Delhi District Court
Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr on 17 October, 2012
Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr
IN THE COURT OF SHRI INDER JEET SINGH, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03,
ROOM NO. 308, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
RCA. No. 22/12
Smt. Arti D/o Sh. Devi Deen Sharma
R/o 1061B/5/7 (Ground Floor),
Ward No. 7, Mehrauli, New Delhi - 30.
...Appellant
(defendant in original suit)
Versus
1. Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. O.P. Aggarwal
R/o 19, Model Basti, Delhi - 110005.
2. Smt. Saroj Khemka, W/o Late Sh. Ishwar Khemka
R/o J250, Sainik Farm, New Delhi - 30.
...Respondents
(plaintiffs in original suit)
Appeal Presented on : 07.07.2012
Date of Institution : 09.07.2012
Date of Decision : 17.10.2012
JUDGMENT
(on appeal against decree dated 01.06.2012 of Civil Judge - 03, Central, Tis Hazari)
1. The respondent/plaintiffs filed suit for possession (of two rooms with kitchen bathroom, latrine at ground floor of property No. 1061B/5/7, Ward No. 7, Mehrauli, New Delhi - 30, more particularly described in site plan Ex.PW1/5 in RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr suit file, in brief 'appeal property'), for permanent injunction (to restrain the appellants/defendants from selling, alienating, disposing of, parting with possession or creating third party interest of appeal property or to make any addition or alteration therein) and for mesne profit/damages of Rs. 16,000/ w.e.f December 2005 till March 2006 and future mesne profit @ Rs. 4000/ per month in favour of respondent No. 1 against the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant contested the suit. It requires to give the matrix of the case of the parties as set out by them, which is enumerated in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2; the issues emerged and evidence led are enumerated in paragraph 2.3 and findings of the court of Ms. Rachna Manchanda, Civil Judge(Central)03, Tis Hazari, Delhi is precisely enumerated in paragraph 2.4. below. 2.1 In nutshell the respondent No. 1, being landlord/owner of appeal property let out to appellant/defendant in November 2007 on a agreed monthly rent excluding water and electricity charges, of Rs. 2000/ for a period of 23 months and appellant assured to vacate it after said period. There was no formal agreement of lease. Subsequently, the appellant refused to vacate the appeal property after such period, the leased amount was increased to Rs. 3000/ per month and then to Rs. 4000/ per month. In August 2004, appellant RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr approached the respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 of her willingness to purchase the entire property comprising the first floor and the second floor of 1061B5/7, Ward No. 7, Mehrauli, New Delhi, which is also consisting the appeal property, earnest money of Rs. 40,000/ was given on 26.08.2004 and then an amount of Rs. 20,000/ on 10.12.2004 and it was agreed that appellant will pay balance amount of Rs. 4,40,000/ by 10.01.2005 and then respondent No. 1 will execute necessary papers like GPA, receipts, affidavit and possession of the property will be handed over to the appellant. The agreement (now Ex.PW1/7) for total consideration amount of Rs.5 lac was executed between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 It was agreed that in case the appellant failed to pay balance amount by the date, she will vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the appeal property to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 will return the earnest money. It was also agreed that in case respondent No. 1 cancels the deal, he will pay Rs. 80,000/ to the appellant. The appellant violated the terms and conditions of the agreement by not paying the balance amount, even the respondent No. 1 extended the time firstly till 31.01.2005 at appellant's request but a sum of Rs. 10,000/ was paid and appellant despite agreed to pay balance amount of Rs. 4,30,000/ failed to honour her commitment. In January 2005 the agreement expired and RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr respondent No. 1 asked the appellant to vacate the property and to hand over its possession as well as damages with effect from February 2005. She is unauthorized occupant. In July 2005, appellant paid Rs.40,000/ but it was adjusted towards damages upto November 2005 @ Rs.4000/ p.m. The appellant not only failed to vacate the appeal property but also in February 2006 herself tried to fix wooden partition in the common passage as well as to place lock on the second floor, the matter was reported to the police. The appellant may try to sell the appeal property or create third party interest. That is why, the suit was filed and respondents valued the suit as Rs. 1,67,000/, since the appeal property was 1/3 portion of entire property.
rd 2.2 The appellant had denied the respondents' claim/suit that firstly, suit is barred by section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act as the appellant was inducted tenant in the appeal property on the monthly rent of Rs. 1300/ excluding electricity and water charges, w.e.f December 1995, which stand paid upto 31.03.2006. The suit has not been properly valued. Neither the monthly rent was Rs. 2000/ nor it was let out for a period of 23 months nor the rent was enhanced to Rs. 3000/ nor at Rs. 4000/ at any point of time. Respondent No. 2's husband Sh. Ishwar Khemka was paid security of Rs. 26,000/ and he used RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr to collect rent from the appellant and he also used to take signature of appellant on the register till he expired in the year 2003 and thence appellant started paying rent to respondent No. 2 Smt. Saroj Khemka and rent stand paid upto 31.03.2006. There was an agreement for purchase of the said property No. 1061B/5/7, Ward No. 7, Mehrauli, New Delhi - 30, for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/, out of which Rs. 40,000/ was paid on 26.08.2004 against receipt and then a sum of Rs. 20,000/ was paid on 10.12.2004, it was agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4,40,000/ by 10.01.2005 and appellant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ on 10.01.2005 against receipt (now Ex.PW1/11) and time was extended upto 31.01.2005. Then a sum of Rs.40,000/ was paid in July 2005. However, the plaintiff No. 2 has been receiving the rent regularly @ Rs. 1300/ per month. The appellant reserves her right to recover amount of Rs. 1,10,000/ and to prosecute the defendants because they failed to show documents of title and other, on the one pretext or other. The suit is based on fabricated facts, the respondents were not entitled for any relieve of possession or mesne profit or injunction.
2.3 The trial court of ld. Civil Judge (Central)03 framed the following issues: RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of recovery of possession, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mesne/damages, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD
5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit, as stated in para No. 6 of the preliminary objection of the written statement? OPD
7. Whether the present suit is not maintainable as the appropriate remedy should have been to file the suit for specific performance, as stated in para No. 5 of the preliminary objection of written statement? OPD
8. Relief.
The respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs stepped into the witness box, as PW1 and PW2, to establish the issues in their favour and whereas, the present appellant/defendant Ms. Arti examined her as DW1 and concluded her evidence.
2.4 The onus to prove issue No. 1, 2 and 3 was on respondents/plaintiffs and onus to prove issue No. 4, 5 and 6 was on appellant/defendant. The trial court firstly, decided issue No. 5 by holding that on the one hand respondents claim that monthly rent was Rs. 2,000/ initially RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr agreed and then it was increased to Rs. 3000/ and then to Rs. 4000/ and on the other hand the appellant claimed that the monthly rent is Rs. 1300/, however, the balance of probabilities are in favour of respondents/plaintiffs, the issues No. 5 was decided against the appellant/defendant. Then issue No. 2 was taken and trial court considered the documents in favour of respondents and came to the conclusion that they are landlords and tenancy was determined in terms of section 106 of Transfer of property Act being month to month tenancy, while relying upon Jeevan Diesel and Electrical Ltd. vs Jasbir Singh Chadda HUF & Anr reported in 183 2011 DLT 712, that summons to the suit were served upon the appellant on 26.05.2006 and service of summons is to be treated notice under section 106 of Transfer of property Act and it was also held that by counting 15 days the appellant's tenancy was determined on 10.06.2006, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. The issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of respondents and against the appellants. In issue No. 3, by considering that tenancy stand determined on 10.06.2006, mesne profit was allowed @ Rs. 4000/ per month by adjusting the amount of Rs. 96,000/ paid by the appellant to the respondent. The issue No. 4, 6 and 7 were decided against the appellant/defendant and suit was accordingly decreed in favour of respondents and the appellant.
RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr 3.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned decree/judgment dated 01.06.2012, while relying upon facts and evidence of the parties, already referred in paragraph 2.2 that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact, evidence and law, therefore, findings on the issues are required to be set aside and the rent being below Rs. 3,500/, the Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as premises is governed by Section 3(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The monthly rent was Rs. 1300/ and it could be enhanced only by written notice under section 8 read with section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act at the interval of three years that too by 10% and by computing rent from 1300/ per month, it could never be Rs. 2000/ or Rs. 3000/ or Rs. 4000/ per month by any sort of calculations. Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act gives protection to the tenants and appellant has umbrella of such protection. The other contentions advanced by the appellant and also referred in the written arguments will be discussed issue wise.
3.2 Similarly the respondents have opposed the appeal, while reiterating and highlighting their case and evidence, already referred in paragraph 2.1 above, followed by oral arguments and written synopsis that decree for possession, injunction and mesne profit has been rightly passed in favour of RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr respondents and against the appellant because after agreement of sale and purchase between the appellant and respondent No. 1, the appellant ceased to be tenant, therefore, his status was changed and on the eve of existence of new contract, the earlier contract of lease cease to operate, in terms of section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. The monthly rent was Rs. 4000/ and it was exceeding Rs. 3,500/, therefore, the appellant is not protected by Delhi Rent Control Act. Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act also does not apply as it pertains to those agreement pertaining to eviction of the tenants but the agreement between appellant and respondent No. 1 was with regard to purchase of the entire property, it is governed by new contract in terms of section 62 of Indian Contract Act. The agreement of sale and purchase was out of free consent and volition of both parties and appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ on 10.01.2005 but it was subject to same terms and conditions of agreement. These are the prime considerations in arguments of respondents. The other contentions will be discussed issue wise.
4.1 (Findings): The rival contentions are assessed, in the light of evidence of the parties including the record, also, of trial court, statutory provisions of law of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Contract RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr Act. The issue No. 5 is backbone issue of controversy between the parties. By reading the entire record together, it can be narrated in one sentence that there is no written agreement of lease between the parties nor any documentary record of receipt nor any admitted fact in respect of rate of rent between the parties. Thus there is oral statement of one party against the oral statement of other party. In case the rent is below Rs. 3500/ per month, the Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable and in case the monthly rent is above Rs. 3500/, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, will not be applicable. However, it is one aspect of section 3(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act. There also exists other provision of the law, as well.
The appellant was let out the property by the respondent No. 1, it is not a disputed fact. The agreement of sale and purchase (Ex.PW1/7) is also not disputed by the parties. The last payment of Rs. 10,000/ was paid by appellant on 10.01.2005 to the respondent no.1 by a receipt (Ex.PW1/11) which extended the time upto 31.01.2005 is also not disputed and as per receipt Ex.PW1/11 the other conditions of agreement (Ex.PW1/7) were kept intact and enforceable. By this agreement of sale and purchase, it was agreed, in case the appellant failed to pay balance amount upto due date 10.01.2005 (now 31.01.2005 by reading the receipt Ex.PW1/11 together ), she will vacate and hand over vacant and RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr peaceful possession of the appeal property to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 will return the earnest money. It was also agreed that in case respondent No. 1 cancels the deal, he will pay Rs. 80,000/ to the appellant. This agreement as well as its terms and conditions changes the status of appellant as of purchaser and status of respondent as vendor/seller. By this agreement the appellant expressly surrendered her tenancy, as she purchased the property under certain terms and conditions. Section 111(e) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 talks about 'express surrender of lease' that in case a lessee yields up his interest under the lease to lessor by mutual agreement between them, it determines the lease. Therefore, by applying the principles of express surrender embodied in section 111(e) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the appellant had surrendered her tenancy and she cease to have a status of tenant. Thus, respondents' contention in evidence that initially rent was Rs. 2000/ and it was enhanced by respondent No. 1 to Rs. 3000/ and then to Rs. 4000/ (in written submissions it is stated paradoxically that monthly rent was increased under mutual agreement) or appellant's contention that rent could be revised by 10 % increase after each 3 year by written notice from rent of Rs. 1300/ per month, are not sustainable in view of their undisputed agreement of sale and purchase (Ex.PW1/7) as well as its terms and conditions of express RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr surrender of tenancy, governed by section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act.
The reasons in the findings of trial court like balance of probabilities are vague and there is no discussion about the factors, which convinced the trial court to come to such conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion of trail court are confirmed that suit is not barred/hit by section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 but for reasons given in aforementioned paragraph.
4.2.1 Since jurisdiction of civil court is not barred, therefore, suit for possession could be the remedy available with the respondents. However, the appellant contend that neither the tenancy was determined nor it could have been determined and there was no scope for notice, but respondents reiterate their stand that parties are governed by terms of the agreement and appellant herself had undertaken to vacate the premises, which she failed despite extension of period of agreement till 31.01.2005.
4.2.2 The trial court came to the conclusion that appellant admits that no rent was tendered after 31.03.2006, which was paid till 31.03.2006 and respondents had not filed any notice but at the stage of cross examination of DW1/appellant Stm. Arti, therefore, the said legal notice (ExPW1/D1) has RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr diminish value. The trial court relied upon Jeevan Diesel and Electrical Ltd. vs Jasbir Singh Chadda HUF & Anr reported in 183 2011 DLT 712 that service of summons to the suit amount to notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and tenant is required to vacate the premises within 15 days and appellant's tenancy stood terminated on 10.06.2006 as she was served with the summons to suit on 26.05.2006.
The trial court had relied upon Jeevan Diesel and Electrical Ltd. vs Jasbir Singh Chadda HUF & Anr reported in 183 2011 DLT 712 but it was set aside in precedent by apex Court in Jeevan Diesel and Electrical Ltd. vs Jasbir Singh Chadda HUF & Anr reported in 2010 (6) SCC 601. Although the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi again laid down the law in Abhinav Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. vs Sunita Seth 186 (2012) DLT 689 (date of decision 02.12.2011). Still the conclusion of trial court on issue No. 1 are misplaced because, firstly, the trial court proceeded on the assumption that there was relationship of the landlord and tenant between the respondent No. 1 and the appellant, whereas appellant ceased to be a tenant when agreement of sale and purchase (Ex.PW1/7) was entered having period upto 10.01.2005 and extended period upto 31.01.2005. Secondly, the respondents had valued their suit for Rs. 1,67,000, which is 1/3 rd of total consideration amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ mentioned in agreement RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr Ex.PW1/7. To say the suit for possession has been valued in terms of section 7(v)(e) of Court Fee Act in respect of appeal property and suit has not been valued on the notion of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in terms of section 7(xi)(cc) of Court Fee Act. Thirdly, the respondents filed suit for possession because the appellant was not a tenant and court cannot substitute what was not existing or pleaded, by assuming that there was relationship of the tenant and the landlord between the appellant/defendant and respondent No.1/plaintiff. The material on record suffice that respondents have established and proved their case of possession against the appellant/defendant and in favour of respondent no.1, therefore, the conclusion of trial court are affirmed but for the aforementioned reasons, the reasons given by the trial court are set aside. The respondent no.2/plaintiff was a proforma party. 4.3.1 On the point of mesne profit, the appellant case revolves on circumference of central point that she is a protected tenant, question for mesne profit does not arise and on the other side the respondents have claimed mesne profit that the last paid rent was of Rs. 4000/ per month, the latter was accepted by the trial court and it was determined as mesne profit. RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr 4.3.2 There is no independent evidence by the respondents to establish rate of mesne profit but they have claimed it being last rate of rent. When there is no independent evidence vis a vis there are rival oral evidence of the parties, the court has to take the judicial notice of certain facts, since the trial court had also not elaborated the reasons on the findings of issue No. 3. There is an occasion to go through the law declared S. Kumar vs G.R. Kathpalia 1999 RLR 114 wherein it was held that the court may also take judicial notice of the fat like prime location of the premises, proximately to commercial activities and community center, while assessing mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of the premises and also Bakshi Sachdev (deceased) by L.Rs vs Concord (I) 1993 RLR 563 wherein it was held that the court also take judicial notice under section 57 of Evidence Act of the fact of increase in rent in Delhi, for computing the mesne profits or damages for use and occupation of the premises after termination of the tenancy. Since the appeal property comprises two rooms with kitchen bathroom, latrine at ground floor of property No. 1061 B/5/7, Ward No. 7, Mehrauli, New Delhi - 30, it is located in South Delhi, which is a notified area under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It can fetch average monthly rent of Rs. 4000/. Therefore, mesne profit is determined as Rs. 4000/ per month. For such reasons the findings of trial court on issue No. 3 RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr are confirmed, without disturbing the period from which mesne profit is payable as there are no cross objections are by the respondents on the point of commencement of period of mesne profit. The respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 was proforma party in the suit..
4.4.1 On the point of issue No. 6 and 7, the appellant's request that for want of proof of ownership the suit was not maintainable and secondly the remedy available with the respondents was to file suit for specific performance of agreement, whereas, according to respondents the respondents proved documentary record in favour of respondent No. 1 and such record were also shown to the appellant while entering into agreement to sell but the appellant falsely took the plea that documents were not shown to her, whereas in the agreement to sell she was satisfied from the record shown to her. The respondents had two options either to file suit for possession or to go for specific performance of agreement, as per the terms and conditions of agreement the respondents filed the suit for possession appropriately. 4.4.2 The trial court returned findings on issue No. 6, while relying upon section 116 of Indian Evidence Act under the assumption that the suit was filed RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr by respondents as landlord against the appellant as a tenant. It has already been held in paragraph 4.2.2 above that appellant ceased to be tenant because of change of her status after agreement to sale and purchase (Ex.PW1/7). On page 2 of agreement PW1/7, the appellant clearly covenant that she is satisfied with the legal title and status of the property and she will have no complaint against the respondent No. 1 in future. Therefore, by applying the principle of estoppel and acquiescence vis a vis the appellant is in possession of 1/3 of the rd entire property and remaining 2/3 property is with the respondents, therefore, rd suit on the basis of documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 is maintainable and respondent no.1 has locus standi to file the same. They exercise option of suit for possession. Therefore, for such additional reasons the findings of trial court are affirmed but held that plaintiff no.2/respondent no.2 was a proforma party. 4.4.3 The appellant was inducted as a tenant long back, then there was an agreement of sale and purchase with the respondent No. 1, she is ceased to be tenant in the appeal property, therefore she had no right to create any third party interest or right in the appeal property detrimental to the interest of respondents. Therefore, findings of issue No. 2 of trial court are affirmed. RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr 4.4.4 Consequently, findings of trial court on issue No. 4 are also affirmed.
5. In view of the discussion, analysis and additional reasons given in paragraph 4 above, the appeal is dismissed and decree/judgment dated 01.06.2012 stand confirmed. Both the parties will bear their own costs.
While going through the record many deficiencies have been discovered, which is touching the fiscal aspect as well as other circumstances, therefore, necessary directions are required to the trial court/executing court and the ministerial staff, which are in paragraph 6.1 to 6.3: 6.1 The court may allow or may not allow costs to the suit but decree sheet must reflect cost of the suit, since it always remain for scrutiny of appeal court. The decree sheet prepared by the trial court does not reflect costs of suit or stamp of claim or power of attorney etc., every column is filled 'Nil'. Whereas, it is not so.
6.2 (Directions to trial court) The trial court adjusted the amount paid by appellant as mesne profit upto May 2008 and suit has also been decreed on RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr 01.06.2012 for mesne profit @ Rs. 4000/ per month from June 2008 till possession is handed over. As per provisions of the court fee Act, 1870 the Reader attached to the court is Taxing Officer and as per section 11 of the Court Fee Act, 1870, when the amount of mesne profits exceeds the amount claimed or mesne profit is determinable, the plaintiff is required to pay the proper fee on mesne profit upto date of decree. There is no direction by the trial court in judgment/order/decree dated 01.06.2012 to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff No. 1 to pay deficient proper fee on the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/, of mesne profit from June 2008 to 01.06.2012 (i.e., 48 months x Rs. 4000/ per month). Now it is directed that the respondents will pay the deficient proper fee and deposit it in the court/executing court within one and a half month from today and the trial court is also directed that supplementary decree sheet will be drawn and the decree will not be executable unless the deficient proper fee is paid by the respondent No. 1. In case deficient fee is not paid the court may proceed in terms of section 11 of the Court Fee Act, 1870. Copy of this judgment to be sent to trial court/or successor court besides TCR.
6.3 With aforementioned directions the appeal stand disposed of. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
RCA No. 22/12 Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr 6.4 (Directions to other courts) It has been observed in numbers of appeals that Readers attached to the trial court of Civil Judges are preparing decree sheets in the same fashion and/or deficient court fees are not being asked for, therefore, copy of this judgment be sent to ld. Senior Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari and to ld. Senior Civil Judge (South), Saket so that the civil judges may be guided appropriately on these aspects and to avoid repeated directions in individual cases.
File is consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (INDER JEET SINGH)
on 25th Asvina, Saka 1934 Addl. District Judge03, South District,
Saket/17.10.2012
RCA No. 22/12
Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr
RCA No. 22/12
17.10.2012
Appearance: Appellant in person. Written arguments are filed, copy already
sent to opposite party.
Respondent no.1 for himself and for respondent No. 2.
Vide separate judgment, the appellant's appeal is dismissed and for additions reasons, cited in the judgment, it is held that respondent no.2 was party to suit as a proforma plaintiff and findings of trial court are affirmed. TCR is sent back with copy of judgment.
File is consigned to record.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
Addl. District Judge03, South District,
S Saket/17.10.2012
RCA No. 22/12
Smt. Arti vs Rajkumar Aggarwal & Anr
RCA No. 22/12
20.10.2012
File is taken up as it is discovered that in the first line of judgment word/name 'Smt. Arti' is mentioned prefix respondent/plaintiffs whereas, Arti is appellant. There is an accidental slip. The word/name 'Smt. Arti' is deleted/attested.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
Addl. District Judge03, South District,
S Saket/20.10.2012
RCA No. 22/12