Delhi District Court
Shri Anit Kumar Minocha vs State on 16 July, 2009
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.P. VAISH, DISTRICT JUDGE-II CUM
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
P.C. No. 324 / 2006
Date of institution: 19.09.2005
Judgment reserved on: 16.07.2009
Judgment pronounced on: 16.07.2009
Shri Anit Kumar Minocha
S/o Shri Satya Pal Minocha
R/o 6313, Lake View, Blvd # Appt.25,
Middle Ton, Wis-53562, USA
represented through
Sh. Sunil Kumar Minocha
S/o Sh. Satya Pal Minocha
R/o C-1/66, Ashok Vihar,
Ph-2, Delhi-52 ......... Petitioner
Versus
1. State
2. Sh. Virender Minocha
S/o Sh. Satya Pal Minocha
R/o 119-120 Double Storey,
New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Minocha
S/o Sh. Satya Pal Minocha
278 Rancho Santa Fe Road,
Olivehein, CA-92024
4. Sh. Sunil Kumar Minocha
S/o Sh. Satya Pal Minocha
R/o C-1/66, Ashok Vihar,
Ph-2, Delhi-52 .......Respondents
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State
-: 2 :-
Petition for Probate or Letters of Administration with the Will
annexed.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the petition for grant of Probate or Letters of Administration with Will annexed executed by Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha wife of Shri Satya Pal Minocha.
2. Succinctly stated the case of the petitioner is that in November 2003 petitioner had filed a petition bearing PC No. 77 in November-2003. Notice of the said petition was served on the legal heirs of the deceased and the publication of the notice was also effected in the newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 28.07.2003. The respondent No.2 had been taking dates from time to time in the said case. On 04.08.2005 said petition was dismissed in default. Copy of the complete set of papers of said petition has been filed as part-II of the present petition.
3. It is averred by the petitioner that Smt. Chandrakanta was Hindu and died on 29.12.2000 at New Delhi. She had executed a Will and testament on 06.02.1991 whereby she appointed the petitioner as sole executor and bequeathed her estate in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner being her son and executor of the Will is entitled to the Probate of the Will.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 3 :-
4. It is also averred by the petitioner that deceased Smt. Chandrakanta left behind relations mentioned in para 7 (vi) of the petition namely Shri Satya Pal Minocha, Shri Virender Minocha, Shri Sudhir Kumar Minocha, Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha and Shri Anil Kumar Minocha.
5. The notice of the petition was issued to State through Collector. The citation for general public was ordered to be published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran'. However, the publication was not effected as per report on the margin of order dated 27.07.2006.
6. Notice was also issued to the respondents. Respondent No.2 filed objections on the grounds interalia that the petition is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The petition has not been verified by the witness of the Will, as required by law. The petition is bad for non joinder of Shri Satyapal Minocha. It is also stated that earlier petitioner had filed a petition bearing PC No. 77/2003, which was dismissed in default on 23.02.2004. The petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, which was also dismissed for non prosecution on 04.08.2005. The petitioner debarred from filing the fresh petition.
7. On merits, the respondent No.2 has denied that deceased Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha executed any Will dated 06.02.1991, alleged Will is not genuine and is forged and fabricated document. It is also stated that deceased Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha had no right or title to execute the Will.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 4 :-
8. The petitioner filed reply to the objections filed on behalf of respondent No.2, denied the allegations made in the reply and reiterated the plea taken in the petition.
9. Respondent No.3 Shri Sudhir Kumar Minocha filed no objection by way of his affidavit dated 31.07.2006. The respondent No.4 Shri Sunil Minocha gave no objection by filing reply dated 21.09.2006.
10. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by my learned predecessor on 06.10.2006:-
1. Whether the Will dated 06.02.1991 propounded by the petitioner is the duly executed last and final Will of late Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha in good held and sound state of mind? OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections taken by respondent No.2? OPR-2
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of para 6 of the objections? OPR-2
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate / Letters of Administration? OPP
5. Relief
11. In support of his case, the petitioner has examined as many as three witnesses. Pw-1 Shri Satyapal Minocha has tendered his affidavit, which is Ex.P-1. He has deposed that Will dated 06.02.1995 Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 5 :- executed by Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha is mark X. He has proved the death certificate of Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha as Ex.PW-1/2. He has also stated that petitioner Shri Anil Kumar Minocha executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha, said attorney is Ex.Pw-1/3. He has proved the sale deed in favour of Shri Uttam Chand as Ex.PW-1/4. Shri Uttam Chand executed a Will dated 27.05.1994, Will is Ex.Pw-1/5. The property was mutated in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta and mutation letter is Ex.PW-1/6. The wedding card which was issued at the time of marriage of daughter of Shri Virender Kumar is Ex.PW-1/7. The water bill has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/8. In cross examination he admitted that he has not proved any document as Ex.PW-1/1. He denied that his father had not executed any Will dated 27.05.1974 or same bears forged signatures of his father. He also denied that mental condition of his father was not good in May 1974. He also denied that he dictated the contents of Will of Smt. Chandrakanta or that she was unable to read contents of the Will. He also denied that Will mark X does not bear signatures of second witness because the Will was got prepared by him and not by his wife. He also denied that his wife had cordial relations with Virender Minocha. He admitted that photograph on the Will mark X does not bear signatures of Smt. Chandrakanta. He denied that photograph was not pasted and was stapled later on.
12. PW-2 Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha has filed his affidavit, which is Ex.P-2. By way of his affidavit he has stated that Anil Kumar Minocha executed power of attorney in his favour, which is Ex.Pw-1/3.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 6 :- He has deposed that Will referred in his affidavit as Ex.Pw-2/1 be read as mark X. He has proved the water bills as Ex.Pw-2/2 to 2/6. In cross examination he denied that Shri Anil Kumar Minocha had not executed power of attorney Ex.PW-1/3 in his favour to prosecute the present case or that he did not authorize him to file the present case. He has admitted that contents of para 9 of his affidavit are not in the personal knowledge of Shri Anil Kumar Minocha and have been written at the instance of his father. Shri Uttam Chand suddenly expired in December-1974. He denied that his grandfather got the property from the Government to rehabilitate him or that Uttam Chand purchased the property after selling the property, which he got in compensatoin.
13. PW-3 Shri Anil Kumar Minocha is the petitioner. He has tendered his affidavit, which is Ex.P3. By way of his affidavit, he has deposed in terms of the petition. At the time of his examination-in- chief, an objection was taken regarding the proof of Will dated 06.02.1991 as EX.X as he is not the attesting witness of the Will. The objection was sustained and the Will Ex.X was ordered to be read as mark X. In cross examination he admitted that power of attorney Ex.Pw-1/3 is the same attorney, which he gave to his brother in January-2001. The petition has been signed and verified by his attorney Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha. He denied that his mother did not execute any Will in his favour.
14. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner closed evidence on behalf of petitioner vide his statement dated 25.02.2008.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 7 :-
15. The respondent No.2 did not choose to lead any evidence and learned counsel for respondent No.2 closed evidence on 26.05.2008. Thereafter, learned counsel for respondent No.2 tendered certified copies of the order in PC No.77/03 titled as Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State & Ors. Certified copy of order dated 23.02.2004 is Ex.R-1, certified copy of order dated 20.04.2005 is Ex.R-2 and copy of order dated 04.08.2005 is Ex.R-3.
16. I have heard Shri K.C. Dua Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Rajni Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have also carefully gone through material on record and the written submissions filed on behalf of petitioner. My issue wise findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property in question was purchased by Shri Uttam Chand Minocha from his own funds and he executed the Will dated 27.05.1974 in favour of Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha. After his death the property was mutated in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha and she had been paying the house tax and water bills to the MCD.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that Smt. Chandrakanta, mother of the petitioner executed Will dated 06.02.1991 in favour of the petitioner and the Will was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Shri Satyapal Minocha is an Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 8 :- attesting witness to the Will and he has appeared as PW-1 and the original Will is mark X.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the objector has filed suit No.18/07 and challenged the Will dated 27.05.1974 executed by Shri Uttam Chand and the Will dated 06.02.1991 executed by mother of the petitioner and sought declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The objector is in unauthorized occupation of the ground floor of the premises and has filed objections with ulterior motives to retain the possession of ground floor without making any payment to the petitioner.
20. Per contra, learned counsel for objector / respondent No.2 urged that petitioner has failed to prove the Will as required by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. She pointed out that original Will dated 06.02.1991 has not been exhibited and same is mark X. She referred to the affidavit of PW-1, Shri Satyapal Minocha wherein he has stated that he is an attesting witness to the will of Smt. Chandrakant Minocha but he has not proved the Will.
21. The law regarding the execution and proof of unprivileged Will has been enunciated in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act reads as under:-
"63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.-Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 9 :- actual warfare, [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:-
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
22. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 63 of the Act, it is clear that attesting witness must state that each of the two witnesses had seen the executor sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other persons signing the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant. The witness should further state that each of the attesting witnesses signed the Will in the presence of the executant. These are the ingredients of the attestation and have to be proved by the witnesses. The word 'execution' in Section 63 of the Act includes attestation as required by law. The propounder can discharge the onus on proof of aforesaid essential ingredients.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 10 :-
23. Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.
24. It is settled rule of law that the onus to prove the Will lies on the propounder and he has to satisfy that the Will is the last Will and testament of the testator. The propounder has to show that the Will was signed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses, the testator was in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. The onus of the propounder can be said to be discharged on proof of said essential facts. However, where there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder has to remove suspicious circumstances and explain the said circumstances to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the Will as genuine. In this regard reference with advantage may be made to judgment in case titled as Shasi Kumar Banerjee & Ors Vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee reported as AIR 1964 SC 529.
25. The law regarding legal burden of proof was extensively dealt with by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Vidhya Sagar Soni Vs . State and Ors reported as AIR 2006 Delhi 354 . In para 5 to 21 of the said Judgment the principles regarding burden of proof have been laid down. It was held that the legal burden to prove due execution always lies upon the person propounding the Will. The Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 11 :- propounder must satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last Will of a free and capable testator. It was also held that no specific standard of proof can be enunciated which must be applicable to all the cases. Every case depends upon its own circumstances. Apart from other proof, conduct of parties is very material and has considerable bearing on evidence as to the genuineness of the Will which is propounded. The Courts have to be vigilant and zealous in examining evidence. Rules relating to proof of Wills are not rules of law but are rules of practice.
26. In case titled as Indu Bala Bose and Ors. Vs Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr reported as AIR 1982 S.C. 133, it was held that mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63 of the Act. It was also observed that the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signatures of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus.
27. It is also settled law that in a case where the respondent alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus lies on him to prove the same. In this regard reference with advantage can be made to a judgment of the Apex Court in case titled as Pentakota Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs Pentakota Seetharanan & Ors reported as (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 12 :-
28. The law relating to Wills came up for judicial scrutiny before our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as K.L. Malhotra Vs Sudarshan Kumari & Anr. reported as 149 (2008) Delhi Law Times
783. In paras 27 to 29 it was held ;
"27. The rules governing the propounding of a Will are two. First, the onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding the Will and he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last Will of the testator. Second, if a party actively participates in the execution of a Will under which he takes a benefit, it is a circumstance to excite the suspicion of the Court and calls upon the Court to be vigilant and zealous in examining the evidence on record.
28. The strict meaning of the term 'onus probandi' is this, that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. In all cases the onus is imposed on the party propounding the Will. It is in general discharge by proof of capacity and the fact of execution from which the knowledge of and assent to the contents of the instrument are assumed.
29. The nature of proof required to prove a Will is not different from those required to prove other documents except the requirement of attestation prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The proof is to be tested on the usual satisfaction of a prudent mind. What distinguishes a Will from other document is that the testator would not be available to testify the same as his last Will. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision. Even then the Court has to proceed with the inquiry in the same manner as is done in respect of any other document. The propounder is called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that (1) the Will was signed by the testator in Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 13 :- the presence of two attesting witnesses; (2) at the relevant time he was in sound and disposing state of mind; (3) he understood the nature and effect i.e. the content of the disposition ; (4) he put the signature to the document of his own free Will. The onus of the propounder can be said to be discharged on proof of the above essential facts."
29. In the present case, the petitioner has propounded the Will dated 06.02.1991, alleged to have been executed by Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha. There are two attesting witnesses namely Shri Satyapal Minocha and Shri O.P. Chaudhary Advocate. The Will had been drafted by Shri O.P. Chaudhary Advocate. The petitioner has examined one of the attesting witness, Shri Satyapal Minocha as PW-1, who has tendered his affidavit, which is Ex.P-1. He has not proved the Will and has stated that original Will is mark X. In his affidavit, he has stated that Will dated 06.02.1991 was executed by deceased Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha in favour of Shri Anil Kumar Minocha, he is attesting witness to the Will. He has not deposed that the testatrix Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha signed in his presence or he had signed in the presence of testatrix. He has also not deposed that testatrix signed on the Will in the presence of other attesting Shri O.P. Chaudhary Advocate or Shri O.P. Chaudhary Advocate signed in the presence of testatrix Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha. Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove the Will as required by Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 14 :-
30. It is pertinent to mention here that the original Will has not been exhibited and the same has been marked as mark X. It is settled law that even if a document has been exhibited, same does not dispense with the proof of document. In this regard reliance can be placed on a Judgment in case titled as Sait Tarajee Khimchand & Ors. Vs. Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya & Ors reported as (1972) 4 Supreme Court Cases 562.
31. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Will mark X was duly registered with the office of Sub- Registrar, it may be mentioned that same does not dispense with the proof, as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Apex Court in case titled as Girja Datt Singh Vs. Gangotri Datt Singh reported as AIR 1955 S.C. 346 has observed that one could not presume from the mere signature of two attesting witnesses at the foot of endorsement of registration that they had appended their signatures to the document as attesting witnesses or can be construed to have done so in their capacity as attesting witnesses. Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act requires an attesting witness to be called as a witness to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will. This provision should have been complied with in order that two witnesses be treated as attesting witnesses.
32. In my view, the petitioner has failed to prove the due execution of the Will dated 06.02.1991, which is propounded by the petitioner. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the objector / respondent No.2 and against the petitioner.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 15 :- ISSUE NO.2
33. The objector has taken an objection that the petition has not been verified by the attesting witness as required by law. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that the petition is bad for non joinder of Shri Satyapal Minocha, who is husband of the deceased testatrix. Another submission of the learned counsel for objector is that petition has not been signed and verified by the competent person.
34. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the affidavit of attesting witness Shri Satyapal Minocha was filed along with the petition. He also submitted that the petitioner had appointed his brother, Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha as attorney and General Power of Attorney dated 18.01.2001 was executed, which is Ex.Pw-1/3.
35. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. As regards the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petition has not been verified by the attesting witness, it may be mentioned that provisions of Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act are directory. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Judgment in case titled as Nand Kishore Rai Vs. Mst. Bhagikne and Ors. reported as 1958 Allahabad 329.
36. The other submission of the learned counsel for the objector is that petition has not been signed and verified by the competent Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 16 :- person has great force. The petition has been signed and verified by Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha and not by the petitioner. The petitioner has not mentioned in the petition that he has authorized Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha to sign, verify and institute the petition or that he has executed Attorney in favour of Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha. The petitioner has proved General Power of Attorney dated 18.01.2001 as Ex.Pw-1/3. Perusal of General Power of Attorney Ex.Pw-1/3 reveals that the petitioner, Shri Anil Kumar Minocha appointed Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha as attorney to sign and verify the pleadings, affidavits, vakalatnama and other documents in Suit No. 1203 of 2000 titled as Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha Vs. Virender Minocha. In para 1 of the General Power of Attorney, it is mentioned that Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha has been appointed as lawful attorney to do the acts mentioned in the attorney, in respect of the prosecution of Suit No. 1203 of 2000 titled as Chandrakanta Minocha Vs. Virender Minocha, pending in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The petitioner had not authorized Shri Sunil Kumar Minocha to sign, verify and institute the petition for Probate.
37. The petitioner is claiming Probate of the Will executed by testatrix Chandrakanta Minocha. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act provides the rules of succession in the case of female Hindu. As per clause (a) of Section 15 of the Act, sons, daughters and the husband succeeds to the estate of the female Hindu. Admittedly, Shri Satyapal Minocha, who is husband of the testatrix is alive and is one of the legal heirs of the testatrix Chandrakanta Minocha. He has not Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 17 :- been cited in the list of legal heirs. According to Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act all the persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased are entitled to the citation. Shri Satyapal Minocha, husband of the testatrix has not been referred in the list of relations and no citation was served upon him. Accordingly, the petition is not maintainable and issue No.2 is decided in favour of respondent No.2 / objector and against the petitioner. ISSUE NO.3
38. This issue was framed on the objection taken by the objector in para 6 of the reply. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 urged that petitioner had earlier filed a petition for Probate in respect of Will dated 06.02.1991, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 23.02.2004, certified copy of said order is Ex.R-1. The petitioner moved an application for restoration of said petition, which was also dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 20.04.2005, certified copy of order is Ex.R-2. Again the petitioner moved an application for restoration of said application, which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2005, certified copy of said order is Ex.R-3.
39. Order IX Rule 9 CPC reads as under:-
"Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit. - (1) Where a sit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 18 :- or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.
40. On perusal of Rule IX of Order 9 CPC it is manifestly clear that if earlier instituted suit was dismissed under Rule 8 of Order 9 CPC, the plaintiff is precluded from bringing fresh suit on the same cause of action. The test to be applied is that the plaintiff must be the same and cause of action must be identical.
41. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner had earlier filed a petition for Probate in respect of the Will dated 06.02.1991 executed by Smt. Chandrakanta Minocha, bearing PC No. 77/2003 and the said petition was dismissed in default on 23.02.2004 by the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. Certified copy of order dated 23.02.2004 is Ex.R-1 and same reveals that counsel for objector (respondent No.2 herein) was present and nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner and, therefore, the petition was dismissed in default. Hence, said petition was dismissed under Rule 8 of order 9 CPC and the bar of Rule IX Order 9 CPC is applicable. Thus the present petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. Accordingly, issue No.3 is decided in favour of respondent No.2 / objector and against the petitioner.
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State -: 19 :- ISSUE NO.4
42. In view of my findings on issue No. 1,2, & 3, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of Probate / Letters of Administration, as claimed in the petition. Accordingly, issue No.4 is decided in favour of the respondent No.2 / objector and against the petitioner.
ISSUE NO.5 (RELIEF)
43. As a result of above discussion and my findings on issues No.1 to 4, petition fails, same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (V.P. VAISH)
on this 16th day of July 2009 DISTRICT JUDGE-II
(NORTH) DELHI
Anil Kumar Minocha Vs. State