Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Garg vs Shri Puneet Jindal on 2 July, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANOJ JAIN ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
SUIT No.422/03/02
Ashok Kumar Garg,
Prop. Of M/s Ashoka Traders,
4099, PNB Building,
Naya Bazar, Delhi. ...............Plaintiff.
Versus
Shri Puneet Jindal,
Prop. of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills,
B-40, Lawerence Road Industrial Area, Delhi.
Second address
R/o CD 12, Vishakha Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi. ..................Defendant
Date of Institution : 14.11.2002
Date on which the judgment had been reserved : 22.05.2007
Date of decision : 02.07.2007
SUIT No.208/04
Shri Lokesh Gupta, prop,
M/s Ashok Roller Flour Mill.
B-40, Lawerence Road Industrial Area,
Delhi. .................Plaintiff.
Versus
Sh Ashok Kumar Garg,
35,Shankar Vihar,
Delhi-92 .................Defendant
Date of Institution : 31.05.2004
Date on which the judgment had been reserved : 22.05.2007
Date of decision : 02.07.2007
JUDGMENT
1
1 By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of both the aforesaid two inter-linked cases. Initially, Shri Ashok Kumar Garg had filed a suit against Sh Puneet Jindal and such suit was filed in the Hon'ble High Court in original side on 14.11.2002. For the sake of convenience, I would be referring the aforesaid suit as 'first case'. Second suit is filed by Sh. Lokesh Gupta against Sh Ashok Kumar Garg (plaintiff in the first case) and I would be referring the suit filed by Shri Lokesh Gupta as 'second case'. 2 Controversy lies in a very narrow compass.
3 In the first case, plaintiff has averred that he had supplied wheat to the defendant on credit basis and a running account was being maintained by the plaintiff with respect to such supply made to defendant from time to time. Last supply of wheat was made on 17.12.2001 and plaintiff received last payment on 27.12.2001. A sum of Rs.14, 02,847/- was outstanding against the defendant as on 31.03.2002. Despite several visits and numerous requests, defendant M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills, sole proprietary concern of Sh. Puneet Jindal did not make the above outstanding payment and it is in these circumstances that the plaintiff has been constrained to file the first case. Suit has been resisted by Shri Puneet Jindal and in his written statement, he admitted that a sum of Rs.14,02,847/- was payable to the plaintiff on account of supply of wheat but he also claimed that suit was misconceived as defendant firm had also supplied '' Maida'' worth Rs.29,45,670/- up to 30.06.2002 under valid invoices and such maida was 2 duly received by the plaintiff and as per the mutual agreement and understanding, defendant firm validly adjusted the dues of Rs.29,45,670/- partly against the aforesaid admitted amount of Rs.14,02,847/-. Thus the plea of set off has been taken by the defendant concerned in the first case. 4 Replication was filed by the plaintiff controverting the stand taken by the defendant and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. 5 Following issues were framed in the first case on 29.11.2004:-
(1)Whether the defendant is entitled to adjust the amount claimed by the plaintiff against the recovery claimed to be due by the defendant in its favour? (OPD) (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of suit amount of Rs.15, 49,847/- as claimed? (OPP) (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate? (OPP) (4)Relief
6 Second case has been filed by Shri Lokesh Gupta and Sh Lokesh Gupta has claimed himself to be the present sole proprietor of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills. It is the same concern which was earlier the sole proprietary concern of Sh Puneet Jindal (defendant in the first case). Sh. Lokesh Gupta claimed that said sole proprietary concern of Sh. Puneet Jindal was converted into a partnership firm on 02.04.2003 and he was accordingly inducted as one of the partners along with Sh. Puneet Jindal and 3 subsequently Sh. Puneet Jindal retired from the partnership firm and partnership firm stood dissolved and it is in these circumstances, plaintiff Sh. Lokesh Gupta has claimed that he had become the sole proprietor of aforesaid firm. In the first suit, defendant had claimed that maida was supplied to Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg worth Rs. 29,45,670/- and accordingly the admitted amount of Rs. 14.02,847/- was adjusted from the aforesaid amount and second suit has accordingly been filed by Sh. Lokesh Gupta as proprietor of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills seeking recovery of balance amount of Rs.15,42,823/- with interest with respect to such supply of maida. Written statement was filed in the second case and it was claimed that the suit was without any cause of action and no maida was ever supplied by M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills to M/s Ashoka Traders and suit was liable to be dismissed.
7 Following issues were framed in the second case on 05.10.2004:-
(1)Whether the plaint has not been signed, verified by the competent person? (OPD) (2)Whether the alleged goods were not supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of alleged trucks ?(OPD) (3 )Whether the plaintiff to the recovery of amount of Rs.15,42,823/-(OPP) (4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if yes, at what rate ?(OPP) (5)Relief
8 It will be pertinent to mention that vide order dated 31.03.2005, 4 both the cases were consolidated and evidence was directed to be led in the second case and second case was treated as main case and the evidence to be recorded in the second case was ordered to be read in both the matters. 9 It will be also pertinent to mention here that when in the first case, issues were framed it was also observed by my learned predecessor that since the defendant in the first case had admitted the suit amount and simultaneously had taken the defence that defendant was entitled to set off, defendant in the first case i.e. Puneet Jindal was directed to adduce the evidence in the first place.
10 It becomes very much apparent from the stand taken in the pleadings of both the matters that the liability in the first case is admitted by the defendant. However, defendant has taken plea of set off and according to the defendant in the first case, it had supplied maida worth Rs.29,45,670/- plaintiff Sh Ashok Kumar Garg and amount due to the plaintiff was adjusted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.29,45,670/- and for the balance payment, second case has been filed against Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg. Liability in the first case is categorically admitted and if defendant in the first case and plaintiff in the second case are able to show that maida was in fact supplied to Sh Ashok Kumar Garg and a sum of Rs.14,02,847/- was due from Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg then naturally M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills is entitled to take plea of set off and adjustment and can also successfully press their claim for the balance amount as well. However, if M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills fails to show that it had supplied maida to Shri Ashok Kumar Garg 5 then the automatic natural consequence would be that the second case would stand dismissed and resultantly, first case would be decreed straightway on the basis of admitted liability. Let me now see the evidence led by the parties.
11 From the side of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills, only one witness has entered into witness box i.e Shri Ram Kishan. Shri Ram Kishan is simply an employee of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills. He has claimed that he has been duly authorized to appear and adduce evidence and has proved power of attorney in his favour as Ex. PW 1/1. As it has already been noted above, M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills was earlier sole proprietary concern of Sh. Puneet Jindal and according to the defence set up by Sh Puneet Jindal, M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills had supplied maida to Sh Ashok Kumar Garg and partly adjusted the admitted amount against the supply of such maida. However, the second case has not been filed by Sh Puneet Jindal. Rather, it has been filed by Shri Lokesh Gupta. Shri Lokesh Gupta has entered into the scene on the basis of two documents. First document is regarding the creation of partnership firm by virtue of partnership deed dated 02.04.2003 and by virtue of such deed, he was inducted as one of the partners. Second document is Dissolution Deed dated 13.04.2004 whereby Shri Puneet Jindal retired from the partnership firm and partnership firm stood dissolved and Sh Lokesh Gupta became the sole proprietor of the firm. PW 1 Shri Ram Kishan has mentioned about these facts in his affidavit Ex. P1. However, surprisingly, the original documents were never placed on file. So much so those were not even shown to the 6 court during the course of trial. There are only photocopies of the partnership deed and dissolution deed and no mark was ever put on any of these two documents. When Shri Ram Kishan was under cross examination, it was specifically pointed out that these two documents could not have been exhibited for want of originals and it was also found that witness had not brought those original documents on that day. These documents are not bearing signatures of PW 1 Sh Ram Kishan and thus it become apparent that these two documents have not been proved in any manner whatsoever. PW 1 Shri Ram Kishan is merely an employee of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills. However, it is not clear whether he was employee with such firm even when Mr. Puneet Jindal was the sole proprietor and such fact is important because the alleged supply of maida had been made during the period when Shri Puneet Jindal was the sole proprietor of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills. It becomes very much noticeable from the stand taken by the defendant Sh Puneet Jindal in the first case that the plea of set off or adjustment could have been legitimately proved by none other than Sh. Puneet Jindal but for the reasons best known to him, defendant Puneet Jindal has chosen not to grace the witness box. Shri Lokesh Gupta has stepped into the shoes of Shri Puneet Jindal and he, too, has not chosen to enter into witness box and has rather chosen to speak through his attorney. In the case of JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI V. INDUSIND BANK LTD. AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 439 it has been held as under:-
13. Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts"
employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, 7 confines only in respect of "acts" done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.
14. Having regard to the directions in the order of remanded by which this Court placed the burden of proving on the appellants that they have a share in the property, it was obligatory on the part of the appellants to have entered the box and discharged the burden. Instead, they allowed Mr. Bhojwani to represent them and the Tribunal erred in allowing the power of attorney holder to enter the box and depose instead of the appellants. Thus, the appellants have failed to establish that they have any independent source of income and they had contributed for the purchase of the property from their own independent income. We accordingly hold that the Tribunal has erred in holding that they have a share and are co-owners of the property in question. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this respect is set aside.
15. Apart from what has been stated, this Court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another, (1999) 3 SCC 573 observed at page 583 SCC that "where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct".
12 Thus, the best evidence has been held back and I do not find much substance in the testimony of the attorney. Moreover, even otherwise 8 Shri Ram Kishan has not been able to substantiate the plea of set off in any manner whatsoever. In his affidavit, Shri Ram Kishan claimed that supply of maida was made on different dates as per bills Ex. PW 1/5 to Ex. PW 1/31 There are 31 bills in all but on careful perusal of the entire record, it becomes apparent that there are only photocopies of the bills and neither the originals were shown nor the photocopies were proved in any manner whatsoever. So much so, no mark was either put on these alleged 31 invoices or bills. . During course of the arguments, I had specifically asked Shri Verma, learned counsel for M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills in this regard and he, too, admitted that the original invoices or bills were never placed on record and were never brought in the court at the time of evidence. He also acknowledged that no identification mark on any of those 31 bills was put at the time of the recording of the testimony of Shri Ram Kishan. Thus, all the bills and invoices under which maida was purportedly supplied to Shri Ashok Kumar Garg have not been proved in any manner whatsoever. These photocopies of bills which are on record are accordingly liable to be discarded and if these bills are held redundant straightaway then naturally M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills is not in any position to establish the supply of maida to Shri Ashok Kumar Garg.
13 During course of arguments, learned counsel for Shri Ashok Kumar Garg contended that the original documents were never produced before the court and Shri Puneet Jindal and Sh Lokesh Garg did not enter into witness box as they very well knew that if they tried to enter into witness box, they might be hauled up for committing forgery. He has drawn 9 my attention towards the truck numbers as mentioned in the alleged invoices and he has claimed that no material was ever supplied through those trucks and in support of his plea, he has examined concerned truck owners and other official viz DW 3 Sh Niranjan Singh, DW 5 Sh Gopal Bachani and DW 6 Sh. N.K. Tokas. I have seen the testimony of all the aforesaid three witnesses. DW 3 Sh Niranjan Singh has deposed that Truck no. DL 1 GA 0665 was registered in his name and said truck was plying in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and said truck was not operating in Delhi and never loaded the goods in Delhi from M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills to ferry to M/s Ashoka Traders. I have seen the photocopies of invoices/ bills which were placed on record from the side of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills and at least on eight occasions, maida was shown to have been supplied by loading the material in truck No. DL 1 GA0665. These goods were loaded between 11.01.2002 and 07.06.2002 and DW 3 Shri Niranjan Singh has proved his report Ex. DW 3/1 and in his such report, he had given the description and details regarding the trips of the truck which clearly reveal that on the given dates as contained in invoices, the truck in question was never in Delhi and, therefore, defence of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills stands falsified and falls flat to the ground. To the similar effect is the testimony of DW 5 Sh Gopal Bachani and he is the owner of two trucks bearing No. DL 1 GA 5815 and DL 1GA 5814. Curiously enough his aforesaid trucks were fitted with drilling machines and compressors. He also deposed categorically that since these trucks were fitted with drilling machines and compressors, these could not be used for loading and unloading and for transportation of goods. He has also proved his report in this regard 10 Ex. D 18 and his testimony is virtually unshaken on the aforesaid material aspect of the case. As per his report Ex. D18, these two trucks were having drilling with rig machine and compressor fixed on them and both the trucks were too be used together as one used to carry the rig machine and another used to carry the compressor and it was also categorically mentioned in the report that there was never any dealing with M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills and claim that these trucks were used for delivery was wrong and malafide. As per the unproved bills, M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills want to convey that maida had been supplied on five occasions through truck No. DL 1 FA 5815 between 17.1.2002 and 30.05.2002 and such stand apparently and evidently becomes fallacious in view of the testimony of Sh Gopal Bachani. 14 In view of the aforesaid fact, it becomes very much apparent and palpable that stand taken by M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills is nothing but sham and full of pretence and no maida was ever supplied by them to M/s Ashoka Traders. Best evidence has been held back for reasons best known to them. Neither the previous sole proprietor nor the present sole proprietor of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills has chosen to enter into witness box. Original documents have been held back and the photocopies have neither been marked nor exhibited. Moreover, even otherwise the contents of the bills stand falsified as it become apparent that no goods were loaded through truck No. DL 1 GA 5815 and DL 1 GA 0665.
15 Written arguments have been placed on record from the side of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills as well and I have considered the written 11 arguments very carefully. Shri Verma has tried to take advantage of stray lines appearing in the cross examination of PW 1 Ram Kishan. In his cross examination, at one place, PW 1 Ram Kishan deposed that it was correct that at the time when the goods were loaded, he was in the office of the mill. However, one isolated line itself can not decide the outcome of the case. Entire tone of the cross examination has to be understood and as per the entire tenor and crux of cross examination it becomes perceptible that the witness was confronted with a specific state of mind and the cross examiner was clear in his mind that neither any maida was ever supplied by M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills nor, of course, alleged trucks in question were ever used for transportation of such goods. Moreover, M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills is supposed to stand on its own legs and it is found that the best evidence, oral as well as documentary, has been held back and, therefore, it does not stand proved in any manner whatsoever that M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills ever supplied any maida to M/s Ashoka Traders. 16 Shri Verma has also contended that supply of maida stands proved as M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills is possessing several cheques which clearly reveals that there was transaction as claimed by M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mills else M/s Ashoka Traders would not have issued any such cheque. However, mere possession of cheques does not prove the case of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill in any manner whatsoever particularly in view of the fact that best evidence has been withheld. In the case of AIR 1961 SUPREME COURT 1316 KUNDAN LAL RALLARAM V. CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, BOMBAY it has been observed 12 as under:-
".......A plaintiff, who says that he had sold certain goods to the defendant and that a promissory note was executed as consideration for the goods and that he is in possession of the relevant account books to show that he was in possession of the goods sold and that the sale was effected for a particular consideration , should produce the said account books, for he is in possession of the same and the defendant certainly cannot be expected to produce his documents. In those circumstances, if such a relevant evidence is withheld by the plaintiff, S. 114 enables the Court to draw a presumption to the effect that, if produced, the said accounts would be unfavourable to the plaintiff. This presumption, if raised by a court, can under certain circumstances rebut the presumption of law raised under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Briefly stated, the burden of proof may be shifted by presumptions of law or fact, and presumptions of law or presumptions of fact may be rebutted not only by direct or circumstantial evidence but also by presumptions of law or fact. We are not concerned here with irrebuttable presumptions of law."
17 Sh. Verma, learned counsel has placed his reliance upon following judgments:
1. M/s N.P. Jain & Company Vs. Shri Modi Lal AD 2004 VII Delhi
276.
2. Universal Music India Ltd. Vs. Subodh Garg AD 2004 IV Delhi 13 Page 305.
3. Delhi Book Stores Vs. Shri K.S. Subramaniam AD 2006 I Delhi Page 557.
4. M/s Lohmann Rausher GMBH Vs. M/s Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd. AD 2005 II Delhi Page 604.
5. S.S. International & Others Vs. Union of India AD 2005 VI Delhi Page 863.
First four judgments relate to principle regarding grant of leave in summary suit. I have gone through all the aforesaid judgments and I am of the considered opinion that no benefit can be dug out by Sh. Verma from any of the aforesaid judgments keeping in mind the peculiar backdrop of the present suits. Stand of M/s Ashoka Traders is very apparent and according to them M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill had misused and forged the blank signed cheques which were in the possession of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill and moreover it was only in order to facilitate the business dealing that a bank account was opened by M/s Ashoka Trades and it had been specifically averred by Shri Ashok Kumar Garg in his written statement that Sh Puneet Jindal had misused the blank signed cheques of the defendant and filled up the amount and in order to rebut the aforesaid fact, it was incumbent on the part of Sh Puneet Jindal to have entered into witness box. Thus the mere possession of the cheques issued by M/s Ashoka Traders does not by itself indicate that any maida had been supplied by M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill. Moreover the original bills and invoices have not seen the light of the day and even the photocopies have not been tried to be proved in any manner whatsoever. On the other hand, even the contents of such photocopies are found to be erroneous in light of the testimony of the truck owners. 14 18 Shri Verma has also claimed that testimony of PW 9 Sh J.P. Mittal and testimony of PW 10 Sh Murari Lal does not inspire any confidence and rather they are speaking at the instance of Sh Ashok Kumar Garg. Even if I assume the aforesaid contention to be correct, fact remains that M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill have come up with a specific stand that it had supplied maida and was entitled to make necessary adjustments and set off and this plea could have been proved by M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill only and in view of my foregoing discussion, it becomes apparent that plea of set off does not stand proved in any manner whatsoever as M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill has failed to show that it had ever supplied any maida. 19 Moreover, as I have already noticed above, neither the partnership deed nor dissolution deed have been proved in any manner whatsoever and, therefore, the second case filed by Sh Lokesh Garg does not seem to have any legal force. The alleged supply of maida was made at the time when Sh Puneet Jindal was at the helm of affairs of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill and only he could have thrown the requisite light in this regard. Non proving of two vital documents viz partnership deed and dissolution deed clearly tantamount to show that suit filed by Lokesh Gupta is not maintainable as Lokesh Gupta is not shown competent to file the suit on behalf of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill.
20 In view of my aforesaid discussion, my issue wise findings are as 15 under:-
ISSUE NO.1 IN THE FIRST CASE:
Whether the defendant is entitled to adjust the amount claimed by the plaintiff against the recovery claimed to be due by the defendant in its favour? OPD ISSUE No.2 IN THE SECOND CASE:
Whether the alleged goods were not supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of alleged trucks ? OPD ISSUE No.3 IN THE SECOND CASE:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of amount of Rs 15,42,823/- ? OPP ISSUE No 4 IN THE SECOND CASE:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP
21 In light of my aforesaid discussion, it is held that M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill has miserably failed to show that it had supplied any maida to M/s Ashoka Traders and, therefore, it was not entitled to any adjustment or set off and it also stands proved that no goods were ever supplied by way of alleged transaction. Issue No.1 in the first case is accordingly decided against the defendant in first case and similarly issue No.2 in the second case is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant in the second case. For the same reason issue No.3 in the second case is decided against the plaintiff in second case and in favour of the defendant in the second case. 16 22 Since issue No.3 has been decided against the plaintiff, it is also consequently held that plaintiff is not entitled to any interest in the second case. Issue No.4 in second case stands decided accordingly. ISSUE No.1 IN THE SECOND CASE:-
Whether the plaint has not been signed, verified by the competent person? OPD
23 Second suit has been instituted by Shri Lokesh Gupta. However, Shri Lokesh Gupta has not entered into witness box. He claimed himself to be the erstwhile partner and also the present proprietor of M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill and in order to prove his such assertion, requisite steps should have been taken to ensure that both the important documents i.e. partnership deed and dissolution deed are proved in the requisite manner but neither the partnership deed nor the dissolution deed have been proved and moreover, the alleged attorney i.e. PW 1 Sh Ram Kishan has not uttered a single word in his testimony to the effect that the suit had been signed by Sh Lokesh Gupta and he never whispered that he had even seen him writing or signing or that he identified the signatures of Sh Lokesh Gupta on the plaint. 24 Since the material documents have not been proved, Sh Lokesh Gupta is found to be a total stranger with respect to the alleged supply of maida. Things might have been different had the aforesaid two documents been proved but in view of the aforesaid situation, issue No.1 in the second case is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the 17 defendant.
ISSUE NO.2 IN THE FIRST CASE:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of suit amount of Rs.15,49,847/- as claimed? OPP ISSUE NO 3 IN THE FIRST CASE:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP
25 Since it has already been held above that M/s Ashoka Roller Flour Mill had not supplied any maida and it was not entitled to plea of set off and since the liability in the first case is admitted one, plaintiff in the first suit is accordingly held entitled to recovery of the suit amount and issue No.2 in the first case is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
26 Plaintiff is also held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of institution till realization and issue No. 3 in first case stands decided accordingly.
RELIEF 27 In view of the aforesaid, second case filed by Shri Lokesh Gupta is dismissed with cost.
28 First case i.e. suit filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Garg is hereby 18 decreed and a decree is accordingly passed in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Garg and against the defendant Sh Puneet Jindal for a sum of Rs.15,49,847/ - (Principal amount of Rs.14,02,847 plus interest amount of Rs.1,47,000/- up to the date of filing of the suit) along with interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.15,49,847/- from the date of filing till realization. 29 First suit is also decreed with cost.
30 A copy of the judgment be placed in each case file.
31 Decree sheet be accordingly prepared in both the matters and files be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (MANOJ JAIN)
Today on 02.07.2007 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
19