbour Mr. Santosh Tiwari who informed that one Mr. A. D. Qureshi along with Mr. Wasim, the defendants no.1 and 2 have illegally trespassed into the suit property in a surreptitious manner, in connivance with Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey/defendant no.3. The plaintiff states that after taking the suit property illegally and through unlawful means, the defendants have also stocked their own goods/materials in the suit property and have illegally dispossessed the plaintiff and have occupied the premises fraudulently, without permission of the plaintiff and in breach of the process of law and hence, the defendants are trespassers in collusion with Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey.
11. As per the plaintiff, the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property and their entry and occupation of the same is fraudulent and they taking the advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was away from the city, the defendants conspired with Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey and accomplished the said illegal dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property. It is stated that Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey has CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.7/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. committed breach of trust reposed by the Plaintiff in him who was looking after the business/assets/ suit property as caretaker on behalf of the plaintiff.
12. That immediately on receipt of the said information from Mr. Santosh Tiwari, the plaintiff contacted Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey/defendant no.3 who claimed that he was in Varanasi and promised to come to Delhi to sort out the matter. However, he did not come to Delhi and thereafter, flatly refused to come and cooperate with the Plaintiff. The conduct of Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey is stated to be of malafide intention and in collusion with defendants, Mr. Sunil Pandey has acted against the interest of the plaintiff whom he represented and acted for as custodian/caretaker. It is stated that it is obvious that defendants have taken the key of the suit property from Mr. Sunil Pandey by paying illegal gratification.
13. It is also stated that various goods/assets such as plant, machinery, fixtures, furniture, documentary records relating to the business of the plaintiff were lying in the suit property and that defendants have removed/stolen the said assets/documents from the suit CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.8/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. property in order to cause injury and losses to the plaintiff and also in order to create some kind of false claim therein. As per the plaintiff, it is obvious that the defendants and said Mr. Sunil Kumar have jointly and in connivance sold all the plants and machineries and other goods and articles/documents etc. lying in the premises. It is stated by the plaintiff that on 06.04.2008, he reported the matter to the police of the area and filed a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 292 of 2008 under section 448/380/406/120 B IPC has been registered and the police has arrested Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey during the course of investigation in Varanasi and he was sent to judicial custody.
14. The plaintiff states that he had been in continuous possession of the suit property from June 1995 till the defendants, illegally without his permission dispossessed him on 30.03.2008. The defendant no.1 is stated to be the proprietor of a firm namely, Ashoka Trading Company and is owner of an adjacent building bearing No. E-45/12. Taking advantage of his proximity to the suit property, the defendants have carried out their illegal aim by bribing Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, who was custodian of the plaintiff's business in the suit property. It is also stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that he has not impleaded Mr. Sunil CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.9/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. Kumar Pandey in the array of defendants as no relief has been sought by the plaintiff against him. However, as already pointed out, the said Sunil Kumar Pandey was later impleaded as the defendant no.3 on the application of the plaintiff under Order 1 rule 10 CPC vide order dated 8.09.2009.
15. The plaintiff submits that dispossession of the suit property by defendants is illegal, fraudulent and by employing illegal means and that the defendants are trespassers in the suit property and are liable to be evicted from the same which had been in the de jure and de facto possession of the plaintiff till he was dispossessed by the defendants on 30.03.2008.
16. As per plaintiff, since 30.03.2008, the defendant no.1 is in unauthorized and wrongful possession of the suit property and the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits of the suit property at the market rate prevailing in the area and that the defendants no. 1& 2 are liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 100 per feet to the plaintiff which is prevailing in the area where the suit property is situated. The suit property is stated to be 1,500 feet in area and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.10/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. per month calculated at the said rate is liable to be paid by the defendants no.1 and 2 for the period from 30.03.2008 till the date of delivery of possession of the suit property. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is also entitled to charge interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of mesne profit from the defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiff also undertakes to pay the court fees as decided by court.
17. The plaintiff states that as the defendants have illegally ad without his consent dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property, he is entitled to recover the possession of the same from the defendants and further the plaintiff has come to know that the defendants are planning to make additions / alterations / constructions in the suit property without his consent, which they are not entitled to. The plaintiff submits that any attempt to alter/change or raise any new construction in the suit property by the defendants would create further complication and is designed to create false and frivolous claim in the suit property and as such the defendants are liable to be restrained permanently from damaging or causing any change/alteration in the structure/suit property. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendants are planning to part with or create third party interest in the suit property, CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.11/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. therefore, keeping in view the circumstances, the plaintiff is also seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in this regard.
18. It is stated by the plaintiff that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 30.03.2008 when the defendants illegally and without consent of the plaintiff entered the property and occupied the same by dispossessing the plaintiff and also when defendants removed sold goods/articles/documents from the suit property. The cause of action is stated to be accruing and continuing on daily basis on long as the defendants continue to be in illegal possession of the suit property.
19. The suit is stated to be valued at Rs. 12 lakhs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction as well as court fee and it is stated that the plaintiff has paid affixed sum of Rs. 8,202/- court fee for the relief of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for Rs.6,00,000/-.
20. The plaintiff therefore, has prayed for the following reliefs as per the prayer clause of the plaint:
CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.12/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
(a) grant a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the portion of the ground floor of the property bearing No. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi.
(b) Grant permanent injunction against the defendants, their successors-in-interest, legal heirs, agents, representatives etc. from selling, disposing, transferring or creating any third party interest and causing alteration or raising new constructions in the structure/suit property as stated in prayer(a);
(c) grant a decree of damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 100/- per ft. in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 and 2 for the period from 30.03.2008 till the delivery of possession of the suit property along with interest @ 12% in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;
(d) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Defendants' version as per their written statement.
21. As already mentioned earlier, the defendants no.1 and 2 filed their written statement to the un-amended plaint, however did not file any written statement to the amended plaint and their opportunity to file the same was closed vide order dated 28.01.2013. The defendant no.3 CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.13/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. did not file any written statement to either the un-amended plaint or the amended plaint and his opportunity to file the written statement was also closed vide order dated 28.01.2013.
Written statement of the defendants no.1 and 2 to the un-amended plaint
22. The defendants no.1 and 2 raised the preliminary objection that Mr. O.S. Pandey had no locus-standi to file the present suit as he was a stranger to the suit premises, since as per the plaintiff himself, the suit suit premises had been given on licence to M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd, which being a private limited company had a separate legal personality distinct from O.S. Pandey. It was further submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since neither Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey nor Sh. D.R. Katyal had not been impleaded as parties. The defendants no.1 and 2 further submitted that they are neither the owners nor in possession of the suit property and the averments of the plaint were completely figmentary. It was further submitted that as per their knowledge, M/s Ashoka Traders, a partnership firm was the owner and in peaceful possession of the suit property since the year 2005 and neither the plaintiff nor Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey had been in possession CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.14/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. of the suit property since then. Further, the suit was also stated to be undervalued by the plaintiff.
23. In the reply on merits, the defendants no.1 and 2 denied the averments of the un-amended plaint on the grounds stated in the preliminary objections. The FIR filed by the plaintiff was stated to be a tool to harass persons. The defendant no.1 denied that he was the proprietor of Ashoka Trading Company or that he was owner of the adjacent building no. E-45/12. The defendants no.1 and 2 prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with exemplary costs. Rejoinder by the plaintiff
24. In the rejoinder, the plaintiff denied the averments of the written statement of the defendants as being wrong and incorrect. The contents of the plaint were reaffirmed to be true and correct. Issues framed
25. Vide order dated 06.08.2013, the following issues were in the present suit:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in his favour and against the defendant in respect of the portion of the ground floor of the property bearing no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi?OPP.CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.15/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants, their successors-in-interest, legal heirs, agents, representative etc. from selling, disposing, transferring or creating any third party interest and causing alteration or raising new constructions in the structure/suit property? OPP.
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages/mesne profits @ Rs.100/- per ft. in his favour and against the defendant no.1 and 2 for the period from 30.03.2008 till the delivery of possession of the suit property along with interest @ 12% per annum in his favour and against the defendants? OPP.
4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendants ? OPD
5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
6.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants? OPD.
7.Relief, if any.
Evidence led by the Plaintiff company
26. The plaintiff company first examined Mr. O.S. Pandey as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A on 18.04.2016, in which the contents of the amended plaint were reiterated which are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
27. The plaintiff/PW-1 placed reliance on the following documents in support of his case:
CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.16/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
(a) A true copy of the Board Resolution as Ex.PW-1/1.
(b) Rent receipt as Ex.PW-1/2.
(c) Site plan as Ex.PW-1/3.
(d) Importer Exporter Code (IEC) as Ex.PW-1/4.
(e) Copy of the License Deed dated 16.06.1995 as
Ex.PW-1/5.
(f) Copy of the License Deed dated 01.07.1996 as
Ex.PW-1/6.
(g) The treatment records of Sunil Kumar Pandey as
Ex.PW-1/7.
(h) Certified copy of the Police complaint dated 06.04.2008
as Ex.PW-1/8.
(i) Certified copy of the Police complaint dated 08.07.2008
along with list of articles misappropriated as Ex.PW-1/9.
28. PW-1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2 on 09.05.2016, during which he admitted that license agreement was executed by Sh. D.R. Katiyal on 16.06.1995 for a period of 12 months and further, another license agreement was executed for a period of 12 months which expired in year 1997. He stated that after CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.17/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. the year 1997, the license agreement was executed between him and Sh.D.R. Katiyal in writing but he had not filed the same on record. He stated that had not filed original of the same because while taking unauthorized possession of premises in March 2008, all the documents including rent lease papers were taken in possession by unauthorized occupier Sh. A.D. Qureshi and others. He further stated that he did not remember the exact date as to when the last license agreement was executed between him and Sh. D.R. Katiyal. He admitted that he had neither stated in the suit or in his evidence by way of affidavit anything regarding the renewal of the lease agreement beyond the period of 1997 and volunteered that he had stated in his police complaint that all the documents had been taken in possession by the occupier and in his evidence by way of affidavit also he had shown the continuity of lease. PW-1 also admitted that he had not filed any receipt after the the year 1997. He also admitted that he had not taken any receipt from Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey when he handed over the charge of his machines and equipment to him.
29. He further deposed that he was not aware whether in the year 2005, the suit premises was purchased by M/s Ashoka Traders from CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.18/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. Smt. Sudesh Katiyal and volunteered to state that she was not the legal heir of Sh. D.R. Katiyal. He further stated that he remembers the list of machinery/plant which are namely 1. Scanner CP-340 from Dr. Hell, Germany, (2) CP399 from Dr. Hell, Germany (3) Developer and Processor, (4) Contact Box, (5) Five ACs, (6) Furnitures and fixtures etc. He also admitted that there was written agreement between him and Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey regarding sharing of profits. PW-1 also admitted that there was no letter on record by way of which it could be seen that Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey was his representative. Thereafter, his cross-examination was deferred.
30. PW-1 was next cross-examined on 30.01.2017 by the ld. Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2, during which he affirmed that in the year 1995, the rent of the suit property was @ Rs.8,000/- per month and then it is was increased 10% or 15% as per the terms of the lease in the year, 1996 when the lease was renewed afresh. He again admitted that he had not filed any document to show that the lease was further renewed after the year 1997 and volunteered to state that all the original documents and files were lying in the premises and were taken over by the defendant no.1.
CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.19/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
31. PW-1 again admitted that he had not filed any rent receipts after the year 1997 showing that rent was paid to Mr. D.R. Katiyal, the landlord of the suit premises and volunteered to state that while taking the illegal possession by the Defendant in 2008, all the original receipts were lying in the premises and were taken over by Defendant No.1. He denied the suggestion that no such documents were taken by the defendant no.1 in the year 2008. He also denied the suggestion that he had not been paying the rent to Mr. D.R. Katiyal, the landlord of the suit premises, after the year 1997. He also denied the suggestion that he was to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the landlord after the expiry of the lease deed in the year 1997 and volunteered to state that since the lease was continued, there was no question of vacating the premises.
32. He stated that in the year 2002, he joined a Private Company, namely Mayar India Ltd. and also admitted his visiting card as Ex. PW-1/DX1. He admitted that as on date he was still working in the said Company. He denied the suggestion that after the year 2002, he never visited the suit property. He further stated that he could not recollect CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.20/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. whether the adjacent property was owned by M/s. Ashoka Traders. He denied that the whole property inclusive of the suit property was purchased by M/s Ashoka Traders in the year 2005 from Mrs. Sudesh Katiyal w/o late Shri D.R. Katiyal. He stated that he was not aware as to who were the partners of M/s. Ashoka Traders.
33. PW-1 denied that the defendants no.1 and 2 are not the partners of M/s. Ashoka Traders, or he had incorrectly made them as a party in the instant suit. He stated that he did not remember the exact date when Mr. D.R. Katiyal expired. He further admitted that there is no record to show that he had been visiting the suit premises after the year 2002. He denied the suggestion that he was in unauthorised occupation and possession of the suit property after the year 1997 and volunteered to state that rather he was dispossessed from the property in the year 2008 illegally. He also admitted that he had not summoned the defendants no.1 and 2 to produce any original documents which allegedly are in their possession and volunteered to state that he had lodged a complaint with the police against defendants no.1 and 2 for recovery of the stolen material and documents. However, he admitted that he had also not summoned the police to produce those documents seized by them from CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.21/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. the defendants. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated defendant No.2 in the FIR No. 292/08, P.S.: Okhla in connivance with Mr. Santosh Tiwari. He denied the suggestion that he had sub-letted the suit premises to Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (Defendant No.3) in the year 2002 and stated that he was just a care taker on their behalf.
34. PW-1 also admitted that he had not filed any document to show that Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey (Defendant No.3) was a care taker on his behalf and volunteered to state that while taking the illegal possession by the Defendant in 2008, all the original documents were lying in the premises and were taken over by Defendant No.1.
35. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the present suit has been filed in connivance with Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey/defendant No.3. He also denied the suggestion that he did not continue to run his business from the suit premises after taking the same from Mr. D.R. Katiyal. He also denied the suggestion that after 1997, he was not in continuing, exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the suit property. He also further denied the suggestion that M/s. Ashoka Traders had purchased the suit premises in the year 2005 from Ms. Sudesh Katiyal w/o Shri CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.22/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. D.R. Katiyal and possession of the suit premises was handed to M/s. Ashoka Traders by Ms. Sudesh Katiyal in the year 2005. Thereafter, PW-1 was discharged as a witness. The defendant no.3 did not conduct any cross-examination of PW-1.
36. On 09.05.2016, the plaintiff summoned Sh. Surender Sharma, Amar Eye Centre, B-38, Mohan Park, Naveen Shahdra, Delhi 110032 as PW2 who stated in his examination in chief that the document already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7, i.e. the treatment records of Sunil Kumar Pandey bore the signatures of Dr. Rajiv Sudan at points 'A' and the document had been issued from the said Hospital.
37. On 09.05.2016, the plaintiff also examined Constable Sh. Hanuman, as summoned witness PW3 who stated in his examination- in-chief that the DD entry no. 17B, dated 06.04.2008 was received at PS Okhla. He further stated that on the basis of the said DD entry, FIR No. 292/08 was registered. He produced the original D.D. entry no. 17B, dated 06.04.2008 as Ex. PW-1/8 and the FIR alongwith documents as Ex. PW-1/9. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2, he stated that he did not know if the police has CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.23/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. filed the charge-sheet in the FIR No. 292/08 and again stated that the charge-sheet was filed on 09.09.2009. He stated that there is only one accused namely Sunil Kumar Pandey in the FIR No. 292/08 and the said accused was also arrested on 12.09.2008 and ASI Nizamuddin was the IO of the said FIR. Thereafter, he was discharged as a witness.
38. The plaintiff next examined Sh. Santosh Tiwari as PW-4, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW4/A on 09.05.2016, in which he stated that he was running his business in the basement of property no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase -II, New Delhi since the year 1992. He deposed that the plaintiff company, through its Director Mr. O.S. Pandey, was running it's business at the Ground Floor portion of property no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase -II, New Delhi since the year 1995. He deposed that Mr. O.S. Pandey had appointed Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey as it's caretaker to manage the property and the business, who took the charge and possession of the said property, plant and machinery etc. He stated that on 30.03.2008, Mr. A.D. Qureshi and Mr. Wasim in collusion with Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey fraudulently took illegal possession of the property by removing the goods and materials lying therein and that he informed CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.24/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. Mr. O.S. Pandey on phone about the same.
39. PW-4 Santosh Tiwari was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 on 09.05.2016 itself, during which he stated that he has been running his business in the basement of property bearing no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II since the year 1992. He stated that he had taken the said premises on lease from Mr. B.R. Katiyal and Mr. D.R. Katiyal, however did not remember the tenure of the lease. He further stated that he did not even remember the tenure of the lease or even when the last lease deed was executed by Sh. B.R. Katiyal and Sh. D.R. Katiyal in his favour. However, volunteered to state that the lease was in the name of M/s Tiwari Apparel Brands Pvt. Ltd., of which he was the Director at present since the year 2003. He stated that prior to that Late Sh. P.N. Tiwari, Mrs. Shyama Tiwari and Late Arvind Tiwari were the directors of this company.
40. He further stated that he knew Sh. O.S. Pandey since the year 2002, but was not aware that any lease was executed by Katiyal family in favour of Sh. O.S. Pandey. He stated that he was also not aware of CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.25/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. the name of the firm which runs business from the adjoining premises i.e. E-45/12, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi. He also did not know whether the premises no. E-45/11 was purchased by M/s Ashoka Traders in the year 2005 from the legal heirs of Sh. B.R. Katiyal and Sh. D.R. Katiyal. He denied the suggestion that the property bearing no. E-45/11 is in possession of M/s Ashoka Traders from the year 2005. He volunteered to state that the basement of this property is with him and half front portion on ground floor was with the plaintiff and back portion of the ground floor was with Sh. Naresh Aggarwal. He further stated that the back portion of the ground floor is lying locked and is in the possession of Sh. A.D. Qureshi and the front portion of ground floor of the said property as on the day of recording the evidence, was with Sh. A.D. Qureshi. He stated that he knows Sh. A.D. Qureshi who was present in the court that day. He stated that he was not aware who are the partners of M/s. Ashoka Traders.
41. He further stated that he also did not remember the exact month when Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey was appointed as Caretaker by Sh. O.S. Pandey and that he was not present at the time when Sh. O.S. Pandey appointed Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey as caretaker but he was personally CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.26/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. introduced by Sh. O.S. Pandey to Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey. He could not say what were the machines and article, plant, machinery which were handed over to Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey by Sh. O.S. Pandey and stated that Sh. O.S. Pandey used to visit the said premises till 2008 and thereafter he never visited. He admitted that he had not stated in his evidence by way of affidavit of the fact regarding visit of O.S. Pandey to the said premises till 2008.
42. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing on hearsay and further stated that he knew Sh. Wasim, but did not know whether he was partner of M/s Ashoka Traders. He stated that he was at a distance of around 10 -12 feet when the possession of the suit property was taken by Sh. A.D. Qureshi and Sh. Wasim. He stated that he did not call the police at that time, but informed Sh. O.S. Pandey on telephone after 3- 4 days. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely against Sh. A.D. Qureshi and Sh. Wasim because they have initiated eviction proceedings against him in respect of the premises which is in his possession. Thereafter, the witness PW-4 was discharged and the plaintiff also closed it's evidence on 05.09.2017 and the matter was listed for the defendants' evidence.
CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.27/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. Evidence led by the Defendants
43. The defendant no.1 Sh. A.D. Qureshi stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW-1/1 in which he stated that he is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. He stated that the entire premises comprising of 589 sq. yards including the suit property has been purchased by M/s Ashoka Traders in the year 2005 from Mrs. Sudesh Katiyal, wife of Sh. D.R. Katiyal. He stated that Sh. B.R. Katiyal and Sh. D.R. Katiyal were the owners of the entire premises and on their death, the entire property was transferred/mutated in the name of Mrs. Sudesh Katiyal, who sold the same to M/s Ashoka Traders by way of a registered agreement to sell, bearing registration no. 17233, Book no.1, Vol no. 5567 at pages 33 - 50 dated 11.11.2005 . He further deposed that Mrs. Sudesh Katiyal peacefully delivered the vacant possession of the entire suit premises in the year 2005 to M/s Ashoka Traders as well and since then it was in peaceful possession of the same. He deposed that M/s Ashoka Traders was a registered partnership firm comprising of Mr. R.D. Qoreshi, Late Rafia Begum and Zeauddin Qoreshi as it's partners. He stated that Mr. R.D. Qoreshi and Zeauddin Qoreshi were his real brothers and Late CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.28/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. Rafia Begum was his wife, who unfortunately expired on 03.08.2015. He further stated that the defendant no.2 Sh. Wasim was his son, who had been falsely arrayed in the present suit as well as the FIR and he was dropped from the chargesheet as well, in which only the defendant no.3 had been summoned. He stated that the plaintiff was a tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/-, whose lease deed expired after the year 1997 and was never renewed by Sh. D. R. Katiyal. He stated that the defendant no.3 was not a tenant in the suit premises at the time of it's purchase by M/s Ashoka Traders in the year 2005 from Mrs. Sudesh Katiyal. The defendant no.1/DW-1 relied on a copy of the registered agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 in favour of Ashoka Traders as Ex. DW-1/A and a copy of the charge-sheet as Ex. DW-1/B.
44. The defendant no.1/DW-1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 02.08.2023, during which he stated that he did know if the suit property is part of property no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 2, New Delhi. Upon being asked on what basis he was saying in his evidence by way of affidavit that property no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 2, New Delhi was purchased by M/s Ashoka Traders in 2005 from Mrs. Sudesh Katiyal and vacant CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.29/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. possession of the entire premises was handed over in 2005 to M/s Ashoka Traders, the witness replied that it was on the basis of agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 which was then exhibited as Ex. DW-1/X1 and possession letter which was exhibited as Ex. DW-1/X2.
45. He said that he did not know whether it is correct that at the time of the purchase of the above said property there were certain tenants/ trespassers in the said property. Thereafter, witness was shown para a at page 4 of Ex. DW1/X1 and was asked the question that where it is stated that "except the said property for sale is being occupied by bad pay master tenants/ trespassers", to which the witness replied that he did not know. He stated that he did not have the knowledge whether plaintiff was a tenant in the said property. He also replied that M/s Ashoka Traders are in possession of this entire property bearing no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 2, New Delhi since they purchased the property in 2005.
46. He further stated that he did not know whether any legal proceeding was initiated in any court of law for taking possession from the tenant in the said property. He also did not know whether only He CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.30/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. also did not know whether, since there were tenants in the said property, only symbolic possession was given at the time of alleged purchase by M/s Ashoka Traders. He also did not have the knowledge whether the above said property was vacant at the time of alleged purchase by M/s Ashoka Traders. He further stated that Riyazzuddin Qureshi (R.D Qureshi) , Rafia Begum and Ziauddin Qureshi were the partners of M/s Ashoka Traders in 2005 when the alleged purchase was made. He further stated that Riyazzuddin Qureshi (R.D Qureshi) is his brother, Rafia Begum his wife and Ziauddin Qureshi is also his brother. He was also asked about the fact that who were the partners of the above M/s Ashoka Traders as on date of recording the evidence to which he replied that Riyazzuddin Qureshi, Ziauddin Qureshi and Saifuddin are the partners. He also stated that Saifuddin is his son. He did not know whether the plaintiff was one of the tenants in the said property.
47. Thereafter, the witness was confronted with para no. 8 of affidavit Ex. DW1/1 in chief and asked whether this statement of his is wrong, to which he replied that in 1997 the plaintiff was tenant and whatever is mentioned in the para no. 8 of his affidavit is correct. Thereafter, the further cross-examination of DW-1 was deferred. CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.31/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
48. As the defendant no.1/DW-1 did not appear for the completion of his further cross-examination, his right to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 18.11.2023. Vide order dated 09.01.2025, another opportunity to lead evidence was granted to the defendant subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/-, which was not paid, resulting in the defendant's right to lead evidence being closed again vide order dated 01.07.2025. Arguments of the Parties
49. Despite several opportunities granted to the plaintiff, no final arguments were advanced on his behalf, which right was closed vide order dated 20.11.2025.
50. Ld. Counsel for the defendants, Sh. Zahid Ali Gehlot has argued that the plaintiff company stands struck off by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) as reflected on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs during the course of the present litigation and hence on this ground alone, the suit deserves to be dismissed. He has further argued that even otherwise, the plaintiff company has miserably failed to prove that he is entitled to any relief under section 6 of the Specific Relief CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.32/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. Act, 1963 having failed to prove that it was in lawful possession of the suit property and argued that the suit deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Issue-wise decision with reasons Issues no.4 and 6
51. I shall first decide issues no.4 and 6, which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendants ? OPD
6.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants?
OPD.
52. As already stated earlier, the present suit was originally instituted by Mr. O.S. Pandey in his individual capacity against the defendants no.1 and 2 only and was titled as ' O.S. Pandey vs. A.D. Qureshi and Wasim'. In the said suit, Mr. O.S. Pandey had sought for possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) as well as the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants no.1 and 2. After the filing of the joint written statement by the defendants no.1 and 2, Sh. O.S. Pandey then moved an application under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.33/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. (CPC) seeking to implead Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey as the defendant no.3, which was allowed vide order dated 08.09.2009. Thereafter, Mr. O.S. Pandey moved an application under Order VI rule 17 CPC dated 11.12.2009 seeking to amend his plaint. In the said application, it was stated that he sought to "add M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. as plaintiff through Mr. O.S. Pandey". He also sought to amend para no.14 of the plaint and the reliefs claimed to include the relief of mesne profits from the defendants. The said application of the plaintiff under Order VI rule 17 of the CPC was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2012 and the cause title of the suit was changed to ' M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.' . The defendants no.1 and 2 never challenged the said order dated 03.11.2012, which has attained finality and in view of the same, the issue no.4 is now infructuous. Hence, the issues no.4 and 6 are decided against the defendants no.1 and 2.
Issue no.5
53. I shall next decide issue no.5, which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.34/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
necessary parties? OPD.
54. The defendants no.1 and 2 have raised the preliminary objection in para no. 2 of the written statement to the un-amended plaint that the suit if bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey and Sh. D.R. Katyal had not been impleaded as parties to the present suit. As already mentioned earlier, Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey was impleaded as the defendant no.3 vide order dated 08.09.2009. The question now remains is whether Sh. D.R. Katyal was a necessary party to the present suit.
55. Section 6 of the SRA, as existing prior to it's amendment in the year 2018 was as follows:
6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.--
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought--
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.35/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
56. It is settled law that a suit under section 6 of the SRA contemplates only a summary proceeding and the question of title is not to be enquired into. All that has to be seen in a suit under section 6 SRA is that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and has been dispossessed without his consent, otherwise than in due course of law, and that the suit has been instituted within six months of the date of dispossession. There is no requirement in a suit under section 6 SRA instituted by an tenant to recover possession to also implead his landlord as a party to the suit. Accordingly, the issue no.5 is decided against the defendants no.1 and 2.
Issues no. 2 and 3
57. I shall next decide issues no.2 and 3, which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants, their successors-in-interest, legal heirs, agents, representative etc. from selling, disposing, transferring or creating any third party interest and causing alteration or raising new constructions in the structure/suit property? OPP.
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages/mesne profits @ Rs.100/- per ft. in his favour and against the defendant no.1 and 2 for the period from 30.03.2008 till the delivery of possession of the suit property CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.36/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
along with interest @ 12% per annum in his favour and against the defendants? OPP.
58. It is settled law that in a summary proceeding under section 6 SRA, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of mesne profits, since the question of title is not to be enquired into. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in the decision of Vinod Trivedi vs. Atul Jain and Ors, 2016 SCCOnLine Del 6022 as follows:
11. Hence, the legal position as stated in the above judgments including the judgment of the Supreme court and this court is that the right to possession of immovable property and the right to enjoy property are distinct cause of action. The person who is dispossessed of the immovable property is entitled to sue for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In such an eventuality, the question of mesne profits and damages would depend upon the title and that question cannot be gone into in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner would be free to take separate steps seeking such relief."
(Emphasis supplied)
59. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has held in the decision of Amar Singh vs. Ghanshyam, 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 59, as follows:
"14.Thus the consistent view of different High Courts is that a claim for mesne profits cannot be made in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession. It is also clear that if such claim is included in the decree by the trial Court the entire decree cannot be thrown out but the mesne profits part of the decree can be set aside confirming the possession part of the decree. The view is based on sound principles. After all, remedy under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is a special remedy providing speedy relief to a person who is thrown out of possession CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.37/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
except by following due process of law. It is an exception to general law which requires the plaintiff to prove his right to the property before decreeing possession in his favour. Such a provision has to be construed strictly and not liberally. When the provision does not speak of any other relief than recovery of possession, other reliefs can not be read into the language. Moreover, mesne profits can not be said to be claimable as a consequential relief in every case brought under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. As pointed out in some of the rulings cited above, since the claim is based on dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, title of the plaintiff to continue in possession is not to be looked into and without looking into it mesne profits can not be decreed, it is only natural that mesne profits cannot be granted in such an action."
(Emphasis supplied)
60. In view of the above, since the question of title to the property is not to be enquired into in a suit under section 6 SRA, the question of granting any permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff also does not arise. Accordingly, the issues no. 2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.1
61. I shall next decide issue no.1, which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in his favour and against the defendant in respect of the portion of the ground floor of the property bearing no. E-45/11, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi?OPP.CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.38/42
M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors.
62. The plaintiff company has contended that it was put in possession of the ground floor of the suit property by Sh. D.R. Katyal under a licence deed dated 16.06.1995, photocopy of which has been placed on record as Ex. PW-1/5, with effect from 01.07.1995 at a monthly licence fees of Rs. 8,720/- for a period of 12 months. The plaintiff company has also placed on record photocopy of a licence deed dated 01.07.1996, Ex. PW-1/6 permitting the plaintiff company to use the suit property for a period of twelve months with effect from 01.07.1997 at a monthly licence fees of Rs. 9505/-.
63. As per the plaintiff company's own case, it continued to run it's business from the suit property till August, 2000, however thereafter, it is stated that the plaintiff company appointed the defendant no.3 as a caretaker/custodian in it's place to take of the business and the plant and machinery. Further, as per the plaint the defendant no.3 was also authorized to 'run' the company with 'limited financial resources of the company'.
64. The plaintiff company is a private limited company and has separate legal personality in law from it's officers and directors. The CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.39/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. plaintiff company has failed to place on record any board resolution or any documentary proof of the fact that the defendant no.3 had been appointed as it's caretaker with authority to run the business as claimed. During the cross-examination of PW-1 Sh. O.S. Pandey dated 09.05.2016, he admitted that "I have not taken any receipt from Sh. Sunil Pandey when I handed over charge of my machines and equipments to him" he also admitted that "There was no agreement in writing between Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey and myself regarding sharing of profit. It is correct that on record there is no such kind of letter by which it can be seen that Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey was my representative". Further during his cross-examination dated 30.01.2017, he also admitted that "There is no record to show that I have been visiting the suit premises after 2002" and further also admitted "I have not filed any document to show that Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (Defendant No.3) was a care taker on our behalf. Vol while taking the illegal possession by the Defendant in 2008, all the original documents were lying in the premises and were taken over by Defendant no.1" However, PW-1 himself admitted that there was no such written document to show that the defendant no.3 was holding the possession of the suit property on his behalf. Further, the PW-1 also CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.40/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. admitted that "I have not summoned the Defendants No.1 & 2 to produce any original documents which allegedly are in their possession." The plaintiff also took no steps to prove such documents by way of secondary evidence or issue any notice to the defendants under section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now section 64 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
65. Hence, the plaintiff company has miserably failed to prove it's own contentions that the defendant no.3 was holding the possession of the suit property on it's behalf from August, 2002 onwards as it's caretaker, custodian or representative as claimed. No documentary evidence has been led by the plaintiff company to prove the said claim.
66. Even otherwise, the ld. Counsel for the defendant has pointed out during the course of final arguments on 18.10.2025 that the plaintiff company has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies during the course of the present litigation. That vide order dated 18.10.2025, the plaintiff company was also directed to provide it's current status on the next date of hearing, however none appeared on the said date. Hence, CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.41/42 M/s Instant Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.D Qureshi & Ors. an adverse opinion is also liable to be drawn against the plaintiff company on the said account.
67. In light of the above, the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff company.
Relief:
68. In view of the aforementioned reasons and conclusions, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, with costs of the suit awarded in favour of the defendants. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Judgment be uploaded after corrections.
JITEN Digitally signed
by JITEN MEHRA
MEHRA 16:38:20 +0530
Date: 2026.03.13
Announced in the open court (JITEN MEHRA)
on 13.03.2026 DJ-10/Central/THC
Delhi.
CS DJ NO. 614143/16 Page No.42/42