Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roopa Mehra @ Rukmani vs Shyam Bhardwaj on 22 January, 2026
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
215 RSA-1231-2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.01.2026
Roopa Mehra @ Rukmani ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Shyam Bhardwaj ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate
for the respondent.
******
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Defendant is in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance, has been decreed by the First Appellate Court for specific performance.
2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent is that the defendant, being owner in possession of the suit house had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 21.11.2005 with the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.2 lacs. At the time of execution of agreement, the plaintiff alleged to have paid ₹10,000/- to the defendant in cash as earnest amount. A further payment of ₹40,000 in cash and ₹1,00,000 is alleged to have been made to the defendant at time of execution of subsequent Agreement to Sell on 16.12.2005. In this manner, the plaintiff DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -2- had paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- in separate instalments. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 26.02.2006. It is pleaded that as 26.02.2006 was a Sunday and office of Sub Registrar was closed, therefore, plaintiff had appeared before Sub Registrar on 24.02.2006 and 27.02.2006 but the defendant had failed to appear and execute the Sale Deed. It was alleged that defendant is threatening to alienate the property in favour of some other person. As such, present suit for possession and specific performance of the Agreement dated 21.11.2005, was filed on 07.03.2006.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 18.09.2006:-
"1. Whether defendant executed agreement of sale dated 21.11.05 in favour of plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money on the same day? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform its part of agreement? OPP.
3. If above issues proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct to file the present suit? OPD.DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -3-
8. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected u/o7 rule 11 CPC? OPD.
9. Relief."
4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.50,000/- with interest vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010. However, Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the above said judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon; and vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011, suit of the plaintiff was decreed in entirety for possession by way of specific performance. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.
5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the beginning the appellant has categorically denied the alleged Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005. It is submitted that appellant is an illiterate housewife; whereas the plaintiff is her neighbour and is a property dealer. The appellant being a poor lady was in need of some money and had borrowed some amounts from the plaintiff; at which time, the Plaintiff had obtained signatures/thumb impressions of the appellant on some blank papers; which had been misused by the respondent to fabricate and forge the fraudulent Agreement to Sell. The impugned judgment has been passed while ignoring that in this regard, an F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant against the respondent at Police Station Bandikuin, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -4-
6. It is submitted that learned Trial Court has given clear and categoric findings that the plaintiff had failed to prove the Agreement in dispute. The said findings are based upon cogent evidence led by the appellant. On the other hand, learned First Appellate Court has reversed the said findings without giving any reason. Thus, the various issues framed and the findings given by the learned Trial Court have not been dealt with by the learned First Appellate Court, as is required as per law.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Additional District Judge has further committed patent error by decreeing the suit while ignoring that the plaintiff has sought specific performance of two agreements of sale dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 regarding the same suit property. It is pointed out that the first Appellate Court has also failed to consider that the typed matter in the Agreement appears to be fixed on pre-signed papers. This point has not been dealt by the Additional District Judge while reversing the judgement of Ld. Trial Court. On the contrary, the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly shifted the burden of proving the execution of the alleged agreement to sell upon the appellant. Moreover, the first Appellate Court has failed to consider that there are different versions about the earnest money and the balance amount. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the District Court record in detail. As such the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge deserves to be set aside.
DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -5-
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions of the appellant and submits that the defendant has duly admitted her signatures on Agreement to Sell. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has correctly taken the Agreement to be proved. In any event, execution of the Agreement was proved by examining attesting witnesses PW1 to PW3, and the Stamp Vendor as PW4.
9. On a Court query it is clarified that occasion to draft the second Agreement dated 16.12.2005 arose as the first Agreement dated 21.11.2005 was a handwritten Agreement. As such, a typed Agreement with the identical terms and conditions was prepared on 16.12.2005. Learned counsel for the plaintiff points out that he/plaintiff had purchased stamp papers for registration of Sale Deed for a valuable sum of Rs.8,000/-; whereafter, content of the Sale Deed was typed thereupon; whereafter Defendant had affixed her thumb impressions on the said Sale Deed also on 09.02.2006. It is contended that Stamp papers were purchased by the plaintiff in advance on 9.2.2006 itself prior to target date of 26.2.2006, upon mutual agreement with the defendant. Further, as the target date of 26.02.2006 was a Sunday, plaintiff had duly appeared before Sub Registrar on 24.02.2006 and again on 27.02.2006. This is proved from Affidavits of Attendance Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. It is contended that admitted thumb impressions of the appellant conclude the contract; and therefore, the first Appellate Court has correctly decreed the suit.
10. It is pointed out that learned Trial Court had duly framed issue No.4 regarding fraud. However, no evidence was led by the appellant DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -6- in that regard. Contention of the appellant that she was not present at the time of attestation of the Agreement is irrelevant as it is not necessary for her to be present once she had admitted her signature upon the Agreement. It is submitted that the witness of the defendant herself namely DW3 Raj Kumar has admitted that defendant has signed the Agreement. Learned counsel contends that defendant cannot be permitted to back out the Agreement just because the value of the property has increased. Moreover, the very fact that defendant had affixed her signatures on Sale Deed dated 09.02.2006 prepared by the plaintiff shows that till 09.02.2006, appellant was agreeable to execute the Sale Deed; and subsequently, changed her mind. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Appeal.
11. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file alongwith District Court record in minute detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.
12. The plaintiff has put forth two Agreements of Sale - the same being - Agreement to Sell dated 21.11.2005 Ex.PW1/B; and second Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2005 Ex.PW1/C. It is alleged by the plaintiff that vide the said two Agreements the appellant had agreed to sell the suit house to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.2 lacs. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent that both Agreements contain identical terms and conditions in-as-much as the property, total sale consideration, earnest money, and last date for execution of Sale DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -7- Deed, are same. However, the plaintiff has failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to why two Agreements were executed in respect of the same property between the same parties, for the same consideration, et cetera. Learned counsel has been unable to give any satisfactory or plausible reasons to explain as to what necessitated the execution of the second Agreement. The explanation that the first Agreement to Sell was handwritten and second was typed is unconvincing and does not inspire the confidence of this Court. As such, in the very first instance, the impugned Agreement is shrouded in suspicious circumstance.
13. Furthermore, perusal of the typed Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2005 Ex.PW1/C (at page 175 of the LCR) shows that the last few lines of the said Agreement have been typed with barely any gap between them. Again, despite repeated Court queries, learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to give any satisfactory explanation for the same, merely saying that such uneven gaps happen. No explanation has been given by learned counsel for the plaintiff to show as to why there was such a small gap in the last few sentences of the Agreement to Sell at pages 1 and 2 thereof. To my mind, this lends credence to the story to the appellant that her thumb impressions were obtained by the plaintiff on blank papers which were later converted into an Agreement to Sell; and last few lines were typed with narrow gap only to adjust the contents of the Agreement, after obtaining thumb impressions of the appellant on blank papers.
DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -8-
14. Further, the case set up by the appellant in the written statement was that she was in need of money which was given to her by the plaintiff at her village, Nihalpura in Rajasthan; and subsequently plaintiff had obtained her signatures on blank papers in respect of the said loans. It is very important to note that these averments were denied by the plaintiff in his replication. However, subsequently, during his evidence, plaintiff as PW1 has admitted that Agreement was got signed at Nihalpur in Rajasthan; whereas attestation was done at Gurgaon; and that the appellant was not present at the time of attestation of the Agreement. Even stamp paper was purchased by the plaintiff. These admissions are contrary to the denials made by the plaintiff in the replication. In this regard, cross examination of the plaintiff/PW1 (at page 343 of the LCR) is relevant, wherein he has stated that: "This is correct that second agreement was executed on 16.12.05 that stamp paper was purchased by me from Tehsil Gurgaon. That agreement is PW1/C was typed by Ghasi Ram, who works as typist. On the agreement there are signature of me and Lala Ram and Ghasi Ram and Rukmani, her husband and one more person. This is correct that agreement was prepared at Gurgaon and her signatures were obtained at Nihalpur." All these factors support plea of the defendant that she was not aware of the contents of the document and that she had signed blank papers in good faith.
15. Another glaring discrepancy in the case set up by the plaintiff is that as per the Agreement to Sell, the target date for execution of capsule cap deed was set for 21.2.2006. However, for inexplicable reasons, DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) -9- the plaintiff had admittedly purchased stamp paper on 9.2.2006 and Sale Deed was executed on 9.2.2006 itself. No reasons have been given for this preponement. Further, in the Agreement to Sell total sale consideration is mentioned as Rs.2 lacs; whereas in the Sale Deed, sale amount is mentioned only Rs.1,50,000/-. In the Sale Deed, it is written that entire sale amount has been paid whereas as per the Agreement to Sell only Rs.1,50,000/- has been paid and the remaining was to be paid on 21.02.2006 at the time of execution of Sale Deed. Plaintiff himself has nowhere stated in the plaint as to when, where, and in what manner was the remaining amount of ₹50,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is also to be noted that it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the authenticity of the Agreement to Sell is evident from the fact that the appellant had applied for NOC to sell the suit property to the respondent on 01.02.2006 as evident from application dated 01.02.2006 Ex.PW1/E (at page 161 of the LCR). However, the said document cannot be taken into consideration as admittedly, respondent/plaintiff has not examined any official of the Municipal Corporation to prove the said document. All these discrepancies, in totality surround the Agreement in suspicion and the same cannot be upheld. It is my clear view that in determining the authenticity of an Agreement to Sell, it is necessary to see the intent of the vendor. Which can be determined from the attendant circumstances. In the present case, all of the above factors show that there are too many discrepancies and loopholes in the case set up by the plaintiff; and therefore, surround the Agreements in question with DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 10 -
suspicious circumstances. As such, notwithstanding the evidence of attesting witnesses PW1 to PW3, and Stamp Vendor PW4, the Agreement cannot be held to be proved.
16. In these circumstances, it is apposite to refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2649307 D/D: 27.9.2024, wherein it is held that:
"27. At this stage, a very crucial fact which is noticeable from the disputed agreement needs to be highlighted. It is not in dispute that the stamp papers were not purchased by the appellant-defendant and rather Amarjeet Singh was the person who purchased the same. The document was typed out in Gurmukhi language and the photostat copy thereof is available on record. A visual overview of the disputed agreement would show that it runs into three pages. The signature of the respondent-plaintiff, and the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant are marked only on the last page thereof. The first and second pages of the agreement, do not bear the signature of the respondent- plaintiff or the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant. There exist significant blank spaces at the foot of the first two pages below the transcription typed out on these two pages. These observations give rise to a strong inference fortifying the contention of the appellant-defendant's counsel that the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant may have been taken on a blank stamp paper and the disputed agreement was typed thereon subsequently." (Emphasis added)
17. It is to be appreciated that onus is first upon the plaintiff to prove the Agreement beyond shadow of doubt. It is only thereafter that DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 11 -
onus would fall upon the defendant to prove fraud if necessary. It was keeping in view the above facts that the Trial Court had denied specific performance to the plaintiff; and had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff only for recovery of Rs.50,000/- which was admitted to have been received by the defendant i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 21.11.2005; and Rs.40,000/- on 16.12.2005. Relevant findings of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon in para 8 of judgment dated 03.12.2010 are as under: -
"8. The suit has been filed for specific performance of agreement, execution of which is denied and disputed by the defendant. The plaintiff has alleged two agreements, first agreement is dated 21.11.2005 under which Rs. 10,000/- were paid and subsequent payment of Rs.40,000/- is also alleged. The subsequent agreement is dated 16.12.2005. A further sum of Rs. 1.00 lac was also allegedly paid. The plaintiff in the plaint has not mentioned as to where these agreements were executed. The defendant, however, took the plea that plaintiff alongwith Ghasi and Lallu visited her at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan on 21.11.2005 on their way to Balaji and on seeing her ill and unable to get better treatment gave Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, on 16.1.2006 he gave Rs.40,000/- and it was on 16.2.2006 that he asked for some writing regarding Rs.50,000/- paid and obtained signatures and thumb impression of plaintiff and her husband on some blank and stamp papers. The defendant, has thus, pleaded that she signed some documents at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan which was denied by plaintiff in his replication. However, at the time of evidence plaintiff Shyam Bhardwaj admitted that the agreement dated 21.11.2005 was written at defendant's DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 12 -
residence and they had gone to Nihalpura on their way to Balaji, The second agreement was admittedly prepared at Gurgaon and was signed at Nihalpura. He at another place admitted that after obtaining signatures of defendant there (Nihalpura) it was attested at Gurgaon next day. So it has become clear that the plaintiff at the time of filing of replication has taken false plea while denying execution of the agreement at Nihalpura as alleged by defendant in her written statement."
18. As regards, readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the Affidavits of Attendance dated 24.02.2006 Ex.PW1/F and 27.02.2006 Ex.PW1/G produced by the respondent to prove his presence before the Sub Registrar are of no help to him as the plaintiff has failed to clarify regarding the balance sale consideration. It is established position in law that to prove readiness and willingness two ingredients are are required to be satisfied: a) availability of balance sale consideration; and b) presence in the Tehsil. In the present case, even if case of the plaintiff is accepted and it is taken that only ₹50,000/- remain to be paid, plaintiff has failed to show availability of the said amount. As already noted above, plaintiff has also failed to show as to when, how, and in what manner the amount of ₹1 lakh/- was paid. Plaintiff has also failed to clarify as to why in the Agreement, when total sale consideration is mentioned as ₹2 lakhs, the Sale Deed only mentions ₹1,50,000/- as total sale consideration. There is nothing on record that total sale amount was changed upon mutual DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 13 -
confabulation. Thus, suit of the plaintiff was correctly not decreed for specific performance by the learned Trial Court.
19. Furthermore, another ground on which the decree of the learned First Appellate Court cannot be upheld is that none of the above issues, findings, factors have been dealt with in the judgment dated 24.12.2011. The ld. First Appellate Court has decreed suit of the plaintiff for specific performance only on the ground that the execution of Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 stood proved as defendant has admitted her thumb impressions. However, in holding as above, the learned first Appellate Court has ignored all of the above evidence, as also the cogent and comprehensive findings of the learned Trial Court. The cryptic reasoning of the Additional District Judge contained in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment dated 24.12.2011, is as under: -
"15. Learned trial court in the impugned judgment has erred by declining the relief of specific performance of contract. It courts will go ignoring an agreement merely on the grounds that the total sale consideration shown in the proposed sale- deed in less then the amount shown in the agreement, then it would certainly create a chaos. Although it is improper, but it is a common tendency prevalent amongst the purchasers that they tend to show less price of the property intended to be purchased. They do so to save the stamp duty, but for that reason a duly executed agreement to sale could not be nullified. Once a person enters an agreement of sale of his land, and executes a deed in this regard, then there should be DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 14 -
very effort for getting implementation of said documentation to its best terms.
16. On account of above discussion on facts & law, this court found that there is merit in the appeal filed by plaintiff. His suit should have been decreed in entirety by learned trial court. Hence, impugned judgment & decree dated 03.12.2010 passed by learned trial court is modified and instead of decreeing the suit of the appellant only for recovery of money, it is decreed for possession by way of specific performance of contract/agreements of sale dated 21.11.2005 (Exh.PW1/B) and dated 16.12.2005 (Exh.PW1/C) regarding the suit property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant. Resultantly, appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Balance sale consideration amounting Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited in the name of court by the appellant in the shape of FDR No.CTD/2 462834 dated 18.12.2009 on account of order dated 04.12.2009 passed by learned trial court. Respondent may withdraw the same. Respondent/defendant is directed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant as per the terms of agreements of sale dated 21.11.2005 (Exh.PW1/B) and dated 16.12.2005 (Exh.PW1/C) within the period of two months, failing which appellant/plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of the court. Lower Court record along with copy of judgment be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance." (Emphasis added)
20. The impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court is not only non-speaking and does not consider any of the evidence, issues, or other facts raised by the parties, or findings given by the ld. Trial Court as DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 15 -
required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC; but even the reasoning adopted is entirely unsustainable. Reference is made to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malluru Mallappa v. Kuruvathappa (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1682729; the relevant part of which reads as under:-
"19. It is clear from the above provisions and the decisions of this Court that the judgment of the first appellate court has to set out points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons. Even when the first appellate court affirms the judgment of the trial court, it is required to comply with the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 and non-observance of this requirement leads to infirmity in the judgment of the first appellate court. No doubt, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court. Expression of a general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice."
21. Reference is made to another judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Venkata Swamy v. H.N. Shivanna (D), (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 939933, wherein it is held as under:-
"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 96, Order 41 Rule 31 - First Appeal - Single Judge dismissed the appeals very cursorily and without undertaking any appreciation of evidence - Held that appeal not disposed of in conformity with the requirements of Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code - It is the duty of the first Appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at its own DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 16 -
independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference - Case Remanded." (Emphasis added) The relevant para 4 of the abovesaid judgment is as under:-
"4.............The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court.........."
22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I also rely upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmakumari v. Dasayyan (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 664856. Again, in Garre Mallikharjuna Rao v. Nalabothu Punniah (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 417961, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated as under: -
"6. Whatever may be the legal position involved in this case, the facts as pleaded and proved before the courts below, are far from being satisfactory. The respondent/plaintiff who has examined himself as PW-1 has raised mutually inconsistent pleas, as is evident from the pleadings in the plaint wherein he had stated that it has been agreed that the sale deed would be executed within a period of 4 months, however, in his deposition, he has stated that the sale deeds were agreed to be executed only after the expiry of the term of the lease. The agreement to sell has been transcribed on the non- judicial stamp paper, though not registered. Admittedly, the said stamp paper had been purchased 11 months prior to the date mentioned in the agreement for sale. More so, it had been purchased from a different place. Further, there is DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 17 -
nothing on record to show as in whose name, the non-judicial stamp paper had been purchased and who had purchased it. XXX XXX XXX XXX
12. The judgment and order of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court has erred in relying upon untrustworthy, shaky and vague evidence to grant the discretionary relief of specific performance in contravention of the mandate of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963."
23. No doubt, scope of interference under Section 100 CPC is confined to "substantial questions of law." However, in a case such as the present one interference is called for as the findings of the first Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, and involve a clear legal error.
24. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon is set aside; and the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon is restored.
25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
22.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.01.27 20:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document