Delhi District Court
Mr. Shiv Nandan Ahluwalia vs Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahaudur on 16 May, 2023
Page 1 of 15
THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01: SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT: DWARKA COURT: NEW DELHI
Unique case ID No: CSSCJ/ 88/21
CNR NO. DLSW030002682021
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mr. Shiv Nandan Ahluwalia
S/o Late Shyam Lal,
R/o-Flat No.- 78 B, Dhawalgiri Apartment,
Sector-11, Noida, U.P.- 301201 ......... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1.Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahaudur C/o Sh. Deepak Jain R/o-RZ-402 E/7, Gali No.-16, Near Pradhan Chowk, Sad Nagar, Palam, N. Delhi-110045
2. Sh. Deepak Jain R/o-RZ-402 E/7, Gali No.-16, Near Pradhan Chowk, Sad Nagar, Palam, N. Delhi-110045 ......... Defendants Date of filing : 19.01.2021 Date of Institution : 21.01.2021 Date of pronouncing judgment : 16.05.2023 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
JUDGMENT.
By this judgment this Court shall dispose of a suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it necessary to dwell upon the plethora of pleadings in the present suit.
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Civil Suit No. 88/2021 KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.05.16
MEENA 16:06:35 +05'30'
Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors.
Page 2 of 151. It is the case of plaintiff that he is retired from a reputed Public Enterprises namely M/S NALCO at Delhi office in a respectfully manner and living a peace full retirement life at his Noida home. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has also his parental home at Sad Nager and his brothers are living there. Defendant is working as employees of Mr. Deepak Jain which is a neighbour of Plaintiff since many years. The Defendant no.-1 used to do personal work of Plaintiff when his mother was ill. The Plaintiff knew to Defendant about 25 years as he is working and living in the house of Mr. Deepak Jain since childhood who is running a Plywood business near Plaintiff house. The Defendants also knows Plaintiff brothers and deceased mother when she was alive as he is living there since long time.
2. It is averred that in the month of Feb. 2020, the Defendant no.1 requested Plaintiff that he has an urgent personal need of one lakh and promised to return back all money within 15 days. When the Plaintiff asked details of requirement, he told Plaintiff that actually Defendant No.2 (Mr. Deepak Jain) had requirement for installation of Electric (BSES) Meter in his premises. The Plaintiff confirmed the facts of installation of Electric meter with Defendant No.2 then Sh. Deepak Jain confirmed this information and assures guarantee for return the money through Defendant No.1. As all the parties are well known to each other and also know all his family members last many years so the plaintiff ready to give one lakh to Defendant no.1 to fulfill the requirement of Defendant no.2 as also stood guarantee for Defendant no.1. The Defendant No.2 did not want to take loan form Plaintiff due to his personal and social reason and Plaintiff also did not want to lower him in society so he ready to give loan of one lakh through Civil Suit No. 88/2021 ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors.
KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.05.16
MEENA 16:06:52 +05'30'
Page 3 of 15
Defendant No.1.
3. It is further averred that unfortunately thereafter CARONA pandemic is started spreading and Defendants did not return money within the promised time of 15 days. The Plaintiff also could not physically go to Defendants home for his money. But after Lockdown when the Plaintiff contacted Defendants and asked for return his payment but both had failed to return the amount taken as loan from Plaintiff.
4. It is further averred that after repeated request both the Defendants, the Defendant No.1 toward discharge of liability/ debt, issued a cheque No.000012 dated 15/10/2020 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on M/s Punjab and Sind Bank, Sad Nagar Branch, New Delhi, in favour of Plaintiff name with an assurance that they would make arrangement for payment of said cheque and said cheque would be encashed on their presentation on due date. As per Defendants request, the Plaintiff presented the above said cheque for realization of payment through his SBI Bank, Noida, U.P., but the cheque was returned unpaid by on 16/10/2020 with the reason "FUND INSUFFICIENT".
5. It is further submitted that thereafter Defendants has failed to make the payment of aforesaid cheque and also neglected the Plaintiff on one pretext or other. Then, Plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 18/10/2020 by Reg. Post and Speed Post to defendant. The Defendant has received both the legal notice on 22/10/20 and 23/10/20 respectively but they have not made any payment till today.
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Civil Suit No. 88/2021 KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
MEENA
MEENA 16:06:59 +05'30'
Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. 2023.05.16
Page 4 of 15
6. Hence, plaintiff is seeking the relief of recovery of money of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with the cost of the suit and pendent lite future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the realization of the amount from the Defendants jointly and severally.
7. On service of summons, defendants entered into appearance and have filed joint written statement. It states that the present suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and further that the Plaintiff has suppressed many true and material facts. It is denied in entirety that the Defendant No. 1 had requested the plaintiff for a loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him in the month of February, 2020, whereas, it is submitted that the plaintiff was taking services of the Defendant No. 1 for taking care of ill mother of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had promised a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Only) as remuneration to the Defendant No.1, which was never paid to the Defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff. It is also wrong and denied that the Defendant No. 1 had requested any money for installation of electric (BSES) meter on behalf of the Defendant No. 2, to be installed in his premises but on the contrary, it is submitted that during that time, the Defendant No. 2 got around 7 electric (BSES) meters installed at his premises and payment for the installation of all the said meters were made by the Defendant No. 2 himself through online mode. Hence, the story of the plaintiff is wrong and specifically denied.
8. It is further submitted that the Defendant No. 1 is a poor helper, who is working in the employment of Defendant No. 2 for around 15 years and that he gets only Rs.5,000/- as his monthly ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH Civil Suit No. 88/2021 Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.05.16 MEENA 16:07:07 +05'30' Page 5 of 15 salary from Defendant No. 2. It is further submitted that in the month of January, 2020, the Defendant No. 1 had requested the plaintiff to pay him the promised remuneration of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of taking care of the ill mother of the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not pay the promised amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Defendant No. 1 and again assured the Defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff shall pay Rs.10,000/- in the month of February, 2020.
9. It is submitted that the Defendant No. 1 had given a signed cheque bearing Cheque No.000012 drawn on M/s Punjab & Sind Bank, Sadh Nagar branch, New Delhi, but on the contrary, it is submitted that in the month of February, 2020, the Defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to pay him the assured amount of Rs. 10,000/- for taking care of the ill mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Defendant No. 1 but asked him to furnish a signed blank cheque as surety that the Defendant No. 1 shall continue to take care of the mother of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff has misused the said cheque against both the defendants in order to grab hard earned money of the defendants and to harass them. Therefore, plaintiff does not deserve for any relief as prayed.
10. On completion of pleading, Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed following issues on 23.11.2021:
Issue No.1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of friendly loan in the month of February 2020 against the defendants @ 18% per annum pendente-lite and future interest? OPP.
ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH Civil Suit No. 88/2021 Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors.
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.05.16
MEENA 16:07:14 +05'30'
Page 6 of 15
Issue No.2- Costs and Relief.
11. Plaintiff's Evidence: The plaintiff has examined two witnesses i.e PW1/himself and PW-2 Sh. Ashwani Kumar. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit being Ex.PW1/1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also relied upon the following documents:
1) The cheque is Ex.PW1/A
2) Bank return memo dt. 16.10.2020 is Ex.PW1/B.
3) Copy of legal notice dt. 21.10.20 and 23.10.20 is Ex.PW1/C.
4) Postal receipts and copy of trace record are Ex.PW1/D1, Ex.PW1/D2 and Ex.PW1/E1 and Ex.PW1/E2.
12. During cross-examination, PW-1 states that he has studied up till 10th class. He can read English for minimum daily work only. He knows defendant no.1 since last 25 years. He has not annexed any document to support the claim of 25 years (vol- he is his next-door neighbour since then). He lives in Noida (vol- his own house is in Palam). The legal notice was sent through the counsel after briefing him of the facts of the case. He is not aware if he has sent the legal notice to defendant No.2. He had given Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to defendant no.1 on 8th February 2020. The said cash of Rs. 1 lac was with him after selling the property bearing No. RZ-402/E, Gali No.16, Palam colony, Sadh Nagar, (one which is the neighboring property of defendant no.1). It is wrong to suggest that any amount was given on 08.02.2020 after selling the property. It is correct that he has not placed any documentation for property selling. No one was present on Civil Suit No. 88/2021 ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors.
KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.05.16
MEENA 16:07:23 +05'30'
Page 7 of 15
08.02.2020 when he had given cash of Rs.1 lac to the defendant no.1. It is correct that loan agreement or cash receipt was made for showing the transaction of loan of Rs.1 lac. It is correct that there is no agreement written form which shows that defendant no.2 will pay plaintiff on behalf of defendant no.1. The friendly loan was sought by Sh. Deepak Kumar defendant no.1 for the installation of electricity meter (vol- Deepak Jain defendant no.2 had assured me telephonically and, on that assurance, he had made payment to defendant no.1 for 15 to 20 days). It is incorrect to suggest that no assurance made by the defendant no.2 for defendant no.1. It is wrong to suggest that in legal notice he has mentioned that he has given Rs.1 lac to the defendant no.1 for his urgent personal need (vol. It was given for need for installation of electricity meter). The electricity meter was installed in the house of Deepak Jain defendant no.2 in March/ April 2020. He is not aware of the amount paid for the electricity meter by defendant no.2 but he had installed approximately 7-8 meters. It is wrong to suggest that defendant no.2 had paid the electricity connection from his own money and not from the money of plaintiff. It is correct that the money was given only to defendant no.1 and in lieu of the same the cheque was given by him which got dishonoured and thus the present suit is filed. The evidence affidavit was signed in office in Dwarka court. When evidence affidavit was signed, he had annexed his thumb impression and signature in the register. He had not taken any oath while doing so. It is wrong to suggest that he has filed the present suit which is false and fabricated against the defendant no.2. It is wrong to suggest that he has intentionally sent the legal notice to defendant no.2. It is wrong to suggest that he has filed the present suit to harass and extort the defendant no.2.
ASHISH Digitally signed
by ASHISH
Civil Suit No. 88/2021 KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. Date: 2023.05.16
MEENA 16:07:29 +05'30'
Page 8 of 15
He has not put any telephonic conversation of recording on record. It is wrong to suggest that defendant no.2 never talked on telephonic conversation with respect to the loan assurance. It is wrong to suggest that defendant no.2 has no privity to contract and therefore no legal notice was issued to him.
13. The plaintiff has examined another witness in his support as PW2 Sh. Ashwani Kumar. PW2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit being Ex.PW2/A and he reiterated the contents of the plaint.
14. During cross examination, PW-2 deposed that he is unemployed. I am 5th class pass. It is correct that he is not aware what is mentioned in the present affidavit Ex.PW2/A which was filed on his behalf. It is correct that there is some transaction between his brother and defendant no.1. I do not remember the date when his brother had given Rs.1 lac cash to defendant no.1. He is not aware that his brother had sent legal notice to the defendant no.1. It is correct that there are no written documents regarding the presence and assurance of defendant no.2 that plaintiff had given Rs.1 lac cash to the defendant no.1. It is correct that defendant no.1 had given Rs.1 lac cheque to the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 requested him to provide some loan from plaintiff in the month of January 2020 for the purpose of installing the electricity meter. He refused to give loan and asked him to take up the matter with his brother. He does not remember when his brother given loan to defendant no.2. It is correct that the defendant no.1 had issued one cheque of Rs.1 lac in favour of his brother i.e plaintiff. It is correct that the defendant no.1 had assured to his brother at the time of taking one lac loan in the year Civil Suit No. 88/2021 ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.05.16 MEENA 16:07:37 +05'30' Page 9 of 15 2020, the same was returned by defendant no.1 within 15 days. It is correct that his brother did not tell me that he had sent any legal notice to defendant no.1 regarding loan amount. It is incorrect to suggest that he has no knowledge about this case and facts of this case.
15. Defendant's evidence: The defendants have examined one witness i.e., Deepak Jain/defendant no.2, who stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW1. In his testimony, DW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit being Ex.DW1/A and he reiterated the contents of the WS.
16. During cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he has a plot near plaintiff's house for 20 years and now he is running a shop in his house/plot. It is correct that they had constructed the house in 2018 and living over there since 2020. The defendant no.1 Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur worked for him last 15 years. It is correct that the defendant no.1 has no family and he living with them alone. It is correct that he was feeding and clothing of defendant no.1 and he also residing with them. It is correct that nobody belongs to defendant no.1 and he belongs to Assam. It is wrong to suggest that he is residing with them and he is not responsible for all expenses of defendant no.1. It is correct that the brothers of the plaintiff are residing in the same locality. It is correct that defendant no.1 was responsible for customer handling, dispatching the material and also for collection of payment during the course of business of the shop. (Vol- in the absence of defendant no.2). It is correct that he has not filed any document regarding my electricity connection of 7 meters in his house. He has deposited around Rs.35,000/- for all meters of electricity connection. It is Civil Suit No. 88/2021 ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.05.16 MEENA 16:07:44 +05'30' Page 10 of 15 wrong to suggest that he has taken loan of Rs.1 lac from plaintiff for installation of new electricity meter connection. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant no.1 had collected Rs.1 lac from the plaintiff and issued cheque to the plaintiff on behalf of defendant no.2. It is correct that he has not filed any complaint against plaintiff and defendant no.1 till date. It is wrong to suggest that both the defendants are liable to pay Rs.1 lac jointly and severally to the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant no.1 is not working with him at present in my shop.
17. DE was closed on 04.1.2023 and final arguments were heard. Both the parties have filed written final arguments.
Issue-wise findings as under:
Issue No.1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of friendly loan in the month of February 2020 against the defendants @ 18% per annum pendente-lite and future interest? OPP.
18. The burden to prove Issue No.1 is upon plaintiff. It is imperative for plaintiff to lead cogent and reliable evidence to prove that he is entitled to recover Rs. 1,00,000/- from defendants alongwith pendentelite and future interest. It is important for plaintiff to demonstrate that he gave loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to defendant no.1, and defendant no.2 stood as surety of defendant no.1 for the said loan transaction. Plaintiff is also duty bound to prove that the cheque in question of defendant no.1 was issued in favour of plaintiff for the payment of loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Civil Suit No. 88/2021 KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
MEENA
Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors.
MEENA 2023.05.16 16:07:51 +05'30' Page 11 of 15
19. Before giving findings on the issue in question, it is pertinent to mention the admitted facts. It is admitted by plaintiff that he handed over the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- to defendant no.1 only. He has also admitted that he sent a legal notice to defendant no.1 but the same was not sent to defendant no.2. Further, defendant no.1 has admitted that the cheque in question vide Ex. PW1/A was issued by him and same got dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Defendant No.2 has admitted that he looks after defendant no.1 and he is also responsible for his clothing, lodging and food. Defendant no.2 has also admitted that defendant no.1 stays with him as he is a helper.
20. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, wherein he reiterated the averments of plaint. In brief, defendant no.1 living and working with defendant no.2 since childhood. Plaintiff also hired defendant no.1 to look after his mother. It is stated that defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff for Loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- as defendant no.2 needed the said amount for installation of electricity meter. Plaintiff also spoke to defendant no.2 over the telephone, who allegedly stood as surety for defendant no.1. The loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given in cash to defendant no.1. After repeated request, defendant no.1 issued cheque (Ex. PW1/A) but the same got dishonored due insufficiency of amount. Further, despite request and legal notice, defendants have not paid the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to plaintiff.
21. In view of this Court, the plaintiff has remained successful to show the liability of defendant no.1. The plaintiff has proved that the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to defendant no.1 and lieu of payment of loan, admitted cheque was issued by the defendant Digitally signed Civil Suit No. 88/2021 ASHISH byKUMAR ASHISH MEENA Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. KUMAR Date:
2023.05.16 MEENA 16:07:58 +05'30' Page 12 of 15 no.1 which got dishonored. The admitted cheque issued by defendant no.1 is Ex. PW1/A and returning memo is Ex. PW1/B. Plaintiff has also proved that he sent a legal notice to defendant no.1, which is Ex. PW1/C. The proof of service of notice are Ex. PW1/D1, Ex. PW1/D2 and Ex. PW1E1 & Ex. PW1/E2. Evidence given against the defendant No.1 has remained unrefuted and intact as defendant no.1 has not cross-examined the witnesses of plaintiff. Further, defendant no.1 has taken the defence that the plaintiff asked him to furnish a signed blank cheque as surety. However, the said fact/defence is not proved as defendant no.1 neither examined himself or led any evidence nor cross-examined the witnesses of plaintiff. Also, defendant no.2 evidence cannot be relied in favour of defendant no.1 as the same is hearsay evidence as per the deposition of DW-1. Defendant No.1 has failed to lead any evidence to prove his defence. In view of the same, the fact regarding the transaction of loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- given by plaintiff to defendant no.1 stands proved. Therefore, the defendant no.1 is liable to pay the loan amount to plaintiff.
22. As far as liability of defendant no.2 is concerned, plaintiff has not filed sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant no.2 stood as surety for defendant no.1. During cross-examination, it is admitted by the PW-1 that on 08.02.2020, no one was present when he had given the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- to defendant no.1. He has stated that defendant no.2 assured him over the telephone that he was in need of money for installation of electricity meter. This Court fails to understand as to why the loan was given to defendant no.1 for the need and requirement of defendant no.2. It is obvious that if defendant no.2 was in need of such loan, he would have personally approached the plaintiff or defendant no.1 Civil Suit No. 88/2021 ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.05.16 MEENA 16:08:06 +05'30' Page 13 of 15 would receive the loan on behalf of defendant no.2. However, in present case the pleading of plaintiff is that he provided the loan to defendant no.1 on assurance of defendant no.2. Further, Plaintiff sent a legal notice to defendant no.1 for recovery of money after the admitted cheque was dishonored. Legal notice (Ex. PW1/C) states that the loan was given defendant no.1 due to his urgent personal need. The said notice does not mention the liability of defendant no.2. The fact that the defendant no.2 stood as a surety is not mentioned in plaintiff's legal notice vide Ex. PW1/C. Furthermore, plaintiff has not sent any legal notice to defendant no.2 was recovery of money. The said material omission has not been explained by the plaintiff. It is further to be noted that plaintiff has examined his brother, PW-2, who has deposed that the defendant no.2 approached him for loan to install the electricity meter but the same was not given by him and PW-2 asked him to take up the matter with plaintiff. However, the said fact does not prove that defendant no.2 stood as surety for defendant no.1. In fact, if defendant no.2 had approached PW-2 for loan, this Court fails to understand as to why defendant no.2 did not approach the plaintiff. Further, legal notice vide Ex.PW1/C only reflects the liability of defendant No.1. Moreover, PW-2 has no knowledge regarding the fact that defendant no.2 stood as surety of defendant no.1. It is pertinent to mention that Defendant no.2 has also examined himself as DW-1. The plaintiff has failed to impeach the veracity of the testimony of DW-2. Although, he has admitted that the takes care of defendant no.1. He admitted that defendant no.1 resides with him. However, defendant no.2 does not become responsible for the individual act of defendant no.1. In view of this Court, evidence of DW-2 has remained reliable and intact.
ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR Civil Suit No. 88/2021 KUMAR MEENA Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors.
Date: 2023.05.16
MEENA 16:08:14 +05'30'
Page 14 of 15
Therefore, in view of this Court plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant no.2 stood as surety of defendant no.1 for the loan transaction of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proof against defendant no.2. There is no case made out against the defendant no.2.
23. Further, plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest of 18%. P.A. In the opinion of this Court, the same is not reasonable. The stipulation of charging such high rate of interest has not been proved by plaintiff. It is further to be noted that Section 34 CPC also provides that (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, [with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum], from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
24. In view of above discussion, plaintiff has remained successful to prove issue no.1 only against defendant no.1. Plaintiff has failed to prove liability of defendant no.2. Accordingly, Issue no.1 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 only.
25. Relief: In view of above discussion, plaintiff has remained successful to prove its case on the lines of preponderance of probabilities only against defendant no.1. Accordingly, Issue no. 1 Civil Suit No. 88/2021 ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors. KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.05.16 MEENA 16:08:22 +05'30' Page 15 of 15 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No.1.
26. Conclusion: The suit of the Plaintiff is therefore decreed in the favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant no.1, the Defendant No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff with the interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual realization of the decreetal amount.
27. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
29. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance with due formalities.
Announced in the open court on 16.05.2023.
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KUMAR ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
MEENA Date: 2023.05.16
16:08:30 +05'30'
(Ashish Kumar Meena)
Civil Judge-01(SW)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
16.05.2023
It is certified that the present judgment runs into fifteen pages ASHISH Digitally signed by and each page bear my signature. KUMAR ASHISH KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.05.16 MEENA 16:08:39 +05'30' (Ashish Kumar Meena) Civil Judge-01(SW) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 16.05.2023 Civil Suit No. 88/2021 Sh. Shiv Nandan Ahiluwalia vs. Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Bahadur &ors.