Delhi District Court
Chander Pal Singh vs Meenakshi Chauhan on 4 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.484/2023
CNR No.DLST01-008184-2023
Chander Pal Singh,
S/o Shri Kashi Ram,
R/o 54, Subhash Camp,
Dakshin Puri, New Delhi 110062. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Meenakshi Chauhan,
W/o Suraj Chauhan,
R/o House No.19/186,
First Floor, Dakshin Puri Extension,
New Delhi. .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 23.08.2023
Date of arguments : 05.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 04.01.2025
Suit for defamation and recovery of damages of Rs.10,00,000/-
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for the tort of Civil Defamation, and recovery of damages of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac) against the defendant herein.
2. The Plaintiff is a practicing Advocate enrolled with The BAR CS DJ No.484/2023 page 1 of 43 Council of Delhi. As averred, the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of a property bearing address No. 19/186, First Floor, Dakshinpuri Extension, New Delhi-110062 (tenanted premises).
3. As averred, the defendant herein was a tenant of the plaintiff, and is presently residing at the tenanted premises, allegedly as a trespasser, as the plaintiff has already terminated the lease of the defendant vide his legal notice dated 21.03.2023.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant and her husband approached the plaintiff for taking the tenanted premises on rent.
Since the defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiff, the plaintiff accordingly considered her aforesaid request favourably, and let out the tenanted premises on lease @ Rs 4,000/- per month.
5. As averred, initially, the defendant paid the agreed rent amount for the first three months. Subsequently, the defendant stopped paying the rent. Further, after the expiry of 11 months, neither did the defendant pay the rental arrears, nor did she and her husband vacate the tenanted premises.
6. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has not paid rent qua the tenanted premises for more than 33 months. Further, whenever the plaintiff used to ask the defendant about the rent, she used to avoid paying the same on one pretext or another.
7. Subsequently, the relation between the parties became strained. As stated by the plaintiff, whenever the plaintiff used to inquire about the rent arrears, the defendant used to start arguing with CS DJ No.484/2023 page 2 of 43 the plaintiff. Further, as alleged, the defendant has also extended threats of implicating the plaintiff in false criminal cases. It has also been stated by the plaintiff that, in order to grab the tenanted premises, the defendant has also filed a false and frivolous case against the plaintiff before the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, South District, Saket.
8. As averred, the present suit, is arising out of the case filed by the defendant, wherein the defendant has made defamatory allegations and imputations qua the plaintiff herein.
9. As alleged, the defendant has referred to the plaintiff as a land grabber. Further, the defendant has also stated in her suit that the plaintiff has indulged in criminal activities, and has encroached upon public and private land. The defendant has also stated in her suit that the plaintiff, allegedly, deals in disputed properties.
10. The exact allegations have been reproduced herein under;
".... That as per the knowledge of the Plaintiff the defendants are known to each other and are the land grabbers of the area, who has indulged in illegal activities of encroaching upon the government as well as private land and also deals in disputed properties...."
11. The plaintiff has stated that the said allegations and averments are unfounded, untrue, false and malicious which tantamount to mudslinging, character assassination and casting of aspersions on the character and integrity of the plaintiff.
12. As alleged, the defendant has attempted to project the plaintiff CS DJ No.484/2023 page 3 of 43 as a criminal, a goon and a law breaker with a view to demean and denigrate the plaintiff by alleging that the plaintiff is involved in unlawful act of extorting money, land grabbing, and is a rank encroacher.
13. As alleged, due to the said allegations, the image of the plaintiff has been tarnished beyond redeem. As a result, the plaintiff felt shame and humiliation, became worried, upset, worried. Further, as alleged, the defendant herein went on to spread various unfounded and false rumours against the defendant in the locality in order to tarnish and diminish his reputation in the estimation of his friends, relatives, peers and the society at large. As alleged, all the allegations and imputations were defamatory per-se.
14. It is alleged further that when the friends and relatives of the plaintiff read the contents of the plaint as filed by the defendant, they started to avoid the plaintiff. As averred in the plaint, over a passage of years, the plaintiff had built his reputation in the area, and earlier he was known as a person of impeccable integrity, honesty, hard work, sincerity and morality.
15. Further, due to intentional acts of the defendant, the long standing esteem, prestige and reputation of the plaintiff has been shattered beyond repair. As averred, the reputation of the plaintiff has been lowered in the eyes of his relatives, parents, friends, colleagues, peers and the society at large.
16. Allegedly, there is an apparent slur and odium on the conduct, CS DJ No.484/2023 page 4 of 43 integrity, character of the plaintiff. As a result of the alleged wanton allegations imputed by the defendant, the plaintiff allegedly became distressed and depressed, and as such could not devote his time towards his family and profession giving rise to the present cause of action.
17. As alleged, the defendant has made deliberate and wilful false statements against the plaintiff to lower down the plaintiffs character in the eyes of the public at large.
18. As a result, the plaintiff was constrained to issue and address a legal notice to the defendant dated 12.07.2023 seeking damages amounting to Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac) on account of defamation. Further, the plaintiff has not received any reply to the said legal notice.
19. Accordingly, the Court vide its order dated 31.01.2024 framed the below mentioned issues, namely:
1. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages of Rs 10 Lacs against the defendant for defaming the plaintiff? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendent-lite and future interest @18% per annum on the decreetal amount? OPP
4. Relief
20. PER CONTRA, vide order dated 08.12.2023; the defendant CS DJ No.484/2023 page 5 of 43 had filed her written statement. The same was taken on record subject to costs of Rs 3,000/-, as the same was beyond the statutory period of limitation.
21. It is pertinent to observe at this stage that the defendant did not comply with the directions as issued vide order dated 08.12.2023, and failed to deposit the costs. As a result, this Court vide its order dated 14.11.2024, ordered that the written statement of the defendant be taken off the record. Further, right to lead DE was also closed EVIDENCE
22. PW-1 Sh. Chander Pal Singh entered the witness box of 19.07.2024, and essentially re-affirmed the contents of the evidence affidavit, and his plaint.
23. PW-2 Sh Gajraj Singh S/o Sh Shrawan Kumar, R/o C-85, A, First Floor, Dakshinpuri, entered the witness box on 19.07.2024, and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit.
24. PW-3 Sh Ravi Kumar S/o Lt. Sh Bhim Sain r/o DII-273, Madangir entered the witness box on 19.07.2024, and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit.
25. PW-4 Sh Mukesh Sawariya s/o Sh Om Prakash r/o B486, Subhash Camp, Dr Ambedkar Nagar entered the witness box on 19.07.2024, and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit.
26. PW-1 relied on the exhibits EX. PW-1/A to EX. PW-1/O.
27. The remaining witnesses as examined by the plaintiff deposed CS DJ No.484/2023 page 6 of 43 in consonance with the contents of the suit and the evidence of the affidavit, thereby re-affirming the suit of the plaintiff. The witnesses also deposed before the Ld. Predecessor Court as a result of reading the contents of the suit, as filed by the defendant, the witnesses started to avoid the plaintiff herein.
28. PW-2 further went on to state on oath that his family advised him to keep distance from the plaintiff, else the defendant can level similar allegations against him as well.
29. The other witness also stated on oath that the friends and relatives of the plaintiff, as a result of the case filed by the defendant, also started to avoid the plaintiff.
30. The plaintiff' witnesses also stated on oath that as result of the said imputations, the plaintiff became visibly distressed and depressed. Other residents of the locality started to look down upon the plaintiff.
31. The defendant also did not participate in the evidence proceedings. Further, no DE was led on behalf of the defendant, nor was the defendant, and/or her representative was present during the entire proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS
32. The plaintiff advanced and concluded its final arguments on 05.12.2024. Written submission were also filed by the plaintiff, wherein, the plaintiff has essentially reiterated the contents of his suit CS DJ No.484/2023 page 7 of 43 and the evidence as led.
33. During the course of his submissions, the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following precedents:
Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 2025 S. Narayanan Vs P. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1996 Mad 262 Copies of the judgments were not filed along with the submissions.
OBSERVATIONS & REASONING
34. Without repeating all the facts as mentioned herein above, it is observed that the plaintiff is a practicing Advocate being an officer of the Court. The plaintiff has exhibited his Saket BAR Association ID card which bears the enrolment number D/2235/2023.
35. The entire case pertains to certain defamatory averments, which the defendant herein has mentioned in her pleadings, in the civil suit bearing no. CS SCJ 1105/2022 as filed before the Ld. Saket District Court, South District. The same has been exhibited as EX.PW-1/M.
36. Evidently, the defence of the defendants was struck off, and the right to lead DE was closed.
37. As per the law of the land Order VIII CPC requires a party to deny the averments in the plaint, else the same are deemed to be admitted.
38. This Court vide its order dated 14.11.2024 directed that the written statement of the defendant be taken off the record, and the CS DJ No.484/2023 page 8 of 43 right to lead DE was closed as the defendant, despite receiving several opportunities, failed to deposit Costs as imposed upon her. Further, the said order has not been impugned, and hereby stands confirmed. Evidently, the allegations and averments made qua the defendant are deemed to be as admitted.
39. It is also observed that the defendant has not been appearing before this Court for the last several dates. The lackadaisical conduct on the part of the defendant is not appreciated and appears to be a dilatory tactic.
40. To establish a cause of action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove:
The words are defamatory by their natural and ordinary meaning.
The words refer to the plaintiff.
The words were published to a third party This Court is inclined to place reliance upon a very recent judgment as authored by the Hon'ble High Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh, Srinagar Bench dated 20.07.2024 SATYA PRAKASH ARYA v. SYED ABID JALALI CRMC 129/ 2017 :"14. The law is well settled that when pleadings containing defamatory material are relied before a court of law, the same amounts to publication within the meaning of Section 499 of RPC. In Thangavelu Chettiar vs. CS DJ No.484/2023 page 9 of 43 Ponnammal, (AIR 1966 Mad. 363), it has been ruled that filing of a plaint or petition containing defamatory material amounts to publication. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio of Madras High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court has, in the case of Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani and others vs. Kripa Shankar Bhargava, 1991 M.P.L.J 597, held that per se defamatory statements in pleadings, petitions, affidavits etc. of the parties to judicial proceedings constitute offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC unless they fall within the exceptions enumerated in Section 499 of IPC. Taking a cue from this, it can safely be stated that even the arguments made by a counsel upon instructions from his client, which are per se defamatory in nature, can form basis for prosecution of such client for offence under Section 499 of RPC. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments on bail application of the respondent before the Court at Jaipur cannot form basis for prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Section 499 of RPC, is not tenable."
41. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held as under;
M.K. VARGHESE COR EPISCOPA V. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS , 2020 (2) KLJ 359:
"10. The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the CS DJ No.484/2023 page 10 of 43 complainant contained a statement that, the persons who were accused in the case registered as Crime No. 472/2018 of Nooranad police station, are the hired goons of the complainant. The writ petition also contained a statement that the crime committed which led to the registration of Crime No. 472/2018 of Nooranad police station is the handwork of the complainant and that respondents 8 to 10 in the writ petition are the contract killers hired by the complainant. Prima facie, these statements in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, are defamatory to the complainant.
11. If the pleadings filed in the court contain defamatory statements, it amounts to publication (See Thangavelu Chettiar v. Ponnammal : (AIR 1966 Mad 363) . Once a statement is filed in a court of law, it can be considered as published (See Prabhakaran v. Gangadharan : 2006 (2) KLT 122).
12. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition filed before this Court enjoy absolute privilege. In Shybimon v. Haridas : 2010 (2) KHC 607 : 2010 (2) KLT 158, it has been held as follows:
If a party to a judicial proceeding is prosecuted for the criminal offence of defamation in respect of a statement made in such judicial proceeding either on oath or otherwise, his criminal CS DJ No.484/2023 page 11 of 43 liability must be determined by reference to the provisions of Section 499 IPC alone. The English common law doctrine of absolute privilege can be set up as a defence only in a suit for damages under the Law of Torts. No such privilege is recognized by the Indian Penal Code beyond the limits of the exceptions embodied in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The said provision together with its exceptions forms a complete code in itself with regard to the criminal liability of a person accused of the offence of defamation. Every defamatory statement not coming within any of the 10 Exceptions to Section 499 IPC is punishable under Section 500 IPC. The Court cannot engraft thereupon any further exceptions derived from the common law of England or based on grounds of public policy.
13. The privilege defined by the exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code must be regarded as exhaustive as to the cases which they purport to cover and recourse cannot be had to the English Common Law to add new grounds of exception to those contained in the statute (See Tiruvengada Mudali v.
Tripurasundari Ammal: AIR 1926 Mad 906). If a party to a judicial proceeding is prosecuted for defamation in respect of a statement made therein on oath or otherwise, his liability must be determined by reference to the provisions of Section 499 I.P.C. and the court cannot engraft thereupon exceptions derived from the Common Law of England or based on grounds of public CS DJ No.484/2023 page 12 of 43 policy. Consequently, a person in such a position is entitled only to the benefit of the qualified privilege (See Satis Chandra Ckakrabarti v Ram Dayal : AIR 1921 Cal 1) .
14. The decision in Tiruvengada Mudali (supra) has been referred to by the Supreme Court in M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan : AIR 1970 SC 1876 and it has been held as follows:
In Thiruvengadda Mudali v. Tripurasundari Ammal, LR 49 Madras 728 a Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed that the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C. must be regarded as exhaustive as to the cases which they purport to cover and recourse cannot be had to the English common law to add new grounds of exception to those contained in the statute. A person making libellous statements in his complaint filed in court is not absolutely protected in a criminal proceeding for defamation, for under the Eighth Exception and the illustration to Section 499 the statements are privileged only when they are made in good faith. There is therefore authority for the proposition that in determining the criminality of an act under the Indian Penal Code the courts will not extend the scope of special exceptions by resorting to the rule peculiar to English common law.
15. Reliance on the decision in Gopalankutty Nair v. Sankunny Ezhuthassan : 1971 KLT 393 made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to claim absolute immunity from prosecution for CS DJ No.484/2023 page 13 of 43 defamation in respect of the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition, on the ground that they are statements made in a judicial proceedings, is misplaced. The aforesaid decision was rendered in considering the maintainability of a suit filed for realisation of damages for defamation."
THANGAVELU CHETTIAR V. PONNAMMAL AIR 1966 MAD 363 "4. The main ground urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that there was no publication as the copy of the plaint Ex. P. 1 was sent only to P. W. 1, Ponnammal. I am unable to accept this contention. It was not argued in either of the courts below or mentioned in the grounds of revision that there was no publication in this case. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 14 of the appellate courts judgment in support of his contention that the plea had been taken, but a reading of that paragraph would show that the plea taken was that the allegation would not amount to defamation. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the complaint filed in this case that the defamation complained of in this case was with regard to the allegation in the plaint in S. C. 349 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, and in the same paragraph the complainant has referred to her having received a copy of the plaint Ex. P. 1. The filing of the plaint in the court has been spoken to by P. W. 3, Sri. CS DJ No.484/2023 page 14 of 43 P. R. Subramaniam, who filed the plaint on behalf of the petitioner. Thus there can be no doubt that the defamation contained in the plaint was published by the plaint being filed in the court. Further even assuming that the complainant referred to the allegation in Ex. P. 1, still there is publication. It is clear from a scrutiny of the copy of the plaint Ex. P. 1, that it was prepared by P. W. 3, and filed into court, and it bears the seal of the District Munsifs Court, Tirukoilur. The copy of the plaint should be compared with the original by the court before it is served on the defendant by registered post. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in G. G. Jeramiah v. F. S. Vas, ILR 36 Mad 457, in support of his contention that there should be publication and that the fact that a certain copy of a paper appears to be printed and published by A is not proof of publication by him. It is clear from what I have stated that the decision is hardly applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision refers to a publication in a paper and it should be proved that the accused was responsible for the publication. But in this case, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter".
DECISION
42. Appreciation of evidence is the most important part of the CS DJ No.484/2023 page 15 of 43 adjudication in a civil suit where the court weighs in claims of parties to the suit based on the evidence adduced by them, both oral and documentary. More often than not, the rights and liabilities of the parties in a civil suit are determined by the way the documentary evidence adduced by them is appreciated. Courts take the aid of legislative enactments and judicial pronouncements of various High Courts and Supreme Court which have laid down the rules of interpretation that must be adopted and the procedure that must be followed. It is the essential the duty of the Courts to determine the clear and explicit meaning of the words or phrases when they are not clear, express and unambiguous. In the process of adjudication, Courts should test the evidence on the basis of probabilities as the standard of proof in civil cases is preponderance of probabilities.
It is basically determining which fact or evidence is more likely to happen.
This concept does not involve elimination of all doubts rather it weighs the two presented facts based on which has greater likelihood.
It is contrasting to the principle of proving beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases the party having burden of proof has to show that their side of story is more plausible than the other side.
43. A fact is relevant to another fact when the existence of the one can be shown to be the cause or the effect of the existence of the CS DJ No.484/2023 page 16 of 43 other, or when the existence of the one, either alone or together with other facts, renders the existence of the other highly probable or improbable, according to the common course of events. When such a connection is discernible, the one fact is said to be relevant to another. On such relevant facts, evidence may be given. Above principle is embodied in Section 5 of Indian Evidence Act which states that, evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue, and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant and of no others.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 330 which held as under: "17. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 this Court dealt with in details the distinction between negligence in civil law and in criminal law. It has been held that there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt."
45. In Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530, the Supreme Court of India stated that "It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a CS DJ No.484/2023 page 17 of 43 particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
46. At this juncture, it is imperative to go back the basic tenets of the law.
Essentials of pleadings A pleading should
(a) state material facts and not the evidence on which the party seeks to rely on, (b) state such facts in a concise form, and (c) provide all particulars where they are required.
47. These conditions are contained in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, and the requirement to state all material facts has time and again been emphasized by the Supreme Court. For instance, in Udhav Singh v Madhav Rao Scindia AIR 1976 SC 744, wherein it was clarified that all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are material facts.
48. The failure to disclose material facts can even attract the grave consequence of the suit being dismissed in its entirety, making the observations of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh 2007 (3) SCC 617 pivotal:
"...it is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary CS DJ No.484/2023 page 18 of 43 facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleadings by the party."
UDHAV SINGH V. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744 "28. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election- petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge leveled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1)(a). "Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party".
"Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause (b) of s. 83(i) would therefore mean all the details which are CS DJ No.484/2023 page 19 of 43 necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). Particulars serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
29. The distinction between material facts and material particulars" was pointed out by this Court in several cases, three of which have been cited at the bar. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. It will be sufficient to close the discussion by extracting what A. N. Ray J. (as he then was) said on this point in Hardwari Lals case (supra):
"It is therefore vital that the corrupt practice charged against the respondent should be a full and complete statement of material facts to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action and to give an equal and full opportunity to the respondent to meet the case and to de fend the charges. Merely, alleging that the respondent obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure assistance are extracting words from the statute which will have no meaning unless and until facts are stated to show what that assistance is and how the prospect of election is furthered by such assistance. In the present case, it was not even alleged that the assistance obtained or procured was other than the giving of vote. It was said by counsel for the respondent that because the statute did not render the giving of CS DJ No.484/2023 page 20 of 43 vote a corrupt practice the words "any assistance" were full statement of material fact. The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the manner of assistance, the measure of assistance are all various aspects of fact to clothe the petition with a cause of action which will call for an answer. Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent had not appeared, could the court have given a verdict in favour of the election petitioner. The answer is in the negative because the allegations in the petition did not disclose any cause of action."
The facts are to be proved in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, which have been reproduced herein; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Relevant Provisions:
101. Burden of proof.
Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
(a)A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
CS DJ No.484/2023 page 21 of 43
(b)A desires a Court to give judgement that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
103. Burden of proof as to any particular fact. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.
The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations
(a)A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove CS DJ No.484/2023 page 22 of 43 B's death.
(b)A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations
(a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b)A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
109. Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.
When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.
110. Burden of proof as to ownership.
When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.
CS DJ No.484/2023 page 23 of 43
111. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.
49. Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.
50. At this juncture, this Court is inclined to rely upon another landmark judgment, as propounded by The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi SANJEEV KUMAR MITTAL V. THE STATE 174 (2010) DLT 214 :
"6.6. If there is falsehood in the pleadings (plaint, written statement or replication), the task of the Court is also multiplied and a lis that could be decided in a short time, then takes several years. It is the legal duty of every party to state in the pleadings the true facts and if they do not, they must suffer the consequences and the Court should not hold back from taking action.
6.7. A similar sentiment had been expressed by the Karnataka High Court in A. Hiriyanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Cri.L.J. 4756:
1. The present application is filed under Section 340, Cr. P.C. and undoubtedly involves a power that the Courts have been seldom exercising. It has unfortunately become the order of the day, for false statements to be made in the course of judicial proceedings even on CS DJ No.484/2023 page 24 of 43 oath and attempts made to substantiate these false statements through affidavits or fabricated documents. It is very sad when this happens because the real backbone of the working of the judicial system is based on the element of trust and confidence and the purpose of obtaining a statement on oath from the parties or written pleadings in order to arrive at a correct decision after evaluating the respective positions. In all matters of fact therefore, it is not only a question of ethics, but an inflexible requirement of law that every statement made must be true to the extent that it must be verified and correct to the knowledge of the person making it. When a client instructs his learned Advocate to draft the pleadings, the basic responsibility lies on the clients because the Advocate being an Officer of the Court acts entirely on the instructions given to him, though the lawyer will not be immune from even a prosecution. If the situation is uncertain it is for his client to inform his learned Advocate and consequently if false statements are made in the pleadings the responsibility will devolve wholly and completely on the party on whose behalf those statements are made.
2. It has unfortunately become common place for the pleadings to be taken very lightly and for nothing but false and incorrect statements to be made in the course of judicial proceedings, for fabricated documents to be produced and even in cases where this comes to the light of the Court the party seems to get away because the Courts do not take necessary counter-action. The disastrous result of such CS DJ No.484/2023 page 25 of 43 leniency or indulgence is that it sends out wrong signals. It creates almost a licence for litigants and their lawyers to indulge in such serious malpractices because of the confidence that no action will result. To my mind, therefore, the fact that the petitioner has pressed in this application requires to be commended because it is a matter of propriety and it is very necessary at least in a few glaring cases that an example be made of persons who are indulging in such malpractices which undermine the very administration of justice dispensation system and the working of the Courts. This will at least have a deterrent effect on others.
5. It is true that the power that is now being exercised is seldom exercised, but I am firmly of the view that in the interest of the purity of the working the Courts that it is absolutely essential to take such corrective action whenever an instance of the present type arises. 6.8. A Division Bench of this court over two decades back in Rajendra Jaina Towers (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority 33 (1987) DLT 216 held as under:
27. All the statements in paragraph 11, to which I have referred, were material for the purpose of taking a decision in the case. As I have tried to show, they were deliberately made and carefully worded.
Their object was to mislead and overreach the court. The perjury was daring and atrocious. Probably, Mr. Rajender Jain thought it was worth taking the risk because the courts are so reluctant to prosecute for perjury. That is the general impression which has caused perjury CS DJ No.484/2023 page 26 of 43 to become so rampant in our courts and resulted in vexatious litigation. It is clearly expedient in the interests of justice, that Mr. Rajender Jain be prosecuted for the statements made in paragraph 11 of the petition, which he has incorporated by reference in his affidavit.
The Court ordered the Registrar of this court to make a complaint in writing against Mr. Rajender Jain, for having committed offences under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.
6.9. If this Court were to go by a general impression, the position has not improved but only worsened. It is time to take appropriate action so that parties, when they file their pleadings, do so with a sense of responsibility and if averments therein, or any evidence in support, is found to be false, the wrongdoer is not able to escape the punishment prescribed by law.
6.10. The present case is a striking example of how the petitioner could file the petition without any fear, keep it pending, and disappear when he found the respondent did not succumb and exposed the petitioner. The nonappearance by the petitioner at this stage (27th April, 2010) appeared to be intentional and therefore a number of opportunities were given (11th May, 2010, 14th May, 2010, 17th May, 2010 and 18th May, 2010), yet the petitioner or his advocate did not appear. To have simply dismissed the petition for default and not taken action would be allowing them to escape. It has CS DJ No.484/2023 page 27 of 43 also been the experience that when falsehood has stood exposed, the party tenders an apology and the courts tend to let off and take no action. Such an approach emboldens others to do likewise. 6.11. On a related issue, in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2003) 8 SCC 648 : AIR 2003 SC 4482, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said:
26. In law, the term restitution is used in three senses; (i) return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status; (ii) compensation for benefits derived from a wrong done to another; and
(iii) compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.
6.12. In fact, restitution, which includes compensation, and levy of costs, is not sufficient where there is, in the pleadings before the Court, falsehood, concealment or reliance upon forged documents. There it also calls for triggering into motion the penal laws, i.e., making of a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The more important part is of punishment to prevent, in the first instance, litigants from making false averments before a court of law. While the punishment prescribed by law is deterrent, the probability of prosecution, and thereafter conviction, should also be sufficient to deter such conduct. 6.13. A party, whether he is a petitioner or a respondent, or a witness, has to respect the solemnity of the proceedings in the court and he cannot play with the courts and pollute the stream of justice. It is cases like this, with false claims (or false defences) which load the courts, cause delays, consume judicial time and bring a bad name to CS DJ No.484/2023 page 28 of 43 the judicial system. This case is a sample where the facts are glaring. Even if they were not so glaring, once falsehood is apparent, to not take action would be improper.
6.14. The judicial system has a right and a duty to protect itself from such conduct by the litigants and to ensure that where such conduct has taken place, the matter is investigated and reaches its logical conclusion and depending on the finding which is returned in such proceedings, appropriate punishment is meted out. 6.15. It is perhaps the general reluctance, as also noticed by the Honble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 668 :
36. Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint......
that has made the situation reach such levels where pleadings contain false averments and parties make false averments with impunity in the hope that in all probability the opposite party will cough up something, and even if he does not, in the end he will have the last laugh, for a prosecution of perjury, although consciously committed and persisted in, will have a probability of punishment as good as nil. The gain far exceeds the risk.
6.16. In an effort to redeem the situation, not only realistic costs and CS DJ No.484/2023 page 29 of 43 full compensation in favour of the winning party against the wrongdoer are required, but, depending on the gravity of the wrong, penal action against the wrongdoers is also called for. Unless the judicial system protects itself from such wrongdoing by taking cognizance, directing prosecution, and punishing those found guilty, it will be failing in its duty to render justice to the citizens. Litigation caused by false claims and defences will come to be placed before the courts, load the dockets and delay delivery of justice to those who are genuinely in need of it. Let us then examine the procedures in this regard.
7. Of false evidence and offences against public justice 7.1. Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code is titled Of false evidence and offences against public justice system. Section 191 defines giving of false evidence as an offence while Section 193 prescribes the punishment. There are also other provisions with regard to false evidence, but at this stage, I need not go into details except that these provisions are there to enable the Court to punish those who make false averments in the pleadings or file forged documents and thus serve to protect the stream of justice from being soiled. 7.2. Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides the procedure which reads as under:
Section 340 - Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an CS DJ No.484/2023 page 30 of 43 inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under subsection (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
CS DJ No.484/2023 page 31 of 43
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, Court has the same meaning as in section 195.
8. False averments in pleadings are sufficient to attract Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code 8.1. In the present case, the petitioner has filed a petition containing false averments but he has not entered into the witness box. The question arises whether a person who has made false averments in pleadings but does not appear in the witness box, has committed any offence.
8.2. Pleadings which are the foundation of the case, on the basis of which the issues arise and the trial is held and are required to be signed and verified. Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:
Rule 15. Verification of pleadings. (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.
CS DJ No.484/2023 page 32 of 43 (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed. (4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.
8.3. Section 282 of the Indian Succession Act [39 of 1925] also provides for punishment for false averment in petition or declaration. It reads as under:
Section 282 - If any petition or declaration which is hereby required to be verified contains any averment which the person making the verification knows or believes to be false, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
8.4. The Code of Civil Procedure commentary by V.R. Manohar and W.W. Chitaley, (Tenth Edition) Volume 3 at pp117 notes that the object of verifying a pleading is to fix, on the party verifying, responsibility for the statements that it contains. Further at pp 121, it notes that pleadings, far from being mere formalities, are required by law to be true. Verifications being made under the sanction of a solemn declaration, a false verification will render the party verifying liable to a prosecution for an offence under Sections 191 and 193, Indian Penal Code.
8.5. Similarly, in Code of Civil Procedure commentary by Justice C.K. Thakker, at pp428 of Volume 3, it is stated:
Verification of pleading is a matter of great importance as possessing CS DJ No.484/2023 page 33 of 43 security of being made under the sanction of a solemn declaration. A person making false verification will, hence, render himself liable to prosecution for an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 8.6. The learned amicus curiae cited the following decisions:- 8.6.1. State of Punjab v. I.M. Lall, ILR 1975 Delhi 332- That the statutory provision for verification is to fix responsibility on the party or person for statements made in the pleadings and to prevent false pleadings being recklessly filed or false allegations being recklessly made.
8.6.2. Sapna Singh Pathania v. Jagdish Chander Mehta, 75 (1998) DLT 725 -
21. The object of this Rule is to fix responsibility for allegations made in the plaint on the persons who verify and this is to ensure that false allegations are not made freely and recklessly. 8.6.3. Sri Shamrao Rukamanna Talwar v. Smt. Suvarna, ILR 2008 Karnataka 1493 -
23. ....The object of signature and verification is to fix upon the party the responsibility for the statements and to affirm the guarantee of good faith.
8.6.4. Emperor v. Padam Singh, AIR 1930 Allahabad 490-
12. It is contended by counsel for the opposite party that a defendant is not legally bound either by any express provision of law or in any other way to file a written statement at all. That of course must at once be conceded. But if he does desire to file a written answer to the CS DJ No.484/2023 page 34 of 43 plaint, he is by express provision of law bound to do something further. He is bound to attach the verification which is called for by Order 6, Rule 15, and his written statement is not, until that verification is attached, a written statement in law at all and could not be received for any purpose whatever. When, therefore, filing a written statement he is bound by express provision of law to verify the facts alleged in that written statement as being true either to his own knowledge or to the best of his belief. It is contended that when the law requires a defendant to verify his written statement it does not necessarily require him to tell the truth. This contention, in our view, is manifestly untenable. Words have a certain meaning and we have only to give them their plain and ordinary meaning, in the absence of any circumstances indicating that meaning is not permissible. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word verify used in the present circumstances is: to confirm the truth or truthfulness of. It was further contended on behalf of the opposite party that the mere fact that in cases under the Income-tax Act and possibly other such Acts a false verification was expressly to be declared to be punishable under Section 177, I.P.C., or some other such section and the absence of any such enactment in connation with Order 6, Rule 15, was sufficient to show that a false verification in accordance with Order 6, Rule 15 could be made with impunity.
13. In other words, we were asked to hold that the legislature orders a defendant to declare that his statements are true and, since it is further CS DJ No.484/2023 page 35 of 43 emphasised that the same legislature passed all these, in the same breath says that it does not care whether the statements are true or not and that no penalty shall follow the making of a false verification. It is manifest that such an argument would be extremely dangerous. It is not possible for one moment to know what was in the minds of particular individuals when they were considering whether it was necessary or whether it was merely desirable or whether it was undesirable to add a clause declaring under what section of the penal law a person infringing the law should be punishable. We confine ourselves, therefore, to the simple question whether the facts of the case come within Section 191. Here we find that there is an express provision of law requiring the defendant to confirm the truth of the statements made by him in the preceding clauses of his written statement, and if he does so, knowing that verification is false, he is declared by the legislature in Section 191 itself to be giving false evidence. Whatever may or may not be connoted by the word evidence in other sections, there can be no doubt about the meaning in Section 191 and there can equally be no doubt that the words gives false evidence in Section 193 are used in the same sense as the same words in Section 191, and it has not of course been contended that if Section 191 is applicable to the present case, Section 193 is not applicable. We are, therefore, of opinion that so far as the legal point is concerned the trial Court was right in holding that an offence had been committed under Section 193, I.P.C.
CS DJ No.484/2023 page 36 of 43 8.6.5. Raj Kumar Dhar v. Colonel A. Stuart Lewis, AIR 1958 Calcutta 104-
3. Verification of pleadings is an important matter which may have very serious consequences, as in case of false verification, the person verifying may be liable to criminal prosecution. The object of verification, as it has been pointed out in decisions of courts, is to fix responsibility on the party verifying and to prevent false pleadings, being recklessly filed or false allegations being recklessly made. It must have some sanctity.
8.6.6. In re an attorney, AIR 1914 Calcutta 1924-
A verification is a matter of great importance:
Girdhari v. Kanhaiya Lal ILR [1892] 15 All 59 (1892) A.W.N. 235, and has been described by a Full Bench of this Court as possessing the security of being made under the sanction of a solemn declaration for which the person making it would be liable to the penalties attaching to the crime of giving false evidence if the declaration were false to his knowledge.
8.6.7. Dr. (Smt.) Shipra v. Shri Shanti Lal, AIR 1995 Rajasthan 50-
7. Section 83 deals with the contents of the election petition and states that an election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in a manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of the plaint. Order 6, Rule 15, C.P.C. deals with the verification of pleadings and states that the person verifying it shall specify, by reference to numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what CS DJ No.484/2023 page 37 of 43 he/she verifies of his/her own knowledge and what is verified upon the information received and believed to be true. The object of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of the averments made in the election petition and to fix responsibility for the allegations made on the person who verifies it and to ensure that false allegations are not made recklessly. A false verification has, therefore, been made punishable under Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
8.7. Making false averment in the pleading pollutes the stream of justice. It is an attempt at inviting the Court into passing a wrong judgment and that is why it must be treated as an offence. 8.8. Where a verification is specific and deliberately false, there is nothing in law to prevent a person from being proceeded for contempt. But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation but how they may deceive and mislead the courts and thus produce mischievous consequences to the administration of justice.
A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law.
8.9. Consequently, there cannot be any doubt that if a statement or averment in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of offence under Section 191 of the Code (and other provisions). It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box. The CS DJ No.484/2023 page 38 of 43 offence stands committed and completed by the filing of such pleading. There is need for the justice system to protect itself from such wrongdoing so that it can do its task of justice dispensation.
9. What constitutes the offence 9.1. Inasmuch as on a complaint of Respondent No.2, a prosecution of the Petitioner is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, the question also arises as to what constitutes the offence because it may be said that since prosecution is pending, why should a second inquiry or prosecution be called for. On the face, such a contention appears attractive, but there are more compelling reasons why the Court must take cognizance and proceed as per law. 9.2. The learned amicus curiae, Dr. Arun Mohan has submitted that the two offences are separate and are to be prosecuted and tried separately. According to him, the first offence was of forging the document and then using it before the DDA in order to cause injury to the Respondent No.2. It was carried out by and before 12th March, 2004 when public notice was also published by Sanjeev Kumar Mittal.
9.3. The complaint of 21st March, 2004 by Respondent No.2 was in relation to that offence. If the matter had rested there, it would have been one thing, but on 12th April, 2004, when the present petition containing false averments and relying on forged documents (which were also filed) was filed, a second offence stood committed. That second offence was of: (1) making a false averment in the petition CS DJ No.484/2023 page 39 of 43 duly verified and filing the same in court; and (2) asking the Court for a judgment on the basis of false averments and forged documents. 9.4. The learned amicus curiae submits that if a person prepares a petition containing false averments, relying on forged documents, and signs and verifies it, and then comes to the Court, but on seeing the building, develops cold feet and returns home, the second offence would not have been committed. But when he presents these papers at the filing counter, it is filing in court. The moment they cross the window at the filing counter is precisely the point of time when the second offence stands committed.
9.5. In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 [LQ/SC/2005/353] , the question before the Supreme Court was when would the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC be attracted. Their Lordships held that the bar would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. Finding that the Will had been produced in the Court subsequently, they held that the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC does not apply.
9.6. The rationale will equally apply to a situation where, as here, the complaint will be in respect of subsequent and independent offences, i.e., filing before a court of law, pleadings containing false averments and also filing of documents that were forged as distinct from forgery at home. It will also be contempt of Court.
CS DJ No.484/2023 page 40 of 43
10. Expedient in the interests of justice under Section 340 Cr. P.C. 10.1. When an inquiry for having committed an offence as listed in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is proposed to be launched, Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure. One of the requirements in sub-section (1) is that the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that When is it expedient in the interests of justice On this question, the following decisions were cited by the learned amicus curiae:-
10.1.1. Mohd. Amjad Khan v. Jamia Millia Islamia, 55 (1994) DLT 463 -
Now coming to the show cause notice issued by us to the petitioner as to why a complaint be not filed against him as it appeared to us that he committed an offence punishable under section 193 Indian Penal Code. In reply to this, the petitioner begs to tender an unconditional apology for stating on 8 July 1994 that he did not receive any communication. He says this wrong statement was made unintentionally and without any desire to obtain a favourable order by making such a statement. He said that the letter dated 8 July 1994 was collected by him in the University around lunch time and he did not go through the same because he was in the midst of preparation for examination and went to the library. We are unable to accept this submission. This again does not appear to us to be true when on the communication dated 8 July 1994 itself he has even noted the time of his receipt by hand, and there was no question, at that time, for the CS DJ No.484/2023 page 41 of 43 petitioner to prepare for the examination as he had been debarred from taking the examination. We would reject his Explanation. We are of the opinion that it is necessary in the interests of justice that a complaint be filed against the petitioner as mentioned aforesaid. We, therefore, direct the Joint Registrar (Appellate) of this Court to file a complaint in writing against the petitioner for an offence under section 193 IPC in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi."
51. In light of the above stated facts, circumstances, observations, precedents, and reasoning, the issues as framed by the Ld. Predecessors Courts are answered as follows.
52. Issue No.1:Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD Issue no.1 is answered in the negative. It is observed that the defendant has failed to discharge its burden of proof.
53. Issue No.2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages of Rs 10 Lacs against the defendant for defaming the plaintiff? OPP Issue no.2 is decided and answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Evidently, the plaintiff has led satisfactory evidence. All the elements qua the tort of defamation i.e. 'the statement should be made', 'the statement must refer to the plaintiff', 'the statement must be defamatory', 'intention of the person making CS DJ No.484/2023 page 42 of 43 the statement', 'statement should be false', 'statement should not be privileged', 'statement must be published', 'third party must believe the statement to be true', and 'the statement must cause injury'; have been found to be existing in the present suit.
54. Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendent-lite and future interest @18% per annum on the decreetal amount? OPP Issue no.3 is answered in the affirmative. This Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the decreetal amount @6% per annum commencing from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of its complete realization.
Relief
55. In view of above, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.10 lakh for defaming the plaintiff. Plaintiff is also held entitled to interest on the decreetal amount @6% per annum commencing from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of its complete realization.
56. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly, upon payment of deficit court fees, if any.
57. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on 04.01.2025.
(Sunil Beniwal)
Digitally District Judge-06(South),
signed by
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Sunil Sunil beniwal
Date:
beniwal 2025.01.08
15:33:35
+0530
CS DJ No.484/2023 page 43 of 43