Delhi District Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Ashok Rana on 25 October, 2024
-:: 1 ::- Date: 25.10.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-03 (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT010053132022
CS No. 434/22
In the matter of :-
Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Tek Chand
Office Ch. No. -232, Rohini
Court, Delhi-110085. ...... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ashok Rana
MOB:9958099356
2. Ms. Anuradha Dagar
D/o Sh. Ashok Rana
Both R/o H. No.-205, Near
Railway Crossing, Khera Kalan,
Delhi-110082
MOB: 8076623315
Email:[email protected] ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 01.07.2022
Date of Final Arguments Heard : 24.10.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.10.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,11,000/- ALONGWITH 8% INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1 The present suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 3,11,000/- along with 8% interest on behalf of the plaintiff.
2 The brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are:
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 1 of 16
-:: 2 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 2.1 It is stated that the plaintiff has various clients who reside in the Village Khera Kalan, Delhi. It is stated that in September 2018, defendants approached the plaintiff through Sh. Satbir Rana and Sh.
Subhash Rana, who reside in Khera Kalan and engaged the plaintiff for filing a criminal complaint U/s 200 as well as an application U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. against the mother-in-law (Naresh Kumari) and Brother-in-Law (Jeth namely Prashant Dagar) of the defendant no. 2 as well as the police officials of the police station Mehrauli Delhi. It is stated that at that time, the professional fees was fixed for Rs. 55,000/-, from which, the defendant no.1 paid Rs. 25,000/- (part payment) to the plaintiff in presence of Sh. Satbir Rana and Sh. Subhash Rana.
2.2 Thereafter, in October 2018, the defendant no. 2 filed a complaint case bearing CC No. 15604/2018, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District South, Saket Courts, Delhi, titled as Anuradha Dagar Vs. Prashant Dagar & Anr. It is stated that in the month of January 2019 the defendants approached the plaintiff to contest/conduct the divorce case filed by the husband (Rohit Dagar) of the defendant no.2, against her, its title was Rohit Dagar Vs. Anuradha Dagar, bearing HMA no. 780/2018 on behalf of defendant no.2 before the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Saket Courts, Delhi and the case was handed over for conducting the trial, to the Plaintiff. The defendants negotiated the professional fees with the plaintiff and the professional fees was fixed Rs. 75,000/- (Only for Divorce Case) and again a part payment has been paid Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff filed the reply to the Divorce Petition as well as also filed an application U/s 24 of the HMA.
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 2 of 16
-:: 3 ::- Date: 25.10.2024
2.3 It is stated that in January 2019, the defendants engaged the plaintiff for conducting/contesting the case of domestic violence filed by Smt. Naresh Kumar (Mother-in-law of the defendant no.2) against both the defendants titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. Anuradha Dagar and Anr. Vide CC No. 11661/2018 again the professional fees was negotiated and fixed RS. 75,000/- (for the domestic violence case only) and again a part payment of Rs. 20,000/- against Rs. 75,000/- was paid to the plaintiff.
2.4 Thereafter, the defendants again approached to the plaintiff for filing a fresh case U/s 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of the defendant no.2 as well as her son namely, Sh. Trijal Dagar against the husband of the defendant no.2 namely Rohit Dagar before the Family Court, Rohini Court, Delhi and the professional fees for this case was also fixed Rs. 75,000/- (only for maintenance case) and on this occasion only Rs. 10,000/- as a part payment against Rs. 75,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff filed a case U/s 125 Cr. P.C. in the Rohini District Court, Delhi bearing MT No. 149/2019 titled as Anuradha Dagar & Anr. Vs. Prashant Dagar. That the plaintiff was conducting all the four cases on behalf of the defendants and till date the plaintiff received Rs. 80,000/- as part payment out of Rs. 2,80,000/-.
2.5 It is stated that during, the pandemic of Covid-19, the plaintiff so many times requested to the defendants to pay rest of the professional fees but the defendants kept on avoiding the payment on one pretext or another.
2.6 That the defendant no. 2 in the month of August-September, 2021 informed the plaintiff that with the help of some elderly people of the CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 3 of 16
-:: 4 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 society, the disputes between the defendant no.2 and her husband and her family members had been amicably settled and thereafter, in September 2021, the defendant no. 2 along with her brother came to the office of the plaintiff and discussed about the filing of the divorce by mutual consent as well as shown a draft compromise prepared by the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff discussed and advised the defendant no.2 as per her need and also demanded his remaining professional fees, at that time, the defendant no.2 stated that she is going to receive about Rs. 22,50,000/- as per the settlement and as soon as she receives some amount, she will clear all the remaining professional fees of the plaintiff.
2.7 It is stated that in December, 2021, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants without informing the plaintiff and without taking the no objection certificate from the plaintiff, engaged a new counsel and withdrew the criminal complaint on dated 01.12.2021 and also in the preparation of withdrawing the other cases also.
2.8 That on 25.02.2022, plaintiff sent a whatsapp message to the defendant no.2 on her mobile no. 8076623315 for the payment of the remaining professional fees of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the defendant no.2 replied the message on 26.02.2022 and assured the plaintiff to pay the same with the help of the defendant no.1 but the defendants did not pay the same till 23.03.2022 and on 23.03.2022, again the plaintiff sent a written whatsapp message to defendant no.2 on her mobile but the defendants neither replied the same nor pickup the phone calls made by the plaintiff to the defendants.
2.9 That after seeing the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendants for calling them to pay the remaining CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 4 of 16
-:: 5 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 professional fees of Rs. 2, 00,000/- of the plaintiff within 7 days but despite service of the legal notice the defendants did not pay the same and also sent a false and frivolous reply dated 17.04.2022 to the plaintiff through one advocate namely Ramesh Kumar Dalal. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff with the following prayers:-
i To pass a decree of recovery in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 3, 11,000/- to the plaintiff, (Rupees Three Lakh Eleven Thousand Only) (as Rupees Two Lakhs for the remaining professional fees with respect to the four cases and Rs. 1, 00,000/- as damages, compensation for mental pain and agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- for expenses of legal notice) along with interest @ 8% P.A. from the filing of the suit till its realization.
ii Costs of the suit and its proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
iii Such other or further orders as this Hon' ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the interest of justice.
3 The defence stated by the defendant no. 1 in his WS are as under:
3.1 It is stated that defendant no. 1 is unaware about the fact that plaintiff has various clients in village Khera kalan Delhi. It is admitted that defendant engaged the plaintiff for filing a criminal complaint in the month of September 2018 U/s 200 Cr.P.C as well as an application U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C against the mother-in-law (Naresh Kumari) and CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 5 of 16
-:: 6 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 brother-in-law (Jeth namely Prashant Dagar) of the defendant no.2 as well as the police officials of the police station Mehrauli Delhi. It is wrong and vehemently denied that professional fee of plaintiff was fixed Rs. 55000/-. It is stated that only Rs.25000/- was fixed as professional fee of the plaintiff for this case and paid advance to plaintiff by defendant no. 1. It is stated that defendants never met with Satbir Rana and Subhash Rana.
3.2 It is admitted that defendants approached the plaintiff in the month of January 2019 to contest/conduct the divorce case filed by the husband (Rohit Dagar) of the defendant no.2 against her, its title Rohit Dagar Vs. Anuradha Dagar, bearing HMA no.780/2018 in Saket Court, Delhi. It is denied that the professional fee of plaintiff was fixed Rs 75000/-(for divorce case) but the professional fee was fixed Rs.25000/- and paid in advance to plaintiff.
3.3 That it is admitted that the defendants engaged the plaintiff in the month of January 2019 for conducting/contesting the case of domestic violence filed by Smt. Naresh kumari (mother-in-law of the defendant No.2) against both the defendants titled as Naresh kumari Vs. Anuradha Dagar and Anr. vide CC No. 11661/2018. It is denied that the professional fee of plaintiff was fixed Rs. 75000/-(for domestic violence case). But the professional fee of plaintiff for this case was fixed 20000/- and paid to the plaintiff by the defendant no.1.
3.4 It is admitted that the defendants again approached to the plaintiff for filing a fresh case U/s 125 cr.p.c. on behalf of the defendant No.2 as well as her son namely Trijal Dager against the husband of the defendant No.2 namely Rohit Dagar before the family court, Rohini court Delhi titled as Anuradha Dagar & Anr.Vs. Prashant Dagar CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 6 of 16
-:: 7 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 bearing MT No. 149/2019 and professional fee of plaintiff for this case was fixed for Rs. 10,000/- which was in paid advance to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1.
3.5 That it is denied that Rs.2,80,000/- was fixed for conducting all four cases of defendants as professional fee of plaintiff. It is stated that the defendants had already paid Rs.80000/-as total amount of professional fee of plaintiff. It is denied that defendant no.2 informed the plaintiff about the settlement of dispute between defendant no.2 and her husband and members of family of her husband. It is stated that defendant no.2 never asked the plaintiff for some guidance for filing the divorce petition by mutual consent as well as for preparation of the amicable settlement in writing. It is denied that in the month of September 2021, the defendant no.2 along with her brother came to the office of plaintiff and discussed about the filing of the divorce by mutual consent. It is stated that plaintiff came to know about Rs.22,50,000/- for settlement from other source.
3.6 It is stated that the defendants engaged the new advocate because law permits and NOC is arbitrary under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India (It guarantees every person the right to consult and to be defended by any legal practitioner of their choice).
3.7 It is denied that defendant no.2 assured the plaintiff to pay any professional fee of plaintiff on whatsapp and as defendant no.2 sent message on whatsapp to the plaintiff that 'As you know, he was the one who used deal with your fees' meaning thereby defendant no.1 (father of defendant no.2) dealt with the plaintiff for all professional fee for all four cases.
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 7 of 16
-:: 8 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 3.8 It is stated that that plaintiff sent legal notice about demanding Rs.
2,00,000/- which is totally unethical because all professional fee of plaintiff for all four cases paid by the defendant No.1. The legal notice of plaintiff was replied on 17/04/2022. Defendant no. 1 further denied all the facts stated by the plaintiff in his plaint.
4 Defendant no. 2 supported the case of the defendant no. 1 and narrated the same the facts as stated by the defendant no. 1 in his WS.
5 Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the WS of defendant no. 1 and 2. It is stated that defendant no. 1 went to the house of Sh. Subhash Rana and threatened him not to depose before the court and also threatened him to implicate false and frivolous criminal cases by the defendant no. 2 as the daughter-in-law of the defendant no. 1 is serving in Delhi police. It is stated that the professional fee was decided / fixed in the presence of Sh. Satbir Rana and Sh. Subhash Rana. Plaintiff reiterated the facts as stated by him in the plaint.
6 On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 01.11.2022:-
i Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 3,11,000/, if so, interest, at what rate and for what period? OPP ii Whether plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
towards the professional fees alongwith damages, as prayed for? OPP.
iii Relief.
7 Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined following witnesses:
7.1 PW-1 is Sh. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Tek Chand, R/o CH. No. 232, Rohini Court, Delhi-110085. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 8 of 16
-:: 9 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon the following documents:-
i Certified copy of the order sheets and vakalatnama of the deponent in complaint case no. 15604/2018 titled as Anuradha Dagar Vs. Prashant Dagar & Ors, is Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) (pages 18-40).
ii Certified copy of the order sheets and Vakalatmana of the deponent in Mt Case no. 149/2019 titled as Anuradha Dagar & Anr Vs. Rohit Dagar, is Ex. PW1/2 (colly.) (pages 41-56). iii Certified copy of the order sheets and vakalatnama of the deponent in complaint case no. 11661/2018 titled as Naresh Kumari Vs. Anuradha & Anr, is Ex. PW1/3 (colly). iv Certified copy of order sheets and vakalatnama of the deponent in HMA No. 780/2018 titled as Rohit Dagar Vs. Anuradha Rana, is Ex. PW1/4.
v Copy of the whatsapp messages dated 25.02.2022 and its reply dated 26.02.2022 is Ex. PW1/5.
vi Copy of whatsapp messages dated 23.03.2022 is Ex PW1/6. vii Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in suppon....
exhibited hereinabove, filed along with plaint is EX. PW1/7. viii Copy of whatsapp messages / chat dated 07.08.2021 is Ex.
PW1/8.
ix Certificate u/s 65B dated 31.10.2022 is Ex. PW1/9. x Legal notice dated 07.04.2022 is Ex.PW10 and postal receipts are Ex. PW1/11.
xi Copy of the reply of legal notice dated 17.04.2022 along with its envelope is Ex. PW1/12.
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 9 of 16
-:: 10 ::- Date: 25.10.2024
7.2 PW- 2 is Sh. Manjeet Rana, S/o Late Sh. Satbir Singh Rana, Ro H. No. 200, Bale Pardhan Wali Gali, Khera Kalan, North West Delhi-110082.
He stated that he is the resident of Village Khera Kalan and his father Late Sh. Satbir Singh Rana was a friend of defendant no. 1 and he was a client of plaintiff. He stated that his father used to pay a lump sum professional fees of minimum Rs. 50,000/- to maximum Rs. 1,00,000/- for each case. He stated that on that day, defendant no. 1 was present in the court.
7.3 PW-3 is Sh. Subhas Rana, S/o. Sh. Raj Singh Rana, 60, Bagri Mohalla, Khera Kalan, North West Delhi-110082. He stated that he is availing professional services from the plaintiff herein from past 8 years on a payment of fee of Rs. 50,000/- for first three years and later on, he had made a payment of Rs. 5,000/- per hearing. He is resident of the same village as defendant no. 1 and the children of defendant no. 1 used to study with him in tuition during 2001-2003. In August, 2022, defendant no. 1 tried to convince him to not be a part of the present suit and depose as a witness. However, he refused his request and told him that being a law abiding citizen, he would appear before the court in case any direction / summons are received from the court. He stated that he had attempted to resolve the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1, however, the same was not successful.
7.4 PW-4 is Sh. Vimal Tripathi, S/o Sh. Ram Lakhan Tripathi, office at Bar no. 16, Rohini Court, Delhi - 110085. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon his affidavit of evidence.
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 10 of 16
-:: 11 ::- Date: 25.10.2024
7.5 PW-5 is Sh. Neeraj Kant Singh, S/o Sh. Ramavtar Singh, Office at Chamber no. 232, Rohini Court Delhi. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. 8 Defendant in order to prove his case has examined following witnesses:-
8.1 DW-1 is Sh. Ashok Rana, S/o. Sh. Sardar Singh, R/o H. No. 205, near Railway Crossing Khera Kalan Delhi-110082. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.DW1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. 8.2 DW-2 is Ms. Anuradha Dagar, D/o Ashok Rana, R/o H. No. 205, Near Railway Crossing Khera Kalan, Delhi-110082. She tendered her affidavit in evidence Ex. DW2/1 bearing her signatures at point A and B. She relied upon her affidavit of evidence.
9 I have heard the final arguments and perused the record.
10 My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
11 Issue no. (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.
3,11,000/, if so, interest, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
11.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has relied upon Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/12 to prove his case. He has examined himself as PW-1. PW-2 and PW-3 were examined by him on the aspect of fees structure of plaintiff. PW-4 and PW-5 are examined on the aspect that the fees was settled between the plaintiff and the defendants in their presence.
11.2 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of his professional fees i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- for contesting four cases for the defendants.
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 11 of 16
-:: 12 ::- Date: 25.10.2024
The details of four cases alongwith the fees structure and the balance amount as under:
S.No Case Title Case No.Time of Total Initial Remaining . engagemen fees amount amount t of fixed paid counsel
1. Anuradha Vs. Ct. Case September Rs. Rs. Rs. 30,000/-
Prashant No. 2018 55,000/ 25,000/
Dagar 15604/2018 - -
2. Rohit Dagar HMA No. January Rs. Rs. Rs. 50,000/-
Vs. Anuradha 780/2018 2019 75,000/ 25,000/
Dagar - -
3. Naresh CC No. January Rs. Rs. Rs. 55,000/-
Kumari Vs. 11661/2018 2019 75,000/ 20,000/
Anuradha - -
Dagar & Anr.
4. Anuradha MT No. Rs. Rs. Rs. 65,000/-
Dagar & Anr 149/2019 75,000/ 10,000/
Vs. Prashant - -
Dagar
Total Rs. Rs. Rs.
2,80,00 80,000/ 2,00,000/-
0/- -
11.3 It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have not paid the entire professional fees of the plaintiff and have subsequently, withdrawn all the cases from the Court after settling the matter with the opposite party in such cases. The said withdrawal of cases was done by another counsel engaged by the defendants without obtaining NOC from the plaintiff.
11.4 As per the written of statement of defendant no. 1 and 2, all the averments of the plaint are denied and it is stated that the defendants had paid the entire professional fees of the plaintiff and there is nothing left to be paid. The defendants in order to prove their defence, CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 12 of 16
-:: 13 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 have examined himself as DW-1 and his daughter as DW-2. The testimony of DW-2 cannot be relied upon by this Court as she has repeatedly deposed that she was unaware about the fees structure of the plaintiff and the contents of her evidence by way of affidavit is based upon, whatever her father has told her. Thus, her evidence being hearsay in nature. However, her testimony can be relied to corroborate certain aspects.
11.5 DW-1 and DW-2 have admitted that they have not taken NOC from the plaintiff before engaging another counsel in the present matter.
DW-2 has also admitted the WhatsApp messages i.e. Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/8, that were exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2.
11.6 The main dispute between the parties is the quantum of fee that was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. It is an admitted case between the parties that the plaintiff was engaged by the defendants for contesting the abovesaid four cases. It is also admitted that the plaintiff had contested the abovesaid matters for and on behalf of the defendants. Admittedly, there is no written document /agreement to show the negotiated fees between the parties. Therefore, the only option left with this court, is to decide the present case on the basis of oral testimony of the parties on preponderance of probabilities.
11.7 During the cross examination of PW-1, the plaintiff was put to certain suggestions which goes against the defendants. They are as under:
"It is correct that the defendants engaged the deponent for the case of domestic violence in January, 2019 itself and paid the part payment of Rs. 20,000/- out of Rs. 75,000/-...... It is correct that defendants engaged a deponent for the case of 125 Cr.P.C. in April, 2019 itself and paid the part payment of Rs. 10,000/- out of Rs. 75,000/-."
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 13 of 16
-:: 14 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 11.8 The abovesaid suggestions itself implies that at least for complaint case no. 11661/2018 and MT No. 149/2019, a professional fee of Rs. 75,000/- each case, was agreed between the parties, out of which, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- were paid in advance, however, the remainign amount fo Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 65,000/- are yet to be paid on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff has examined PW-2 and PW- 3 to show his general fees structure. As per the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, the professional fees that was charged by the plaintiff was between Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendants have not led any evidence to disprove the same. There is only a testimony of defendant no. 1 i.e. DW-1 against the plaintiff. Otherwise also, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the cases for which plaintiff was engaged were not such cases that could have been decided in a short span of time and therefore, the professional fees charged by the plaintiff does not seem to be exorbitant/ arbitrary. DW- 2 in her testimony has categorically stated that the plaintiff had attended at least 36 hearings in all the proceedings. It is also agreed by DW-1 and DW-2 that apart from the hearings, all the drafting work, legal advice, etc. was given by the plaintiff to the defendants.
11.9 The testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 do not lend much support to the case of the plaintiff as the time of engagement of the plaintiff for different matters are different and the plaintiff is not claiming any amount of money towards the settlement agreement that was finally entered between the defendant no. 2 and her husband or the fact that the defendant no. 2 alongwith her brother had met the plaintiff.
11.10 Even on perusal of Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, it is evident that the plaintiff had demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards his CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 14 of 16
-:: 15 ::- Date: 25.10.2024 professional fees and DW-2 despite assuring the plaintiff that she will talk to her father, i.e. defendant no. 1 about the same and revert, she chose not to reply and subsequenly, had also blacklisted the plaintiff. In her cross, she has admitted that she became unconformable with the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore, has blocked the plaintiff. The subsequent conduct of defendant no. 2 in escaping the plaintiff demonstrates that she was not willing to answer the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 could have very well chosen to give a clear answer to the plaintiff on his repeated askings which was not done. Thus, after assessing all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the defendants are under a liability to pay the professional fees of the plaintiff i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-.
11.11 The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that he has faced metal agony or trauma/ damages on account of non payment of professional fees. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to award damages to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
12 Issue no. (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- towards the professional fees alongwith damages, as prayed for? OPP.
12.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. This issue has been incorrectly framed by the Court and is already dealt with under issue no. (i). Accordingly, this issue is deleted.
RELIEF 13 The suit of the plaintiff is entitled to recover of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the defendants alongwith interest @6% per annum from date of filing of the suit till its actual realization.
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 15 of 16
-:: 16 ::- Date: 25.10.2024
14 Cost of the suit to be awarded as per the pleader's certificate.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed
SHIVALI by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Announced in open BANSAL Date: 2024.10.25
Court on 25.10.2024 05:12:08 +0530
Shivali Bansal
District Judge-03, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 434/22 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ashok Rana Page: 16 of 16