Delhi District Court
Vijay Shanker Chaudhary vs Directorate General And Ors on 19 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PARIDHI SHARMA, JUDGE SMALL CAUSES
COURT-CUM-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-GUARDIAN
JUDGE, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSE03-000045-2014
Vijay Shanker Chaudhary versus Directorate General & Ors.
a) Civil Suit No. : 50337/2016
b) Name & address of the : 1) VIJAY SHANKER CHAUDHARY
plaintiff S/O. LATE ROHAN CHAUDHARY
R/O VILL/P.O. ASHRAFPUR
VIA/P.S. NAGAR NAUSA
DISTRICT - NALANDA
BIHAR.
Also at:
H.NO. 669, GALI No. 2, PART-II
SURENDER COLONY
JHARODA, BURARI
DELHI- 110084
c) Name & address of : 1) DIRECTORATE GENERAL
defendants THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI. 110003.
2) INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
NORTH SECTOR, RAM KRISHNA
PURAM, NEW DELHI- 110066.
3) DEPUTY I.G. OF POLICE
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 1
C.R.P.F., OFFICE OF DIG, CRPF
GURGAON, HARYANA.
4) COMMANDANT- 124 BATTALION
CRPF OFFICE
AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.
5) SMT. SUMITRA DEVI@ BUNNI
DEVI
W/O LATE SHRI DHANESHWAR
CHAUDHARY
R/O VILLAGE & POST ASHRAF PUR,
DISTT. NALANDA- 801305,
BIHAR.
6) SH. LAL BABU CHAUDHRY
S/O. LATE SHRI DHANESHWAR
CHAUDHARY
R/O. VILLAGE & POST ASHRAF PUR,
DISTT. NALANDA- 801305,
BIHAR.
7) SH. YADUNANDANAN
CHAUDHARY
S/O. LATE SHRI ROHAN
CHAUDHARY,
R/O. VILLAGE & POST ASHRAF PUR
DISTT. NALANDA- 801305,
BIHAR.
8) SH. KAMESHWAR CHAUDHARY
S/O. LATE SHRI ROHAN CHAUDHARY
R/O VILLAGE & POST ASHRAF PUR,
DISTT. NALANDA- 801305,
BIHAR.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 2
9) SMT. RUNNI DEVI
D/O. LATE SHRI ROHAN
CHAUDHARY,
W/O SH. MONARIK CHAUDHARY
R/O. VILLAGE KHARBHAIYA POST
TOPSATHUA, DISTRICT PATNA-
801304, BIHAR.
10) SH. SURINDER CHAUDHARY
S/O. SH. VIJAY SHANKER
CHAUDHARY,
R/O. HOUSE NO. 1090, GALI NO. 28,
SHIV KUNJ, NEAR KALI MANDIR,
SANT NAGAR,
DELHI- 110084.
11) SH. YOGINDER CHAUDHARY
S/O. SH. VIJAY SHANKER
CHAUDHARY,
R/O. HOUSE NO. 23, GALI NO. 3,
SURINDER COLONY PART II,
JHARODA, SANT NAGAR,
DELHI- 110084,
12) SH. RAM BRICHH CHAUDHARY
S/O. LATE SH. JHAPSI CHAUDHARY,
R/O. VILL & POST- ASHRAF PUR,
DISTT. NALANDA- 80130
BIHAR.
13) SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,
S/O SH. RAM BRICHH CHAUDHARY,
R/O V&P ASHRAF PUR,
DISTT. NALANDA- 801305,
BIHAR.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 3
14) CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE
FORCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Date of Institution : 03.02.2014
Final arguments heard on : 11.10.2023
Judgment pronounced on : 19.01.2024
The undersigned had reserved judgement in the instant case while presiding
over the court of JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East, Saket, New Delhi. This
judgment is written and pronounced by the undersigned in compliance of
directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi contained in footnote no. 2
appended to transfer and posting order no. 49/DHC/Gaz./G-
7/VI.E.2(a)/2023 dated 14.12.2023. The undersigned assumed charge as
Joint Director, Delhi Judicial Academy with effect from 15.12.2023 (A/N).
Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts.
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the instant civil suit filed by the plaintiff namely, Vijay Shanker Chaudhary against defendants as arrayed above for a decree of declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 4
2. Plaint: It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has been discredited of his name, owing to false complaint written by defendant no. 5 to the officers superior to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff, without any due diligence and proper enquiry, was dismissed from his service. It is averred that on 25.06.1981, the plaintiff was duly appointed to the service of Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF') in the capacity of Hawaldar. The plaintiff was found to have clean antecedents vide verification report dated 19.07.1985.
3. It is further stated that defendant no. 5 is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff and the wife of his elder brother namely, Dhaneshwar Chaudhary who died in a train accident in the year 1970. The plaintiff has claimed that defendant no. 5 levelled frivolous allegations against the plaintiff vide her letters alleging that the plaintiff impersonated himself as his elder brother who died in the year 1973 and got appointed in CRPF on the basis of the matriculation certificate of his elder brother, and that his original name happens to be Baleshwar Choudhary.
4. It is stated in the plaint that on the basis of the aforementioned communication, defendant no. 3 initiated departmental enquiry against the plaintiff vide office notification number PB-11/2005- establishment-2 dated 07.11.2005 under section 11(1) of The CRPF Act, 1949. It is averred that the enquiry officer submitted report to the office of defendant no. 2 on 24.06.2006 holding that the plaintiff is innocent. However, defendant no. 2 arbitrarily held that the conclusions of the enquiry officer were questionable and formulated his dissent from the enquiry officer and called for clarifications from the plaintiff. In pursuance Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 5 thereof, the plaintiff offered clarifications vide letters dated 6.11.2006, 19.11.2006, 20.11.2006. The plaintiff has alleged that thereafter, defendant no. 2 wrongly exercised his power and dismissed the plaintiff from service on the ground of indiscipline and questionable character.
5. The plaintiff thereafter, approached Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, District, Bihar, seeking enquiry into the probe and the correctness of the findings relating to the credentials of the plaintiff and the truth and veracity of the allegations levelled by defendant no. 5 vide letter dated 05.08.2007. In response to the said letter, SP Nalanda conducted an intensive enquiry and submitted a detailed report dated 14.12.2008 whereby, the plaintiff was found to be innocent. Based thereon, the plaintiff submitted representations dated 03.01.2009 to defendant no. 2 which was casually responded to by the said defendant vide letter dated 15.2.2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff, on 16.2.2009, again applied to defendant no.1 for redressal of his grievance and prayed for reinstatement. However, defendant no. 1 did not pay any heed to the same.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff preferred a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing number 11358/2009 praying for reinstatement in the service and quashing of order dated 22.12.2006, however, the same was dismissed as the plaintiff was already pursuing a revision preferred by him which was subsequently dismissed. The plaintiff again approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide writ petition bearing number 1727 of 2013 wherein, the plaintiff was granted the liberty to approach a civil court with an appropriate suit.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 6 Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, seeking a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.
7. Relief sought: The following reliefs have been sought by the plaintiff in the instant suit:
i) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and thereby declare the plaintiff as Vijay Shanker Chaudhary permanent resident of Village and Post Office, Ashrafpur, P.S. Nagar Nausa, District. Nalanda, Bihar presently residing at House no. 669, Gali No. 2, Part-II Surender Colony Jharoda, Burari, Delhi- 110084 having date of birth as 03.06.1956 being the fourth son of Late Sh. Rohan Chaudhary.
ii) Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendants no. 5 and 6 and their legal heirs, representatives etc. from making such or similar allegations against the present plaintiff.
iii) Pass a decree for permanent injunction against defendants no. 5 and 6 thereby restraining them and their legal heirs, representatives etc. from using the name of the plaintiff for obtaining monetary benefits or benefits of any other nature, from the government.
iv) Pass a decree of injunction of appropriate nature thereby directing defendants no. 5 and 6 for rendition of accounts for the benefits which they had obtained from the agencies and instrumentalities of government using the name of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary, present plaintiff.
v) Pass a decree of injunction of appropriate nature thereby directing defendants no. 5 and 6 to return all the benefits to Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 7 the present plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date when she alleged against the plaintiff.
vi) Award the cost of litigation in favour of the plaintiff.
vii) Pass any order or further in the interest of order justice as this court deems fit and proper.
8. Written Statement: Written statement was filed by defendants no. 1 to 4 and defendant no. 14 collectively. It is stated therein that departmental enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff vide official memo dated 07.11.2005 on the charge that the plaintiff got his appointment in CRPF using his elder brother's name, and his matriculation certificate, the act which was considered illegal as per section 11(1), Government of India, gazette number 49/93 read with CRPF Act, 1949.
9. It is further averred that charges were proved against the plaintiff, and therefore, a penalty of "dismissal from service" was imposed upon him. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to IG, Northern Sector which was dismissed. It is stated that the said appeal was followed by a revision petition to DG, CRPF which also resulted in dismissal of the plaintiff from the service. It is conceded that the plaintiff preferred a writ petition in Delhi wherein, the plaintiff was ordered to approach the civil court.
10. It is further submitted in the written statement that although the plaintiff was appointed in CRPF, he was not appointed as Hawaldar as Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 8 claimed by him. It is claimed that the services of the plaintiff were terminated after conducting departmental enquiry and providing him the opportunity to defend himself. It is stated that as per the report of Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, defendant no. 5 is the wife of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary who died in a train accident during 1973. It is claimed that the plaintiff is originally named as Baleshwar Choudhary. It is submitted that the appeal and revision petition preferred by the plaintiff were all dismissed after due consideration by competent authorities and as such, no cause of action lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as claimed in the present suit. The defendants have accordingly, sought dismissal of the present suit. Replication thereto was filed by the plaintiff wherein, the plaintiff has denied all the averments mentioned in the written statement.
11. Issues framed: The court framed issues vide order dated 06.04.2018 which are as follows:
a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for? (OPP)
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction against defendants no. 5 and 6, as prayed for? (OPP)
c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunction against defendants no. 5 and 6 for rendition of accounts, as prayed for? (OPP)
d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunction against defendants no. 5 and 6 for return of benefits alongwith the interest of 18% per annum, as prayed for? (OPP) Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 9
e) Relief.
12. Evidence adduced by the plaintiff: The plaintiff got himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavits which are Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B. The plaintiff relied on the following documents:
• Mark PW-1/1: Verification report dated 17.07.1985. • Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (OSR): Order dated 22.12.2006 passed by defendant no. 2, departmental inquiry dated 17.12.2004 and chargesheet dated 07.11.200.
• Mark PW-1/3 (colly): Copy of letter dated 05.08.2007 and report dated 14.12.2008.
• Mark PW-1/4 (colly): Letter dated 03.01.2009 addressed to defendant no. 2, his reply dated 15.02.2009 and letter dated 16.02.2009.
• Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) (OSR): Translated copy of school leaving certificate dated 19.06.2009 of plaintiff with photograph attached alongwith caste certificate of the plaintiff (objected to). • Mark PW-1/6: Order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 11358/2009.
• Ex.PW-1/7 (colly) (OSR): Aadhar card of plaintiff and Aadhar card of plaintiff's wife alongwith her voter ID Card.
• Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR): Certificate dated 06.07.2010 (objected to). • Mark PW-1/9: Revision order dated nil February 2018. • Mark PW-1/10: Copy of order dated 18.03.2013 in WPC no.
1727/2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
• Mark PW-1/11 (colly): The entire criminal record showing the name of defendant no. 6 as late Sh. Dhaneshwar Chaudhary.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 10 • Ex. PW-1/12: Certified Copy of voter list, Chandi Assembly constituency for the year 1971 issued by the Election Commission of India procured by the plaintiff on 26.07.2005 which shows that Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi is the wife of Mr. Dhaneshwar Chaudhary.
• Mark PW-1/A: Copy of voter list, Chandi Assembly constituency for the year 1980 issued by the Election Commission of India procured by the plaintiff which shows that Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi is the wife of Dhaneshwar Chaudhary.
• Ex. PW-1/13: Certified copy of voter list, Chandi Assembly constituency for the year 1988 issued by the Election Commission of India procured by the plaintiff on 04.08.2005 which shows that Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi is the wife of Mr. Dhaneshwar Chaudhary.
• Mark PW-1/B: Copy of written complaint dated 06.01.1988 submitted before Ld. District Magistrate, District Nalanda, Bihar Commandant 30 B Battalion, CRPF, Kapurthala, Punjab; SP, Nalanda, Bihar and SHO Nagar Nausa PS, District Nalanda, Bihar regarding the family dispute in which plaintiff had disclosed that Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi w/o Late Sh. Dhaneshwar Chaudhary is compelling to get marry to the plaintiff which was opposed by the plaintiff.
• Mark PW-1/C: Copy of apology letter dated 10.05.1988 submitted by the Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi (Defendant no. 5) to the Commandant, 30B Battalion, CRPF, Kapurthala, Punjab. • Ex. PW-1/14: Original affidavit of Late Sh. Rohan Chaudhary father of plaintiff dated 02.05.1989 declaring identity of the plaintiff.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 11 • Ex. PW-1/15: Statement of the father of the plaintiff dated 22.12.1993 made before the Sarpanch and four other respectable persons of the village confirming the identity of the plaintiff. • Ex. PW-1/16: Original election card records of the plaintiff's family dated 15.07.1994 is showing the identity of the plaintiff. • Mark PW-1/D: Copy of common voter list, Chandi Assembly constituency for the year 1995 issued by the Election Commission of India wherein the defendant no. 5/Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi first time has lied about her marital status as the wife of the plaintiff. • Ex. PW-1/17: Original hand written partition letter dated 08.04.197 held before the Sarpunch and other respectable members of village.
• Ex. PW-1/18: Original affidavit of Smt. Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi dated 24.07.1998 wherein she clearly stated that her husband is Late Sh. Dhaneshwar Chaudhary who died about 24 years ago and plaintiff is her brother-in-law and she also declared that she has levelled false accusations against the plaintiff.
• Ex. PW-1/19: Original sale deed dated 03.08.2000 wherein the plaintiff purchased the agriculture land is also confirming his identity.
• Mark PW-1/E: Copy of voter list, Chandi Assembly constituency for the year 2004.
• Ex. PW-1/20: Original partition deed dated 30.07.2004. • Ex. PW-1/21 (colly): Original hand written legal heir certificate attested by notary public on 30.03.2006.
• Ex. PW-1/22: Original certificate dated 08.05.2007 issued by Sarpanch, Ashok Kumar.
• Ex. PW-1/23: Original certificated dated 16.07.2008. • Ex. PW-1/24: Mutual partition deed dated 14.10.2008.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 12 • Mark PW-1/F: Copy of CS no. 377/2008.
• Ex. PW-1/25: Certified copy of sale deed dated 11.02.2009. • Ex. PW-1/26 (colly): Original RTI application dated 13.10.2009 alongwith its reply dated 14.10.2009.
• Ex. PW-1/27: Reply dated 15.09.2010 against RTI application.
13. During cross-examination, the plaintiff inter alia testified that his name is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary and that he has four brothers and one sister. The plaintiff added that his brothers namely, Yadhunandan Chaudhary, Dhaneshwar Chaudhary and Kaleshwar Chaudhary have already expired. The plaintiff stated that he cannot produce the death certificate of Kaleshwar Chaudhary. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary has already expired in a train accident in the year 1973 as alleged by defendant no. 5 in her complaint submitted to CRPF. The plaintiff voluntarily stated that he still alive.
14. The plaintiff deposed that Rohan Chaudhary had only one wife, namely, Rajkuri Devi, who has also expired. The plaintiff was confronted with voter list for the year 1970 which is already Mark PW-1/A wherein, at serial no. 539, it is mentioned as Rajkuri Devi wife of Rohan Chaudhary and at serial no. 542, it has been mentioned as Dhaneshwari Devi, wife of Rohan Chaudhary. The plaintiff clarified that it is incorrectly stated in the voter list and that his father had only one wife, namely, Rajkuri Devi. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as the aforementioned document is false, fabricated and manipulated.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 13
15. The plaintiff further testified that he was married in the year 1975 and that in the year 1988, he had four children. The plaintiff was then confronted with document which is Mark PW-1/B. The plaintiff clarified that he had four children and that at the time of issuance of the aforementioned letter, he had three children. However, the fourth child was born in the year 1988. The plaintiff added that he did not remember the month of his birth however, in the said document, the year of birth is stated to be 1989.
16. The plaintiff was thereafter, confronted with document, Ex. PW-1/16. The plaintiff clarified that there is a possibility that it has been wrongly mentioned by the author of the said letter that he had two children. The plaintiff was then confronted with document, Mark PW-1/B. The plaintiff stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the said document was never sent to the Commandant and District Officer and that it is a false document. The plaintiff added that he had sent the same.
17. The plaintiff further avouched that he had opted for modern Indian language, English, Social Studies, General Science, Anivarya Aichhik Vishaya and Sanskrit in matriculation. He testified that at the time of grant of school leaving certificate in the year 1972, no photograph used to be pasted on the said certificate and that at that time, his parents were alive. The plaintiff was then shown school leaving certificate, Ex. PW-1/5 (colly). The plaintiff deposed that he had obtained the said certificate in the year 2009 and that at that time, his parents had expired. He added that the earlier certificate given to him by the school had been stolen. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that the said document is forged and fabricated as Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 14 word 'late' cannot be written in front of the names of the parents, whether they are alive or dead.
18. The plaintiff further avowed that during the period, 1972 till 25.06.1981, he had tried applying for government jobs however, he does not have any documentary proof regarding the same. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that he is not Vijay Shanker Chaudhary and that he is Baleshwar Chaudhary and that as Vijay Shanker Chaudhary expired in a train accident, he is unable to provide any document regarding application for government jobs during the period of nine years. The plaintiff voluntarily asserted that he is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary and the person who had died was Dhaneshwar Chaudhary. The plaintiff claimed that at the time when GD Aurangzeb had visited his village, Shri Mahender Prasad, was the Mukhiya of the said village and that at that time, when he had joined CRPF, he had deposited his passing certificate cum marks certificate. The plaintiff testified that his matriculation examination was conducted in Ram Babu Uchch Vidyalaya, Hilsa, and that he did not remember for how many days the said examination was conducted. The plaintiff testified that he had cleared matriculation in March 1972.
19. The plaintiff was shown document, Ex. PW-1/12. He denied the suggestion that during departmental enquiry conducted by CRPF regarding his absence for 135 days and regarding impersonation, he had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses however, he had failed to do the same. The plaintiff voluntarily stated that he has both the names that is, Vijay Shanker and Baleshwar Chaudhary. When suggested that he had not produced any witness in his defence in the said Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 15 enquiry, the plaintiff stated that no opportunity was given to him for the same. He voluntarily stated that he had made written objections to the said enquiry.
20. Upon being recalled, for further cross-examination, the plaintiff testified that he did not get himself registered for teachers' training for the session 1972-1974. The witness was then confronted with report dated 27.10.2005 that is, Mark A. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that as per the said report, Vijay Shanker Choudhary, was registered with the said School and that he died during the training period on 25.02.1973. The plaintiff added that he also has a certificate of teachers' training school, Masaudi, Bihar. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that he does not have any such certificate nor has he undergone any such training and that he has changed his version after perusing the document.
21. The plaintiff was then confronted with copy of order dated 03.09.2008 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, which is Mark B. The plaintiff reiterated that he is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary @ Baleshwar Chaudhary and that he does not know about any such case or document. The plaintiff was suggested that as per the report of Sub- Inspector namely, Male Prakash and Aurangzeb Shah from CRPF who had visited his village on 24.11.2004 during departmental enquiry, had given a report in the presence of five local residents of the village that the plaintiff is the younger brother of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary and that his original name is Baleshwar Chaudhary, and that after the death of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary, the plaintiff had assumed his identity and submitted forged documents to CRPF and the said report is Mark C. The plaintiff Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 16 denied the said suggestion and the suggestion that he had got an FIR registered against defendant no. 6 in order to conceal his identity.
22. The plaintiff further denied the suggestion that defendant no. 5 is the wife of deceased, Vijay Shanker. The plaintiff voluntarily stated that she is the wife of his elder brother, Dhaneshwar Chaudhary, and that he is in possession of the school certificate belonging to his brother, Dhaneshwar Chaudhary, who is elder to him by four years. The plaintiff was shown voter list for the year 2004 which is Mark E. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that the said voter list reflects that Sumitra Devi is the wife of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary vide entry number 801. The plaintiff voluntarily asserted that Sumitra Devi has been using the name of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary as her husband in the voter list since the year 1988. He claimed that he did not remember as to when his name was incorporated in the voter list. He again said that his name was incorporated in the said list in the year 1980.
23. The plaintiff was again recalled for further cross-examination. He deposed that he does not know the age of his sister-in-law, Sumitra Devi. The plaintiff was confronted with affidavit, Ex. PW-1/18 wherein it is stated that the age of Sumitra Devi is 50 years. The plaintiff avouched that he does not remember her age and denied the suggestion that the said affidavit is forged. The plaintiff was then shown document, Ex. PW-1/19 and Ex. PW-1/20. He denied the suggestion that the said documents are forged and fabricated.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 17
24. The plaintiff was then shown document, Ex. PW-1/14. He denied the suggestion that the said document is false and manipulated. He stated that it is incorrect that the said affidavit does not bear the signatures of any witness. He voluntarily stated that it bears the signatures of Sarpanch that is, Sh. Hardev Prasad Singh. The plaintiff was shown document, Ex. PW-1/15. He denied the suggestion that the said document is forged. Similarly, he was shown document, Ex. PW-1/16. He again denied the suggestion that the said document is fabricated and has been manipulated in connivance with the authority. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that documents, Ex. PW-1/17 and Ex. PW-1/21 are forged and fabricated. The plaintiff was also shown document, Ex PW-1/22. He stated that he is a resident of Ashrafpur which falls in Ariyawa.
25. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that he got document, Ex. PW-1/23 written from minister, namely, Hari Narayan, just to pressurise the concerned department and that mutual partition deed dated 14.10.2008, which is Ex. PW-1/24 and sale deed, Ex. PW-1/25 is forged to create false evidence. Lastly, he denied the suggestion that his elder brother, namely, Dhaneshwar Chaudhary was also known as Vijay Shanker Chowdhury, who had died in a train accident. The plaintiff reiterated that he himself is Vijay Shanker, Choudhary @ Baleshwar Choudhary.
26. Testimony of PW-2, Yogender Chaudhary- In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 deposed that his father namely, Vijay Shanker Choudhary is also known as Baleshwar Chaudhary. The witness stated that his date of birth is 15.02.1989. PW-2 avowed that his father is present Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 18 in the court. He asserted that Dhaneshwar Chaudhary is his uncle and that he has no nickname.
27. The witness filed photo copy if his Aadhaar card which is Ex. PW-2/1 (OSR), photocopy of secondary examination, Bihar, School Examination, Board dated 20.10.2015, Patna, which is Ex. PW-2/2 (OSR), photocopy of National Institute of Open Schooling, senior secondary examination, mark sheet, Government of India, which is Ex. PW-2/3 (OSR), photocopy of secondary examination, Bihar School Examination Board (duplicate) dated 17.05.2017, which is Ex. PW-2/4 (OSR) and photocopy of SC/ST certificate dated 29.05.2017, which is Ex. PW-2/5 (OSR).
28. In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his father's name is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary and that he is acquainted with Sumitra Devi. PW-2 affirmed that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary had died in a train accident on 25.02.1973 but again said that Dhaneshwar Chaudhary had died in the said accident. The witness stated that his father has two names that is, Vijay Shanker, Choudhary and Baleshwar Chaudhary. PW-2 testified that his father has four brothers, namely, Yadhunandan Chaudhary, Dhaneshwar, Chaudhary, Kameshwar Chaudhary and Kaleshwar Chaudhary. The witness added that three brothers of his father have already died. PW-2 denied the suggestion that his father had only three brothers.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 19
29. Testimony of PW-3, Ravi Ranjan Ojha- The witness testified in his examination-in-chief, that he has been authorised by the principal of Plus 2, High School, Nagar Nausa, District, Nalanda, Bihar, to depose in the present case vide authority letter, Ex. PW-3/1. He brought the admission register for the year 1960-1969 and tabulation register for the year 1972. PW-3 stated that copy of page number 51 of the tabulation register for the year 1972 is Ex. PW-3/2. He further deposed that copy of page number 79-80 of the admission register for the year 1960-1969 is Ex. PW-3/3. The witness was shown Ex. PW-1/5 whereafter, he submitted that the same bears the signature of Dr. Ramanand, ex-principal at point A. He deposed that he cannot tell as to when the said document was issued by the aforementioned school.
30. When subjected to cross-examination, PW-3 testified that he cannot tell who had provided the photograph of candidate, affixed on certificate, Ex. PW-1/5. He stated that he did not know from which year the photograph of candidates started to be affixed on school leaving certificate. The witness stated that the school leaving certificate of a candidate bears the name of parents. When suggested that in the year 1972, the parents of candidate Vijay Shanker Chaudhary were alive but in the duplicate copy of the certificate issued in the year 1972, the word 'late' has been mentioned, rendering the certificate, forged and fabricated, the witness chose not to comment.
31. Testimony of PW-4, Ashok Kumar - The said witness testified in his examination-in-chief that he had issued certificate dated 06.06.2010 in favour of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary, the copy of which is Ex.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 20 PW-4/1. It was recorded that the original certificate was submitted before District Nalanda, Nagar, Nausa, police station. PW-4 stated that the said document beers his signature at point A and that the photo affixed on the said document is that of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary who is present in the court. PW-4 claimed that he has known the plaintiff since the last 25-30 years as he is a resident of his village. The witness stated that the plaintiff is also known as Baleshwar.
32. During his cross-examination, PW-4 avouched that he was born in the year 1970, and was pradhan of gram panchayath, Village, Ashrafpur from 2006 to 2016. He stated that he did not know who was the Pradhan of the gram panchayat before 2006. PW-4 deposed that he did not know the persons namely, Naresh Chaudhary, s/o Shri Bulkhand Choudhary, Rajendra Prasad, s/o Bhagwat, but that he did not know Girija Nandan Kumar, s/o Shri Ram Saran Paswan, resident of village, Ashrafpur. PW-4 claimed that he did not know whether all three persons passed the matriculation examination alongwith the plaintiff. PW-4 testified that he did not know that Naresh Chaudhary studied with Vijay Shanker Chaudhary in teachers' training, school, Masaudi. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is not Vijay Shanker Choudhary. He stated that he did not know that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary had died in a train accident in 1973.
33. Testimony of PW-5, Satyendra Paswan- During his examination-in-chief, PW-5 avouched that he had issued certificate dated 29.06.2010 in favour of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary, the copy of which is Ex. PW-5/1. He stated that the same bears his signatures at point A. PW-5 Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 21 claimed that he cannot identify the photo affixed on the said document as it is blurred. He claimed that he has known the plaintiff since the year 2001 as the plaintiff is a resident of village, Ashrafpur, Hariram Gram Panchayat and that he had contested the election in the year 2006 and was elected as Pradhan of the said Panchayat.
34. When subjected to cross-examination, PW-5 inter-alia testifed that his date of birth is 01.01.1971 and that he has known persons namely, Naresh Chaudhary s/o Shri Bulkhand Choudhary, Rajendra Prasad, s/o Bhagwat, but that he did not know Girija Nandan Kumar s/o Shri Ram Saran Paswan, resident of village, Ashrafpur. PW-5 deposed that he does not know the qualification of the plaintiff. He testified that he has known Rohan Chaudhary who was the father of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary and that the former had already expired, but that he did not remember as to when he had died. PW-5 avowed that he cannot tell how many sons Rohan Chaudhary had. He denied the suggestion that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary had died in a train accident in 1973. PW-5 deposed that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary was employed with CRPF and denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to help the plaintiff.
35. Defence evidence: The defence called and examined two witnesses to refute the claims of the plaintiff and to prove their defence.
36. Testimony of DW-1, Mr Arun Kumar - The said witness tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit which is Ex. DW-1/1. He relied on the following documents:
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 22 Office Order dated 11.12.2022: Ex. DW-1/A. Copy of departmental enquiry order dated 22.12.2006: Ex. DW-1/B (OSR).
Copy of order of appeal dated 28.09.2007: Ex. DW-1/C (OSR) Revision petition: Mark X Confidential report of SP, Nalanda dated 19.04.2005: Ex. DW-1/D (OSR).
37. During his cross-examination, DW-1 inter-alia deposed that he had joined the battalion on 01.10.2022 and therefore, prior to the said date, he does not have any personal knowledge about the facts relevant to the present case. When asked as on what basis he has stated in paragraph no. 8 of his affidavit that husband of defendant no. 5 is stated to be late Mr. Vijay Shanker Chaudhary had died in a rail accident in 1973, the witness stated that he has mentioned the same in reference to the report of SP Nalanda which is dated 19.04.2005.
38. DW-1 further avouched that he did not know if in the record of the enquiry by SP Nalanda, the death certificate of the said person was brought on the file, he stated that he did not know as for what reasons defendant no. 5 had filed a complaint against the plaintiff. When asked as to who conducted the enquiry resulting in the report dated 22.12.2006, the witness stated that it was conducted by the DIG. DW-1 denied the suggestion that he has wrongly stated in his affidavit in paragraph number 11 that the contents of the plaint, replication and documents filed by the plaintiff are false and baseless. He testified that he was appointed in CRPF on 01.04.2008. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has been Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 23 wrongly dismissed from the service without giving him a fair hearing. Lastly, DW-1 avowed that he did not know as to what is the relief exactly sought by the plaintiff in the present suit.
39. Testimony of DW-2, Upender Kumar- The said witness testified in his examination-in-chief that he is a summoned witness. He brought the attendance register for the period of August 1972, to June 1973. The witness avouched that there is a remark written in red ink that is, "nidhan ho gaya hai" at the right side of serial no. 64 at point A against the name of Vijay Shanker Choudhary on 25.02.1973. The copy of the relevant portion of the register issued by the concerned educational institution was taken on record and labelled as Ex. DW-2/A (OSR).
40. When subjected to cross examination, DW-2 inter-alia testified that he has been employed with the aforesaid educational institution since November 2020, and that he is working as a principal there since 07.11.2022. He deposed that when he checked the record, the endorsement at point A in the attendance register mentioned that Vijay Shanker had passed away. DW-2 stated that he is not sure as to who had made the endorsement in the endorsement register. He voluntarily stated that it could either have been recorded by the class teacher or the academic coordinator or the principal. He claimed that other than the attendance register, there is no other document in the nature of death certificate, cremation slip or any other proof of death of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary with the department. The witness admitted that therefore, he is not aware as to who had given the information with respect to the death of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. When quizzed whether he can tell the court as Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 24 to who is the father of Vijay Shanker Choudhary and what is his date of birth, DW-2 answered in the negative. He avowed that he is not sure if there are other documents in the nature of voter ID card, educational certificates etc, of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary with his department, since the records produced by him is very old and was traced with difficulty. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
41. Final Arguments: Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the plaintiff and contesting defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff navigated the attention of the court to the facts of the present case and the evidence adduced to support the claims put forth. Learned counsel emphasized that defendants no. 5 and 6 were proceeded ex parte and as such, there allegations could not be said to have been proved. In light of the above, learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case and the preponderance of probabilities lie in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit be decreed in his favour and against the defendants.
42. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the contesting defendant contended that the claims of the plaintiff are far from the touchstone of the standard of proof that is, preponderance of probabilities. Learned Counsel filed written submissions which are placed on record.
43. Appreciation of evidence and reasons: I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions advanced.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 25
44. Taking the cumulative view of the facts expounded, the evidence spelt out and the arguments advanced, it becomes incumbent on this court to assay the law on the point of discharge of onus to prove and the axiom of the standard of proof in a civil dispute. A civil controversy is to be adjudged on the premise of preponderance of probabilities and the plaintiff, in order to render himself entitled to a decree in his favour, must discharge his burden to prove the fact which he asserts. That said, let us scrutinise the potentiality of the claims put forth by the plaintiff. Issue-wise findings are as under:
a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for?
45. The burden to prove the instant issue rested on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that not only he was arbitrarily dismissed from his services but also he has been robbed of his identity as a result of a baseless complaint filed by defendant no. 5. The plaintiff has thus, sought a decree of declaration to declare that he is Vijay Shaker Chaudhary s/o Late Sh. Rohan Chaudhary. Conversely, contesting defendants have asserted that the plaintiff was dismissed from the services of CRPF by following due procedure and after affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff.
46. The plaintiff adduced various documents in evidence to reinforce his claim that he indeed is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. The entire defence of the contesting defendants emanates from the fact that the sister-in-law of the plaintiff, who is defendant no. 5 in the present case, filed a complaint against the plaintiff alleging impersonation pursuant to Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 26 the death of her husband. The defence thus, was obligated to prove the factum of death of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. For the said purpose, the defence has not brought a shred of evidence to pillar the said claim. No death certificate has been filed by the defence to substantiate the factum of death of Vijay Shanker. Allegedly, Vijay Shanker expired due to a train accident as far back as in the year 1973. However, the defence did not produce any record maintained by the railways to prove the same. In the absence of any such record, which from a standpoint of a reasonable man, could have been the best evidence, the fact that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary expired due to a train accident in the year 1973, cannot be said to have been proved.
47. As far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, perusal of Ex. DW-1/D (OSR) reveals that an enquiry was conducted by a police official at the behest of SP Nalanda on 12.04.2005 however, the said report does not mention as to how and on what basis the police official reached to the conclusion that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary expired due to a train accident in the year 1973. The names of the persons from whom inquiry was done also do not find any mention in the said report. The said report further, does not state that Sumitra Devi @ Bunni Devi was ever examined. There are material infirmities in the said report which render it incredible for the purpose of substantiating the allegations leveled by defendant no. 5 against the plaintiff.
48. Additionally, punishing officer dissented with the report of the enquiry officer who exonerated the plaintiff. The evidence taken before enquiry officer has not been discussed by the punishing officer in the Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 27 punishment order passed against the plaintiff. There is no evidence that notice was given to the plaintiff for the purpose of giving him the opportunity of being heard before the punishing officer recorded his finding of dissent from those given by the enquiry officer. Further, the report of the punishing officer refers to a police report whereon the opinion of dissent is premised. The same has not been brought on record by the contesting defendants. Moreover, report of Hawaldar GD Aurengzeb which is dated 24.11.2004, though mentioned in the dismissal order, has also not been brought on record by the defendants. In fact, the said report has not even been discussed in the dismissal order.
49. The next line of reasoning is that while there is ample evidence to prove that plaintiff is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary, there isn't much credible evidence to prove otherwise. Likewise, there is hardly any cogent evidence to prove that Sumitra Devi (defendant no. 5) is the wife of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary, however, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that she is the wife of Dhaneshwar Chaudhary. Pertinently, despite grant of opportunities defendant no. 5 or 6 did not appear before the court to challenge and impeach the claims put forth by the plaintiff.
50. To begin with, the plaintiff has filed verification report dated 17.07.1985 which is Mark PW-1/1. Prior to the appointment of the plaintiff to the services of CRPF, his antecedents were duly verified. The aforesaid report clearly states the identity of the plaintiff as Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. The contesting defendants have not explained throughout the course of trial as to how the said report vouch for the fact that the plaintiff is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. Also, Mark PW-1/3 (colly) is a factual report Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 28 sent by the police. The same clearly states that the allegations levelled against the plaintiff by defendant no. 5 are false. The defence has not impeached the creditworthiness of the said report.
51. Further, the plaintiff has filed his School Leaving Certificate which is Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) (OSR). The same is dated 19.06.2009 and was issued to the plaintiff bearing the signatures of the principal at point A thereon. The same reflects the name of the plaintiff as Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. The contesting defendants have alleged that the said document is forged and fabricated as the names of the parents of the plaintiff is prefixed with the word 'late'. The plaintiff convincingly explained that he obtained the said certificate in the year 2009 at which time, his parents had passed away hence, their names are prefixed with the word 'late'. The argument of the defence that word 'late' is never mentioned in such documents is not pillared by any evidence. As far as the question of it bearing a photograph is concerned, the defence has not brought any evidence to prove that in the year 2009, when the duplicate of the said certificate was issued to the plaintiff, no photograph was affixed on school leaving certificates issued by the relevant school.
52. Additionally, PW-4 issued a certificate in favour of the plaintiff which is Ex. PW-4/1 bearing his signatures at point A. PW-4 duly identified the plaintiff as Vijay Shanker Chaudhary before the court during his examination. Likewise, PW-5 issued certificate to the plaintiff which is Ex. PW-1/5 dated 29.06.2010. Both the said witnesses were cross- examined on behalf of the contesting defendants however, nothing material was elicited during the same which could potentially throw doubt Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 29 on the veracity of their claims or the certificates filed by them. Both the witnesses withstood the test of cross-examination and fared well.
53. Moreover, the plaintiff has filed certified copy of Voter List of the Chandi Assembly Constituency pertaining to the year 1971 issued by the Election Commission. The same is Ex. PW-1/12 and clearly reflects the name of defendant no 5. The document further reveals that against her name her husband's name is mentioned. The name mentioned is not that of Vijay Shanker Chaudhary but is that of Dhaneshwar Chaudhary. Similarly, document, Ex. PW-1/13, which is the certified copy of voter list of the same constituency for the year 1988 issued by the Election Commission of India procured by the plaintiff on 04.08.2005, also shows that Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi is the wife of Dhaneshwar Chaudhary. The contesting defendants did not impeach the veracity of the said documents. No question pertaining to the said documents was put to the plaintiff during his cross-examination. Thus, there is nothing on record to cause dubiety to lurk around the said documents.
54. Interestingly, the plaintiff has filed document, Mark PW-1/C which is the copy of apology letter dated 10.05.1988 submitted by Bunni Devi @ Sumitra Devi (defendant no. 5) to the Commandant, 30B Battalion, CRPF, Kapurthala, Punjab. Defendant no. 5 has admitted therein that she leveled false allegations against the plaintiff. Likewise, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit of defendant no. 5 which is Ex. PW-1/18 wherein the said defendant has clearly stated that she is the wife of Dhaneshwar Chaudhary and that Vijay Shanker Chaudhary is the brother of her husband. The said affidavit is dated 24.07.1998. At the cost of repetition, Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 30 Sumitra Devi did not appear before the court to refute the credibility of the said documents. The contesting defendants also did not challenge the genuineness of the same. There is no cogent reason to disregard the aforesaid documents and as such, the same can safely be relied upon to observe that the very genesis of the present dispute that is, the complaint filed by defendant no. 5 against the plaintiff, is fogged with murkiness.
55. Similarly, the plaintiff has filed affidavit of his deceased father which is Ex. PW-1/14 wherein the father of the plaintiff has verified that the name of the plaintiff is in fact, Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. Apart from mere suggestion that the said document is a forged one, the contesting defendants did not bring any evidence to corroborate their claim that the aforesaid affidavit is a forged document. So is the case with document, Ex. PW-1/15 which is an affidavit of the panches verifying that defendant no. 5 is the wife of Dhaneshwar Chaudhary. The same also states that the son of Dhaneshwar that is, Lalbabu (defendant no. 6) forcibly mentioned in his school records that the name of his father is Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. The defendants merely suggested to the plaintiff during his cross- examination that the aforesaid affidavit is false without bringing on record any substantial evidence to reinforce the suggestion. A suggestion cannot be said to be a substitute of proof or disproof of any document.
56. Lastly, the plaintiff has produced document, Ex. PW-1/16 which is the original election card records of the plaintiff's family dated 15.07.1994 which shows the identity of the plaintiff. The same mentions that wife of Vijay Shanker is Sushila Devi and not Sumitra Devi. The said document has also not been discredited by the defence by virtue of any Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 31 evidence. It is noteworthy to mention that the complaint filed by defendant no. 5 against the plaintiff has not been placed on record by either of the parties. Document, Ex. DW-1/C (OSR) reflects that the same was filed somewhere in the month of October 2004. Relevantly, most documents filed by the plaintiff to prove that he is in fact, Vijay Shanker Chaudhary predate the said complaint. Thus, the question of fabrication of such documents is more emphatically and reasonably ruled out.
57. In light of the reasons spelled above, it is observed that the plaintiff has successfully discharged his burden to prove the instant issue on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities by adducing ample and sufficient evidence. Hence, issue no. (a) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction against defendants no. 5 and 6, as prayed for?
58. The onus to prove the instant issue was also shouldered by the plaintiff. As noted above, the plaintiff has successfully proved that he is in fact, Vijay Shanker Chaudhary. It has also been proved that the allegations levelled by defendant no. 5 against the plaintiff are false. Defendants no. 5 and 6 neither proved that the plaintiff is not Vijay Shanker Chaudhary as claimed by him nor did they appear and prove that the plaintiff stole the matriculation certificate of their husband and father respectively and on the strength of which he secured his appointment in CRPF. The act of defendant no. 5, which was furthered by defendant no. 6, shrouded the very identity of the plaintiff and robbed him of the same. It is equitable to grant the relief of injunction to the plaintiff hence. The Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 32 instant issue is therefore, adjudged in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants no. 5 and 6.
c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunction against defendants no. 5 and 6 for rendition of accounts, as prayed for?
and
d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunction against defendants no. 5 and 6 for return of benefits alongwith the interest of 18% per annum, as prayed for?
59. The onus to prove the aforesaid issues was placed upon the plaintiff. For the purpose of proving the said issues, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence. In fact, there is no pleading in the plaint as to how and why a decree for rendition of accounts be granted. The plaintiff has neither clarified what benefits were granted to defendants no. 5 and 6 nor has he stated which instrumentalities granted the same to the said defendants. There is no evidence to suggest, much less prove, that monetary benefits were availed of and were disbursed in favour of the aforementioned defendants. Accordingly, issues no. (c) and (d) are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
(e) Relief.
60. The issue qua relief is contingent upon decisions on material issues that is, issues no. (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the present suit. On the basis of the findings given hereinabove, the plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 33 A decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff thereby declaring the plaintiff as Vijay Shanker Chaudhary permanent resident of Village and Post Office, Ashrafpur, P.S. Nagar Nausa, District. Nalanda, Bihar presently residing at House no. 669, Gali No. 2, Part-II Surender Colony Jharoda, Burari, Delhi- 110084 having date of birth as 03.06.1956 being the fourth son of Late Sh. Rohan Chaudhary.
A decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendants no. 5 and 6 and their legal heirs, representatives etc. from making such or similar allegations against the plaintiff as have been levelled by them in October 2004.
61. Conclusion: In view of the reasons spelled above, present suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
62. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
63. Parties to bear their own costs.
Announced in open
court today through VC
i.e. 19.01.2024
Paridhi Digitally signed by
Paridhi sharma
sharma Date: 2024.01.20
12:06:55 +05'30'
Paridhi Sharma
Previous posting: JSCC-ASC-GJ,
South East, Saket, New Delhi.
Current posting: Joint Director,
Delhi Judicial Academy, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
Civil Suit No. 50337/2016 Vijay Shanker Chaudhary v. Directorate General & Ors. Page 34