Delhi District Court
Sh. N.K. Bansal vs Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta on 31 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH-1. ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE-19 ( CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI
COURTS: DELHI
SUIT NO. 162/14
Sh. N.K. Bansal
S/o Sh. Matu Ram Bansal,
R/o 26/11, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi110007
................ Plaintiff
V/s
Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. B.L. Gupta,
R/o HP-31, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110088
Also at
32, Shahzada Bagh Extn.
Daya Basti, New Delhi-11003
................Defendant
Date of Institution: 25.10.08
Date on which judgment was reserved: 27.01.14
Date of Pronouncing judgment: 31.01.14
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 19,80,000/-
JUDGMENT:-
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this suit for recovery of Rs. 19,80,000/- filed by Sh. N.K. Bansal ( hereinafter called plaintiff) against Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta (hereinafter called defendant) and Smt. Rashmi Garg.
2. Smt. Rashmi Garg filed an application U/O 1 rule 10 r/w Order 7 rule 10 and 11 CPC to delete her name from array of parties. The said application of Smt. Rashmi Garg was disposed of as allowed vide order dated 22.08.09, accordingly her name was strucked off from the plaint.
3. Brief facts leading to file the present suit are that plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain for a period of six months on 08.11.04 and in discharge of his liability Vinod Kumar Jain had executed three post dated cheques (PDC's) and three demand promissory notes (D.P. Note) in his favour. On 04.08.05 Vinod Kumar again approached the plaintiff for further help and plaintiff further advanced a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- and he again executed demand promissory note. Plaintiff further alleged that Vinod Kumar Jain was in great financial difficulty so he was unable to pay the loan amount, therefore he offered to sale his share in property no. 32 situated at Sahajad Bagh Extn. Daya Basti for discharge his legal liability. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant came to know his settlement with Vinod Kumar Jain so he showed his interest to purchase the said property with him jointly so as defendant well known and professional colleague of him, he acceded his request and therefore on 04.09.05 an agreement to sale was entered into between him alongwith defendant being Karta of Naresh Gupta HUF and Vinod Kumar Jain for a consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/- out of which Rs. 54,00,000/- was paid to Vinod Kumar Jain jointly by him and defendant on behalf of HUF.
4. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant conveyed him on 27.10.05 that Vinod Kumar Jain had expired in the month of October 2005 so defendant by his letter dated 27.10.05 requested him to subrogate all his rights in favour of defendant regarding agreement to sale for the purchase of that property i.e 32, Sahajad Park, Daya Basti and to show his bonafide intention defendant executed two demand promissory notes of Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 9.5 Lakh and two post dated cheques of same amount in his favour and handed over the same in exchange of demand promissory notes and post dated cheques issued by Vinod Kumar Jain . Plaintiff further alleged that defendant issued two promissory notes and two post dated cheques in discharge his liability towards the proportionate share of the plaintiff in the property of Vinod Kumar Jain and he also promised to pay interest @ 15% to him.
5. Plaintiff further alleged that it was settled that all of its claims in respect of dues against Vinod Kumar Jain shall be paid by defendant as he subrogated all his rights assigned by agreement to sale for the purchase of that property in favour of defendant. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant has paid the amount of Rs. 10 Lakh and promised to pay the interest and he also assured him to put the cheque of Rs. 9,50,000/- for realization but the said cheque was dishonored vide cheque return memo dated 27.10.06 with remark "insufficient funds" but he has not initiated legal proceedings on request of defendant. Thereafter he approached the defendant at number of times but he avoid the payment on one pretext or another and in last defendant flatly refused on 10.09.08 to pay the amount. Plaintiff further alleged that he came to know that defendant no. 1 on basis of documents handed over by him and without making entire payment to him got executed sale deed of the said property from Vinod Kumar Jain on 23.09.05, so he served a legal notice dated 30.09.08 calling defendant to pay Rs. 9.5 Lakh alongwith interest but the defendant had not paid the amount despite the service of notice . Hence, he filed the present suit for recovery of double the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- with interest.
6. Summons for settlement of suit were served on the defendant and he filed his written statement alleging therein that suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties as plaintiff advanced loan to deceased Vinod Kumar Jain but his LR's have not impleaded as necessary parties to recover the loan amount. Defendant further alleged that he was known to plaintiff and late Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain so plaintiff informed him that he had given loan of Rs. 10 Lakh to Vinod Kumar Jain. Defendant further alleged that Vinod Kumar Jain and his brother Jain Kumar Jain were owner of property no. 32, Sahajada Park, Daya Basti and he being Karta of Naresh Gupta HUF alongwith his sister entered into a sale deed in respect of first floor and second floor portion of that property owned by Jain Prakash Jain sometime in July 2005 and has accordingly also got the sale deed registered on 23.09.05, in respect of first and second floor of that property owned by Vinod Kumar Jain.
7. Defendant further alleged that Vinod Kumar Jain passing through bad face of his life as he was in major financial crisis so he approached him for arranging genuine buyer of his property, so he being Karta of Naresh Gupta HUF alongwith his sister purchased the property with sole intention to help Late Vinod Kumar Jain. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff started pressurising Vinod Kumar Jain for re-payment of loan, so Vinod Kumar Jain requested him to pacify plaintiff and further plaintiff also requested him to intervene regarding recovery of dues from Vinod Kumar Jain. So he arranged a meeting between Vinod Kumar Jain and plaintiff and at the end it was agreed that an agreement to sale in respect of property 32, Sahajad Park, Daya Basti owned by Vinod Kumar Jain would be entered between Vinod Kumar Jain on one side and he and plaintiff are on other side and it was also agreed that Vinod Kumar Jain paid the advance loan amount to the plaintiff within six months failing which he would be executed the agreement.
8. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff was aware that Vinod Kumar Jain had already sold first and second floor of property owned by him after receiving the entire consideration. Defendant further alleged that on 02.10.05 Vinod Kumar Jain had expired, thereafter plaintiff forced him to clear the dues of late Vinod Kumar Jain as he was introduced by him to the plaintiff. Defendant further alleged that he told the plaintiff that he has never been aware about the total loan taken by Vinod Kumar Jain so he had to give a reasonable time to LR's of Vinod Kumar Jain to repay his amount.
9. Defendant further alleged that he was agreed to act as a mediator between plaintiff and LR's of Vinod Kumar Jain and LR's of Vinod Kumar Jain clear certain dues of the plaintiff exact amount does not remember to him. Further, he alleged that plaintiff was asked to produce the documents regarding loan taken by Vinod Kumar Jain so plaintiff produced two separate D.P Note and PDC's of Rs. 3,00,000/- each and one D.P Note and PDC of Rs. 4,00,000/- and a D.P Note of 9,50,000/- which is doubtful. Defendant further alleged that it was decide that plaintiff handed over all those documents to him to hand over the LR's of Vinod Kumar Jain when loan was clear but plaintiff was adamant, so he himself was agreed to hand over two separate D.P Notes and PDC's of Rs. 10 Lakh and 9.50,000 both payable on 31.03.06. The payment of Rs. 10 Lakh was cleared, so the D.P Note and PDC were returned to him by plaintiff. Defendant further alleged that Vinod Kumar Jain had paid large amount during the period of May 2005 to July 2005 so he had issued fresh D.P Note of Rs. 9,50,000/- in place of 10 Lakh through him. The defendant further alleged that he asked the plaintiff on many occasions to return his D.P. Note and cheque of Rs. 9.50,000/- to which plaintiff replied that he has misplaced the same and would return the same in case he traced out the same, hence no dues is outstanding and payable by him to plaintiff on account of loan taken by Vinod Kumar Jain. Defendant further stated that plaintiff took a loan of Rs. 8 Lakh from him vide cheque drawn on Cooperation Bank and out of said amount he returned amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- vide three cheques, so as on date Rs. 5,50,000/- are still due towards plaintiff and therefore, he sought leave of court U/O 2 rule 2 CPC to claim the recovery of said amount by filing a separate suit.
10. On merits, defendant stated that he never requested the plaintiff to subrogate any right whatsoever and D.P. Notes and cheques were never issued by him in consideration of the alleged rights of the plaintiff. He further stated that the DP Notes and cheques were issued without consideration hence same are null and void and cannot be enforced. Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
11. Plaintiff filed replication, wherein he stated that he had not taken any loan of Rs. 8 Lakh from defendant however defendant paid Rs. 8 Lakh as part payment of Rs. 10 Lakh due towards him and he paid remaining balance of Rs. 2 Lakh through other transaction as such no amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- is due towards him. Further plaintiff reiterated the facts stated in the plaint and denied the contents of the written statement.
12. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 15.09.09 :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 19,80,000/- from the defendant with interest, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
3. Relief.
13. In evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He led his evidence on affidavit i.e EXPW1/A , PW-1 deposed almost on the same line of his plaint. PW-1 exhibited original letter dated 27.10.05 written by defendant to him as EXPW1/1, original letter of subrogating his rights in favour of defendant dated 27.10.05 EXPW1/2, original promissory note dated 27.10.05 executed by defendant in favour of him as EXPW1/3, original cheque no. 306235 dated 31.03.06 for Rs. 9.50,000/- issued by the defendant in his favour as EXPW1/4, cheque returning memo dated 27.09.06 as EXPW1/5, Legal notice dated 30.09.08 as EXPW1/6, postal registration receipts dated 01.10.08 are EXPW1/ 7 to 9, UPC dated 03.10.08 as EXPW1/10, Acknowledgment cards duly signed by the defendant are EXPW1/11-12, reply received from the defendant dated 14.10.08 EXPW1/14, certified copies of the sale deed dated 23.09.05 as EXPW1/15, copy of demand promissory note dated 08.11.04 for Rs. 3,00,000/- executed by Late sh. Vinod Kumar Jain EXPW1/16, copy of the cheque bearing no. 121394 dated 08.05.05 for Rs. 3,00,000/- is EXPW1/17, copy of demand promissory note dated 08.11.04 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- is EXPW1/18, copy of cheque bearing no. 121396 for Rs. 4,00,000/- is EXPW1/19, copy of the demand promissory note dated 08.11.04 for Rs. 3,00,000/- is EXPW1/20, copy of cheque no. 121395 dated 08.05.05 for RS. 3,00,000/- EXPW1/21, copy of receipt dated 04.08.05 executed by late Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain for Rs. 9.50,000/- is EXPW1/22, copy of demand promissory note dated 04.08.05 executed by late sh. Vinod Kumar Jain for Rs. 9,50,000/- in his favour as EXPW1/23, copy of the agreement to sell and purchase dated 04.09,2005 as EXPW1/24, notice under Order 12 rule 8 CPC to defendant to produce the documents as mentioned in the said notice EXPW1/25, the postal registration receipts are EXPW1/26 and EXPW1/27, A.D. Cards duly signed by the defendant are EXPW1/28 and EXPW 1/29, reply of the said notice received from the counsel for defendant dated 11.03.10 is EXPW1/30. PW-1 also marked DP notes and PDC's issued by V.K. Jain in his favour as Mark A to Mark - I.
14. In his defence, defendant examined himself as DW-1 , he led his evidence on affidavit EXDW1/X. DW-1 also deposed on the same lines of his written statement.
15. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant in person and also perused the material placed on record as well as written arguments filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendant.
16. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no. 2 I. It is on record that plaintiff filed the present suit against defendant and his sister Smt. Rashmi Garg. Smt. Rashmi Garg filed an application U/O 1 rule 10 r/w Order 7 rule 10 and 11 CPC to delete her name from array of parties and her application was disposed of as allowed vide order dated 22.08.09, accordingly her name was strucked off from the plaint.
II. It is also pertinent that during course of arguments neither Ld. Counsel for plaintiff nor defendant has advanced any arguments on the aforesaid issue. So under these circumstances this issue is decided as not pressed.
Issue no. 1.
I. PW-1 deposed that he advanced loan of Rs.10 Lakh on 08.11.04 and Rs. 9.5 Lakh on 4.08.05 to Sh,. V.K. Jain but due to great financial difficulty he could not pay the loan of Rs. 19.5 Lakh to him so Sh. V.K. Jain was agreed to sale his property no. 32, Sahjada Bagh, to him but defendant who is his close friend showed his interest to purchase the said property and therefore he agreed to purchase the property of Sh. V.K. Jain alongwith defendant thereafter Sh. V.K. Jain entered into an agreement to sale with him and defendant to sell his property. II. DW-1 admitted the execution of agreement to sale and purchase ( Bayana) as EXPW1/P-1. The agreement to sale EXPW1/P-1 was executed on 04.09.05 between V.K. Jain and Naresh Gupta HUF through its Karta Naresh Kumar Gupta the defendant and plaintiff. EXPW1/P-1 is in regard to the sale of property no. 32, Sahjada Park Extn. and both plaintiff and defendant paid Rs. 54 Lakh to Sh.
V.K. Jain however balance amount of Rs. One Lakh had to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. III. PW-1 deposed that defendant requested him vide its letter EXPW1/1 to subrogate all his rights in his favour regarding agreement to sale EXPW1/P-1 and to show his bonafide defendant executed two promissory note dated 27.10.05 of Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 9.5 Lakh and he also issued two post dated cheques bearing no. 306234 dated 31.3.06 for sum of Rs. 10 Lakh and cheques bearing no. 306235 dated 31.3.06 for sum of Rs. 9.5 Lakh in his favour and in lieu of that he handed over demand promissory notes and post dated cheques issued by V.K. Jain in his favour for amount of Rs. 19.5 Lakh. IV. DW-1 admitted his letter EXPW1/1 and he also admitted that he had executed two promissory notes dated 27.10.05 of Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 9.5 Lakh EXPW1/3 and also admitted issuance of two post dated cheques bearing no. 306234 dated 31.3.06 for sum of Rs. 10 Lakh and cheques bearing no. 306235 dated 31.03.06 for sum of Rs. 9.5 Lakh i.e EXPW1/4 in favour of plaintiff.
V. Defendant denied receiving from plaintiff the demand promissory notes Mark-A, C, E and H and Post Dated Cheques Mark B , D, F issued by Sh. V.K. Jain in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 19.5 Lakhs . It is admitted fact that plaintiff served a notice U/O 12 rule 8 CPC EXPW1/25 upon the defendant to produce original of Mark A to F but defendant has not produce the same however he replied the notice vide his reply EXPW1/30. In his reply defendant has not denied the execution of documents Mark A to H rather he stated that same might be available with the LR's of Vinod Kumar Jain. Further, it is pertinent that defendant in his letter EXPW1/1 stated as under:-
"This is reference to the discussion, we had at your office this evening. As discussed, I enclosed my DP Note dated 27.10.05 for Rs. 19,50,000/- ( Nineteen Lac fifty thousand only) payable on 31.03.2006 in exchange of DP Notes and post dated cheques of Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain and Bayana Agreement dated 04.09.05.
An amount equal to the payment made by heirs of Vinod Kumar Jain from time to time will be handed over by you to me in order to clear the entire matter amicably and I promise to pay the amount of DP Note signed by me on returned of this letter. DP Notes and post dated cheques given by me to you and return of these documents will be conclusive proof of settlement of all your claim whatsoever in respect of your dues against late Vinod Kumar Jain and the against the undersigned".
VI.It is clear from letter EXPW1/1 that defendant issued DP Notes of Rs. 19.5 Lakh i.e a D.P note of Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 9.5 Lakh and post dated cheques of same amount in favour of plaintiff as plaintiff subrogate his right assigned in agreement to sale EXPW1/P-1 in favour of defendant and further in exchange of DP Notes and post dated cheques issued by Vinod Kumar Jain in favour of plaintiff. VII. Defendant advanced one of the argument that DP Notes and post dated cheques issued by him in favour of plaintiff are null and void as same were without any consideration as he being equally closed to both plaintiff and Late Vinod Kumar Jain, so he acted as mediator to effect the recovery of dues of plaintiff from the LR's of Vinod Kumar Jain, therefore he issued his DP Notes and post dated cheques of Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 9.5 Lakh. Defendant also argued that whole amount of plaintiff Rs. 19.5 Lakh was returned to plaintiff by LR's of V.K. Jain but plaintiff has returned DP note and post dated cheque of Rs. 10 Lakh however he has not returned the post dated cheque EXPW1/4 and DP Note EXPW1/3 of Rs. 9.5 Lakh. PW-1 deposed that he has received only Rs. 10 Lakh and therefore he returned DP Note and post dated cheque of said amount to plaintiff but he has not received the amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakh therefore he presented the cheque of said amount EXPW1/4 for realization but said cheque was dishonored vide memo EXPW1/5. It is not disputed that cheque EXPW1/4 was dishonored on account of insufficient funds vide memo EXPW1/5 of dated 27.09.06. Plaintiff filed the present suit on 24.10.08, meaning thereby plaintiff filed the present suit after two year and one month from dishonour of cheque EXPW1/4. Admittedly, defendant has not objected for presentation of cheque by the plaintiff prior to filing of suit. Even he has not given any notice to the plaintiff that he would not present the cheque as LR's of Vinod Kumar paid the amount to him. Further defendant has not made any demand from plaintiff for return of his cheque EXPW1/4 and DP Note EXPW1/3. In view of this the testimony of DW-1 did not inspire the confidence of court and the defence raised by the defendant is not tenable, hence I am of considered opinion that DP Note of Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 9.5 Lakh EXPW1/3 and post dated cheque of Rs. 10 Lakh and 9.5 Lakh EXPW1/4 are not without the consideration.
VIII. DW-1 deposed that as per plaintiff he was paid an amount of Rs. 10 Lakh leading to return of DP Note and PDC of Rs. 10 Lakh to him but plaintiff failed to show any documentary proof of payment of Rs. 9.5 Lakh to Late Sh. V.K. Jain who had received and paid large amount to plaintiff during intervening period of May 2005 to October 2005 during his life time and accordingly issued a fresh DP note of Rs. 9.5 Lakh in place of Rs. 10 Lakh. DW-1 also deposed that as large amount was paid to plaintiff , hence he and LR's of Vinod Kumar Jain did not raise the issue, so on many occasions, he asked the plaintiff to return his DP note and cheque of Rs. 9.5 Lakh but plaintiff did not return the same stating the he has misplaced the same. DW-1 also deposed that plaintiff had taken a loan of Rs. 8 Lakh from him and he only returned 2.5 Lakh out of same and therefore plaintiff is liable to pay a amount of Rs. 5.5 Lakh to him.
IX.PW-1 during his cross examination deposed that sum of Rs. 8 Lakh was received by him from defendant and Rs. 4.5 Lakh were paid by LR's of V.K. Jain, out of which he returned Rs. 2.5 Lakh to defendant leaving Rs. 10 Lakh for him, so he returned his DP note and post dated cheque of Rs. 10 Lakh. He further deposed that he present the cheque of Rs 9.5 Lakh EXPW1/4, but same was dishonored, so he immediately informed the fate of cheque to the defendant who made request to him to wait for some time and not to initiate legal proceedings.
X. Defendant claimed that he advanced loan of Rs. 8 Lakh to plaintiff on 20.05.06 through cheque no. 929366 drawn on Co-operation Bank. He also claimed that plaintiff returned Rs.2.5 Lakh through cheques out of Rs. 8 Lakh. It is admitted fact that the defendant issued DP notes and PDC's of Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 9.5 Lakh in favour of plaintiff on 27.10.05 so it is clear that defendant has given the alleged loan to the plaintiff without taking back his DP Notes and PDC's of Rs. 10 lakh and 9.5 lakh from plaintiff which is unbelievable. Plaintiff deposed that he returned Rs. 2.5 lakh to the defendant as LR's of V.K.Jain paid him Rs. 4.5 lakh and defendant had also paid Rs. 8 lakh to him. It is clear from defendant's letter itself Ex. PW1/1 that any amount received by plaintiff from heirs of V.K. Jain will be handed over to him by the plaintiff. So, for this reason, plaintiff after adjusting Rs. 2 Lakh for making 10 Lakh returned Rs. 2.5 Lakh to the defendant and thereafter plaintiff has only returned the DP Note and PDC of Rs. 10 Lakh to the defendant. In view of this discussion, I am of considered opinion that defendant paid Rs. 8 Lakh in discharge of liability of Late Sh. V.K. Jain and therefore plaintiff returned his DP Note and PDC of Rs. 10 Lakh however the other DP note EXPW1/3 and post dated cheque EXPW1/4 of Rs. 9.5 Lakh is remained with him as the amount against said DP note and PDC was not paid by the defendant.
XI.Plaintiff claimed double the amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakh in view of clause 9 of Agreement to sale EXPW1/P-1. It is admitted that V.K. Jain is first party / seller whereas plaintiff and defendant were the second party in EXPW1/P-1. The clause - 9 of EXPW1/1 is as under:-
" That if the first party back out from the said transaction and refuses to honour the deal on any reason, the second party shall have right to recover the double amount of the earnest money / part payment from the first party and or get completed the sale through the attorney appointed by the first party or through the court of law by instituting a suit for specific performance at the costs, risks and expenses of the first day".
XII.Admittedly , first party i.e V.K.Jain had executed the documents i.e. Sale deed in favour of Naresh Gupta HUF and Rashmi Garg so there is no question that first party was back out from transaction. Further the said clause is not applicable for the plaintiff as he has subrogate all his rights in favour of the defendant. Even otherwise PW-1 admitted that there was no agreement with the defendant for claiming the double the amount in case of default since it was in the original agreement EXPW1/P-1 under which the liability was of Sh. V.K. Jain. So under these circumstances plaintiff is not entitled for double the amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakh.
XIII. Further PW-1 deposed that he is entitled to claim the interest @ 18% p.a as cheque EXPW1/4 was dishonored. PW-1 admitted that he never charged interest on loan given to defendant being his colleague in the same profession. Further PW-1 deposed that after execution of EXPW1/P-1 i.e agreement to sale in favour of him and defendant Sh. V.K. Jain were only under an obligation to complete the sale in favour of parties however he has no obligation to pay monthly payment of interest or any other obligation. It is also pertinent that defendant was also not agreed to pay the interest on amount of Rs. 19.5 Lakh as same has not been mentioned either in letter letter EXPW1/1 or in DP note EXPW1/3. So in view of this plaintiff has failed to show any agreement between him and defendant which suggests that he is entitled for interest @ 18% from the defendant.
XIV. It is admitted that plaintiff subrogated his rights assigned in agreement to sale EXPW1/P-1 in favour of defendant who being Karta of Naresh Gupta HUF and his sister got executed sale deed EXPW1/4 from late Sh. V.K. Jain in respect of property 32, Sahajada Bag, Delhi. The EXPW1/P-1 reveals that plaintiff and defendant paid amount of Rs. 54 Lakh to V.K. Jain meaning thereby defendant used the amount of plaintiff so plaintiff is entitled for the interest since filing of suit till its realization @ Rs. 9% p.a as Nationalized Bank generally gave the said rate of interest on the fixed deposits. XV. In view of aforesaid discussion I am of considered opinion that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakh with interest from the date of filing of suit till its realization from defendant. Accordingly issue no. 1 is decided.
RELIEF:-
17.In view of finding recorded on issued no. 1 suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 9.5 Lakh with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of suit till its realization. Costs of the suit also awarded to plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open court on 31.01.14 (Ravinder Singh-1) Addl. District Judge-19(Central), Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi