Delhi District Court
Sheetal Prasad vs Gajender Tyagi on 23 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPANKER MOHAN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CS No. 1201-2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Sheetal Prasad
S/o Sh. Murari Mohan
R/o D-1/61 Gali No. 1,
Harsh Vihar,
Delhi-110093. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Gajender Tyagi S/o Sh. Jayphal Tyagi
2. Sh. Naveen Tyagi S/o Sh. Gajender Tyagi Both R/o H.No. 870/14, Gali No.14, Mandoli Extn.
Delhi-110093. ....Defendants
1. CS No. : 1201/2016
2. Under Section : Suit for Recovery
3. Date of Institution : 11.11.2014.
4. Reserved for Judgment : 16.12.2023.
5. Judgment : 23.12.2023 CS No. 1201/2016 Page 1 of 23
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit for recovery of RS.3,53,300/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. The Plaintiff filed the present suit on 11.11.2014. The Plaintiff states in the plaint as follows :-
i) The plaintiff was doing the work of welding. The plaintiff has been in contact with defendant no. 1 for the last more than 14 years and the plaintiff has performed welding works for defendants in their factory and their other units.
ii) On 20.01.2012, the defendants requested the plaintiff to lend them Rs. 2,00,000/- as the defendants are in urgent need and required the said money to purchase a plot. The plaintiff on 28.01.2012, on the request of defendants, considering long relation with defendants and keeping in view the circumstance gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants in cash in the presence of witnesses Sh. Suraj S/o Sh. Murari Mohan and Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Anant Ram. The defendants assured to return the said loan amount within two months to the plaintiff. The said transaction of giving loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants taken place orally.
Thereafter, on 12.02.2012 the defendants again requested the plaintiff to lend them Rs.1,50,000/- for their urgent need as the defendants said that they are facing great financial hardship due to raid of income tax officials. The plaintiff believing words of CS No. 1201/2016 Page 2 of 23 defendants further gave them a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on their oral request in the presence of witnesses Sh. Suraj S/o Sh. Murari Mohan and Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Giyasu Ram. The defendants assured the plaintiff to return the total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the plaintiff as early as possible. It is pertinent to mention here that both the said loan transaction had taken place at the residence of defendants at H. No. 870/14, Gali No.14, Mandoli Extension, Delhi- 110093. It is also pertinent to mention here that no written document was prepared pertaining to the aforesaid loan transaction taken place between the plaintiff and defendants due to good long relations between the parties of the suit and due to faith and trust of the plaintiff in the defendants.
iii) It is further stated in the plaint that the defendants assured and promised the plaintiff to return the said total loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as early as possible, but the defendants did not fulfill their assurances and promises rather the defendants kept on postpone the payment of aforesaid loan amount on one pretext or the other.
iv) The plaintiff had performed welding work for the defendants worth of Rs.2,00,000/-, but that payment was also not made by the defendants despite demand and a welding machine of the plaintiff is also in the possession of defendant, which they are not returning despite demand of plaintiff. However, the same is not CS No. 1201/2016 Page 3 of 23 subject matter of present suit.
v) The plaintiff has made repeated requests and demands to return his aforesaid loan amount Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Fifty Thousand Only) as well as his other dues and return his said welding machine, but despite repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendants have not fulfilled their promise and did not return the loan amount as well as other dues and welding machine with malafide intention and to grab the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff had undergone a major operation of brain tumor and during the course of his treatment and before the date of operation, the plaintiff had requested the defendants to give his hard-earned money, but the defendants did not pay any heed or attention to the request of the plaintiff and did not consider the pity condition of the plaintiff. The defendants have committed the act of breach of trust and cheating with the plaintiff. The plaintiff by way of the present suit is claiming only loan amount Rs.2,00,000/- given on 28.01.2012 and Rs.1,50,000/- given on 12.02.2012, total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the defendants.
vi) The plaintiff has made continuous several requests and demands to return his aforesaid loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, other welding work dues and welding machine particularly and including the dates 30.03.2012, 15.09.2012, 20.09.2013 and 15.08.2014, but the defendants have not returned the loan amount to the plaintiff. CS No. 1201/2016 Page 4 of 23
vii) The plaintiff issued legal demand notice on dated 29.08.2014 through his Counsel which was duly served upon the defendant through post, but the defendants neither made payment nor replied the same.
viii) The defendants are using the hard-earned money of the plaintiff, dishonestly and deprived the plaintiff from using his money, therefore the defendants are liable to pay interest @18% p.a. on the principal amount.
ix) The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the borrowed loan amount with interest, which is due against the defendants. The plaintiff claims Rs. 3,53,300/- along-with interest @ 18% p.a. against the defendants from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
3. On 11.11.2014 summons were issued upon the Defendants No. 1 and 2 and on 19.02.2015 the Defendants were proceeded ex- parte, however, on 26.02.2015, written statement on behalf of the defendants was filed. Vide order dated 15.07.2016, the ex-parte order dated 19.02.2015 was set aside and Written statement filed on behalf of the defendants was taken on record. The defendants seeking dismissal of the suit, have stated in their written statement CS No. 1201/2016 Page 5 of 23 which are as follows:
i) The plaintiff has filed the present suit with malafide motive and intention against the defendants in order to extract the money from the defendants.
ii) The plaintiff has not approached with clean hands and plaintiff has cooked up false story and filed the present suit on the basis of witnesses and there is no cause of action for filing the present suit against the defendants.
iii) It is further stated in the written statement of the defendants that the defendants almost shifted his business in 2011 in Baghpat District, U.P. at Village Singolitaga, Tehsil Khekra vide tin No.09278102471 on 13.12.2011.
iv) That the plaintiff and other workers committed theft in the factory of the defendant No.1, defendant red handed caught hold the plaintiff but being old relation of business, the defendant not registered the case as the plaintiff apologized his mistake in publicly.
v) The defendants already wind up the business in Delhi in the year 2011. The Defendants have denied that on 20.01.2012, the defendants requested to the plaintiff to lend them Rs.2,00,000/-
as the defendants are in urgent need and required the said money to CS No. 1201/2016 Page 6 of 23 purchase a plot. The Defendants also denied that the plaintiff 28.01.2012, on the request of the defendants, considering long relation with defendants and keeping in circumstances, gave Rs.2,00,000/- to defendants in cash in the view to the presence of witnesses Sh. Suraj s/o Sh. Murari Mohan and Sh. Ram Kumar s/o Sh. Anant Ram. The Defendants also denied that the defendants assured to return the said loan amount within two months to the plaintiff. The Defendants also denied that the said transaction of giving loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants taken place orally. The Defendants also denied on 12.02.2012, the defendants again requested the plaintiff to lend them Rs.1,50,000/- further for their urgent need as the defendants said that they are facing great financial hardship due to raid of income tax officials. The Defendants also denied that the plaintiff believing words of defendants further gave them a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on their oral request in the presence of witnesses Sh. Suraj s/o Sh. Murari and Sh. Sushil Kumr S/o Sh. Giyashu Ram. The defendants also denied that they assured the plaintiff to return the total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as early as possible. The Defendants further denied that both the said loan transactions had taken place at the residence of the defendants at H.No.870/14, Gali No.14, Mandoli Extn., Delhi-93. The defendants have never taken any loan from the plaintiff that is why no document has been executed between the parties. The witnesses cited by the plaintiff in the present suit are false and fabricated just to create the pressure upon the defendants and extort CS No. 1201/2016 Page 7 of 23 the money. The Defendant also states that no raid of income tax was conducted in the defendant's house or factory and the plaintiff has filed the present false and frivolous suit against the defendants.
vi) The defendants never took loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff or never promised to return the same. The plaintiff has himself not filed any pending bill against the defendants, which shows the malafide of the plaintiff. The defendants used to pay the money to the plaintiff when plaintiff raised the bill against the welding work.
vii) The plaintiff never gave any money to the defendants as alleged in his plaint. The defendants are not liable to pay a single penny to the plaintiff as they have never taken any loan from the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to pay any interest to the plaintiff.
4. On 20.09.2016 the Plaintiff filed Replication along with one C.D., transcription of audio recording and Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Plaintiff denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed the contents of the Plaint with an additional fact that the Defendant No. 1 during a telephonic conversation with the Plaintiff has admitted his liability due towards the Plaintiff.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, on 25.11.2016 the following issues were framed: -
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of CS No. 1201/2016 Page 8 of 23 Rs.3,53,300/- as claimed in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 18% p.a.? OPP
3. Relief."
6. On 26.04.2017, PW-1 was examined. PW-1 tendered his evidence affidavit as PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents which are as under:-
1. Ex. PW1/1, Legal notice dt. 29.08.2014.
2. Ex.PW1/2 (colly.), Postal receipts.
3. Ex.PW1/3, C.D. of mobile phone conversation.
4. Ex.PW1/4, recording Transcript.
5. Ex.PW1/5 & Ex.PW1/6, Certificate under Section 65-B of evidence & supporting affidavit.
7. PW-1 was cross-examined in detail by the Ld. Counsel for the Defendants on 15/01/2018, 03/12/2018 and 03/08/2019.
8. On 17.12.2015, PW-2 tendered his evidence vide Ex.PW2/A. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Defendants on 14/01/2020 and thereafter, Plaintiff's evidence was closed.
9. On 01.08.2022 D1W1 Sh. Gajender Tyagi tendered his CS No. 1201/2016 Page 9 of 23 evidence as Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the copy of allotment certificate of TIN dated 13/12/2011 as Ex. D1W1/A (OSR). D1W1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff on 01/08/2022, 16/11/2022 and 17/04/2023.
10. On 23.09.2023 DW-2 Sh. Naveen Tyagi tendered his evidence. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 23/09/2023.
11. That on 16/12/2023 the Ld. Counsel for both the parties addressed the final arguments in the present case.
12. The Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff lend an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to the Defendants on two occasions. Out of the said Rs. 3,50,000/-, Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Thousand only) was paid in cash and iron material of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) was given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants after its purchase. It is also argued that first occasion was on 28/01/2012 when the Plaintiff gave Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) in cash to the Defendants after CS No. 1201/2016 Page 10 of 23 withdrawing the same from the Bank and raw material of iron worth Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) in presence of Suraj S/o Sh. Murari Mohan and Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Anant Ram. It is further argued that second occasion was on 12/02/2012 when the Plaintiff again gave Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in cash to the Defendants in presence of Suraj S/o Sh. Murari Mohan and Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Giyasu Ram. It is further argued that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was arranged by the Plaintiff by borrowing Rs. 50,000/- from his father, Rs. 60,000/- collected from the market for fabrication of iron works and Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn from the Bank. It is also argued that despite various demand when the Defendants did not return the loan amount to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff through his Counsel also served a Legal Notice Ex. PW-1/1 upon the Defendants which was duly received by them but even thereafter, they did not return the loan amount and the Plaintiff has constrained to file the present case. It is also argued that C.D. containing call recording Ex. PW-1/3 i.e. conversation between the Plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and its Transcript Ex. PW- 1/4 duly proves that the Defendants are liable to pay suit amount to CS No. 1201/2016 Page 11 of 23 the Plaintiff. It is also argued that Plaintiff has proved his case by adducing probable evidence and examining Plaintiff as PW-1 and witness to the transaction i.e. his brother namely Sh. Suraj as PW-2. It is also argued that the present suit is entitled to be decreed.
13. The Ld. Counsel for the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case by adducing probable evidence on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be relied upon. It is argued that the Plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his case and the case of the Plaintiff is based on the oral version. It is also argued that the call recording and transcript cannot be relied upon as the same does not disclose the dates, time, month and year when the alleged conversation happened. It is also argued that the Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/5 does not disclose numbers of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 through which the alleged conversation took place. It is also argued that the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff are out of pleadings and the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost. CS No. 1201/2016 Page 12 of 23 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION OF THE CASE ISSUE-WISE
14. Issue No. 1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.3,53,300/- as claimed in the plaint? OPP i. The onus of proof to prove the Issue No. 1 is upon the plaintiff. The entire case of the plaintiff is not based upon documentary evidence but on oral transaction. The burden is heavy upon the plaintiff to prove the present case as compare to the cases based on the documentary evidence. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and his brother Sh. Suraj as PW-2 to prove the case. As the case of the Plaintiff is that he gave Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in cash to the Defendants on two occasions i.e. one on 28.01.2012 when the Plaintiff gave Rs. 2 Lakh in cash to the Defendants in presence of PW-2 Suraj Kumar S/o Sh. Murari Mohan and Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Anant Ram and secondly on 12.02.2012 when the Plaintiff gave Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash to the Defendants in presence of PW-2 Suraj Kumar and Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Giyasu Ram.
ii. The Plaintiff in his plaint submits that he gave Rs. 2 Lakh in CS No. 1201/2016 Page 13 of 23 cash to the Defendants on 28.01.2012 but during his cross- examination conducted on 03/12/2018, PW-1/Plaintiff deposed that he gave Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) in cash and Rs. 30,000/- an iron material to the Defendant no. 1. The relevant portion of cross- examination of PW-1 is reproduced for facilitation as under:-
"Rs. 2 Lakh includes, an iron worth Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 1.70 in cash by withdrawing from my bank i.e. Syndicate Bank. I can produce statement of account. I have not mentioned the fact regarding giving an iron worth Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 1.70 cash by withdrawing from my bank i.e. Syndicate Bank to defendant no. 1."
iii. The Plaintiff has improved his earlier stand taken in the plaint and also not produced any documentary evidence in support of his improved version. The Plaintiff has not produced the passbook or statement of accounts of his bank account from which he has withdrawn Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) before giving it to the Defendant No.
1. The statement of account would be material piece of CS No. 1201/2016 Page 14 of 23 evidence which can prove the source of funds as well as capacity of the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff failed to produce the same or call bank official as witness in support of his version. iv. The Plaintiff has also not produced any bill or invoice vide which he purchased the iron worth of Rs. 30,000/- before giving it to the Defendant no. 1.
v. The Plaintiff depose that the said transaction of Rs. 2 Lakh occurred in presence of PW-2 and Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Anant Ram. The Plaintiff did not call Sh. Ram Kumar as his witness during Plaintiff's evidence and only his brother Suraj entered into the witness box as PW-2. After perusing the cross-examination of PW-2 conducted on 14/01/2020 it reveals that the said transaction of Rs. 2 Lakh did not occur in his presence. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW-2 conducted on 14/01/2020 is reproduced for facilitation as under:-
"The plaintiff gave Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash to the defendants. Again said, Rs. 1,50,000/- given to the defendant no. 2 in January 2012. I cannot tell the denomination of the currency CS No. 1201/2016 Page 15 of 23 notes. It was wrapped in newspaper. Plaintiff paid Rs. 1,50,000/- at the house of the defendants. In my presence, only Rs. 1,50,000/- had been given. As per my knowledge, Rs. 2,00,000/- had already been given to the defendant no. 2 prior to January, 2012. I and plaintiff were present at the time when Rs. 1,50,000/- was given to the defendants. I do not know the purpose for which the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given to the defendant no. 2. (Vol., defendant no. 2 might have borrowed the said amount.) I also do not know for what purpose the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been advanced."
vi. PW-1 deposed in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW-1/A that on 28.01.2012 the plaintiff gave a loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the Defendants in presence of PW-2 and Sh. Ram Kumar but during his cross-examination conducted on 03/12/2018 PW-1 deposed that he gave Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) to Defendant no. 1 in presence of one Naresh, one driver Golu and one Sushil. The testimony of PW-1 is self-contradictory in respect to the said transaction of Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only). CS No. 1201/2016 Page 16 of 23 The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW-1 is reproduced for facilitation which is as under:-
"I have given said money Rs. 1.7 lakhs cash to Gajender Tyagi/ Defendant no. 1 at 11 a.m. I have given the said money to D-1 in the presence of one Naresh and one driver Golu and one Sushil, all the said persons are known to D-1."
vii. The Plaintiff has not examined Naresh, Golu and Sushil to substantiate his stand. The testimony of PW-2 does not support the stand of the Plaintiff/ PW-1 in respect to the said transaction of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) and their testimony are contradictory to each other. The said transaction is also not supported with any documentary and corroborative evidence.
viii. PW-1 deposed in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW-1/A that on 12.02.2012 the plaintiff gave a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in cash to the Defendants in presence of PW-2 and Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Giyasu Ram. PW-1 during his cross-examination conducted on 03/12/2018 deposed that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh CS No. 1201/2016 Page 17 of 23 Fifty Thousand only) was arranged by him by borrowing Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from his father, Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) collected from the market for fabrication of iron works and Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) withdrew from the Bank. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW-1 is reproduced for facilitation which is as under:-
"I do not remember the day, month and year when I gave Rs. 1.50 lakh to the defendant no. 1. I arranged the said money by borrowing Rs. 50,000/- from my father, and about Rs. 60,000/- collected from the market for fabrication of iron works and Rs. 40,000/- withdrew from the bank."
ix. The plaintiff has not proved the said source of funds by calling his father, the customer/person for whom plaintiff did fabrication work and bank official to prove withdraw of Rs. 40,000/- as witness during trial and non-production of material piece of evidence create doubts on the version of the plaintiff.
x. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 also does conspire the CS No. 1201/2016 Page 18 of 23 confidence of this Court in respect to the transaction of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). Plaintiff states in the plaint that on 12/02/2012 Plaintiff gave Rs. 1.50 lakh to Defendants but during his cross-examination, he deposes that he does not remember the day, month and year when he gave Rs. 1.50 to the Defendant no. 1. PW-2 during his cross-examination deposes that the amount of Rs. 1.50 lakh was given in January, 2012 and he do not know the purpose for which the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given to the defendant no. 2. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Giyasu Ram was also not examined by the Plaintiff as plaintiff witness to support his version and prove that the payment of Rs. 1.5 was given by the Plaintiff to Defendants as loan in his presence. xi. The C.D. consisting of audio recording Ex. PW-1/3 and its Transcript Ex. PW-1/4 would also not be helpful for the plaintiff as the same does not disclose when the said conversation was held between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and through which medium/ telephone or mobile handset, it was recorded. The Certificate under Section 65-B CS No. 1201/2016 Page 19 of 23 of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/5 also does not disclose the following material facts which are as under:-
i. Mobile number of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 through which conversation held.
ii. Date and time when the said conversation took place and recorded.
iii. The medium by which the said conversation was recorded.
iv. The name/ model of mobile handset and software used for the purpose of conversation and recording.
xii. The conversation also does not explicitly disclose the fact that the Plaintiff has lend a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-to the Defendants and the Plaintiff is demanding the same. The quantum of amount is not disclosed by anyone during the conversation. Moreover, the Plaintiff has also not proved that the voice in the audio recording was of the Defendant No. 1. It is pertinent to mention here that the Plaintiff filed the said C.D. containing audio clip, its CS No. 1201/2016 Page 20 of 23 transcript and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act along-with the Replication without seeking permission of the Court and not with the Plaint. It is further pertinent to mention that the said audio recorded was not played and put to DW-1 during his cross-examination. In the view of the above-reason, the C.D. containing audio clip and its transcript along-with Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act would be of no help for the plaintiff as the same does not fulfil the necessary ingredients of a valid proof required under the law as well as the same is not proved in accordance with law.
xiii. The totality of facts came on record does not prove that the Plaintiff has given Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- as loan to the Defendants on 28/01/2012 and 12/02/2012 respectively and the plaintiff has failed to produce any probable and reliable evidence to prove his case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. No corroborative evidence has been produced by the Plaintiff during trial on the basis of which it can be probably believed that the Plaintiff gave Rs. CS No. 1201/2016 Page 21 of 23 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in cash to the Defendants.
xiv. In view of the above observations and findings, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that Plaintiff gave Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in cash to the defendants by adducing probable, corroborative and reliable evidence and therefore, the Issue No. 1 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the suit amount of Rs. 3,53,300/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred only) against the Defendants.
15. Issue no. 2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 18% p.a.? OPP In view of the observations and findings on the Issue No. 1 and for the reason that the Issue No. 1 is decided against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is not entitled for the money decree for recovery of suit amount, therefore, the Plaintiff is also not entitled for any interest on the suit amount against the Defendants. The Issue no. 2 is also decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the CS No. 1201/2016 Page 22 of 23 Defendants.
16. Relief:- As the Issue No. 1 and 2 are decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants and in view of the above findings, this Court held that the Plaintiff is not entitled for money decree for recovery of Rs. 3,53,300/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred only) along with interest @ 18% per annum against the Defendants and therefore, the present suit is hereby dismissed on merits. Parties to bear their respective cost.
17. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court (DEEPANKER MOHAN) on this 23rd day of December, 2023 ADJ-04, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD COURTS DELHI CS No. 1201/2016 Page 23 of 23