Delhi District Court
Prachin Shiv Mandir (Regd.) vs Sunil Kumar Sareen on 18 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA GUPTA,
CIVIL JUDGE-08, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
ROOM NO.283, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO: 801/20
CNR NO. DLCT03-002009-2020
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Pracheen Shiv Mandir (Regd.)
Registered Principal Office at:
3119, 3120 Ward No.6,
Mohalla Dasan Charkhawalan
Hauz Qazi, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.
Through its chairman Sh. Sunil Sharma ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Sunil Kumar Sareen
S/o Sh. Yashpal Sareen
AM-88, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi ...DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 04.07.2020
Date of judgment : 18.08.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION CUM PERMANENT INJUNCTION
E X - PAR T E J U D G M E N T
CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 1 of 24
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide a suit for declaration cum permanent
injunction.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT:
2. The brief facts of the plaint as alleged by the plaintiff which are necessary for the disposal of the suit are:
a) That the plaintiff is the Registered Trust vide Registration No.1395, Book No. IV, Vol. No. 3203 at Pages 122-138 dated 01.05.2014 in the Office of Sub-Registrar-I, Delhi and Sushil Sharma is the settlor of the said trust and presently the chairman of the trust and eminent social worker and respectable person of the locality/society who along with the esteem members of the locality who voluntarily and honorarily are taking care of the Mandir which is located at Plot no.3119, 3120 Ward No. VI, Mohalla Dassan, Charkha Walan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as Suit Property) and is being looked after and maintained by the said Trust.
b) That the said Mandir/Suit Property is located and is being run for more than 100 years and the people of the locality come there for the purpose CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 2 of 24 of worshiping and follow religious rites with full faith and devotion and the people of the locality have complete dedication with regard to the said Mandir.
c) That in fact, the said land where the suit property/Mandir is situated does not belong to any person and one person Sh. Lala Babu Ram who used to reside in the property adjacent to the suit property in the year 1932 has also mentioned this fact in the Will dated 11.01.1932 that the Mandir which is situated adjacent to his property is situated on the Panchayati Land and no ownership and title has been confirmed on the suit property and the Mandir/suit property has been situated in the locality for nearly 100 years and has been looked after by the people of the locality including late Lala Babu Ram and there has been no owner of the suit property/land upon which the Mandir is situated.
d) That in fact, the people of the locality including Sh. Sunil Sharma and others have also renovated and reconstructed the Mandir in the year 1993 and there have been never any ownership rights by any person and suit property/Mandir belongs to the people of the locality where they come and pray, puja, worship and do religious activities etc. on daily CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 3 of 24 basis.
e) That earlier also Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel all sons of Kishan Nath Goel who are neither the owner nor in possession of the said land in question tried to grab the said land where Mandir has been situated and have also filed a false and frivolous suit (Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction) with respect to the Mandir land in the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge in the year 1998 vide No. 1246/06 titled as "Rameshwar Nath Goel Vs. Raghunath Sharma & Ors." which has been dismissed vide over dated 01.11.2006.
f) It is pertinent to mention here that the father of Sh. Sushil Sharma i.e. late Sh. Raghunath Prasad was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the Mandir/suit property since the year 1980 and was defendant No.1 in the said suit.
g) That the lust of money did not come to an end and said Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel tried to sell off the Mandir land to some third party on September, 2013 and it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant is dealing in CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 4 of 24 the purchase of the said property in question where the esteem Mandir is situated, with said Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel who have nothing to do with affairs of Mandir which is being run and maintained by the Trust Prachin Shiv Mandir (Regd.) and all the members/trustees of the plaintiff trust have been looking after day to day affairs of the Mandir/suit property since last more than 35 years and thereafter the trust was formed to look after the proper functioning of the Mandir with the consensus of the people and devotees of the locality and the devotees of the said Mandir who are local residents of the colony.
h) That Sunil Sharma who is the trustee in the present trust, immediately served the defendant with the legal notice through his counsel in the year September, 2013 clearly mentioned that said Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel, and Rameshwar Nath Goel are neither the owner nor in possession of the said land in question where the Mandir is situated and the defendants must restrict himself to deal in any kind of sale or purchase of the said property in question.
i) That now it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that said Sh. CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 5 of 24
Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel in connivance with the defendant have fraudulently executed some documents in favour of the defendant and though in spite of the fact Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel have neither been the owner nor have been in the possession of the suit property nor the defendant henceforth is the owner of the suit property and there has been a temple at the site of the suit property which has been looked by the people of the locality by the last so many year including the members of the trust/trustees in their individual capacity even before 2014 and for the proper functioning and looking after of the Mandir the present trust has been formed and registered on 01.05.2014 and the plaintiff trust is in control, possession of the suit property and there is no owner of the suit property and hence when Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel have no right, title or interest in the suit property, the defendant cannot have better title as compared to the alleged purchaser from which the defendant fraudulently out of greed has purchased the suit property and the defendant is neither the owner nor in possession of the same. CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 6 of 24
j) That it is pertinent to mention here that Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel sons of Sh. Kishan Nath Goel earlier used to reside in the neighborhood/adjacent to said Mandir and was well aware that there is no successor in interest of the said property after late Sh. Babu Ram and out of greed it seems have created defective title upon the defendants on the basis of defective title deed, now the defendant is claiming to be owner of the suit property.
k) That the defendants on various occasions since last 7 years has claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff and various other people of the locality have demanded to show them the valid title documents of the suit property but the defendant till date have failed to do so.
l) That time and again the defendant threatened the plaintiff to create some third-party interest, alienate, sell or transfer the suit property.
m) That on 22.06.2020, the defendant was seen in the company of the 3-4 persons negotiating the deal of the suit property with them but due to the timely intervention of the plaintiff and other respectable persons of the locality, could not be able to do so but threatened the plaintiff he will sell CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 7 of 24 the suit property or create any third party interest as he has good approach in the political lobby and police.
n) That there is every apprehension that the defendant may create further third party interest in the suit property or sell and part with the possession of the suit property which may further lead to multiplicity of litigation.
3. Hence, the present suit for following reliefs:
a) Pass a Decree of Declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property/Mandir at bearing Plot No.3119, 3120, Ward No.VI, Mohalla Dassan, Charkha Walan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006;
b) Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant, his agents, nominees, representatives, assignees, family members, servants, friends etc. from creating any third party interest, alienating, transferring, selling the suit property i.e. mandir bearing Plot No. 3119, 3120 Ward No. VI, Mohalla Dassan, Charkha Walan, Hauz CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 8 of 24 Qazi, Delhi-110006;
4. The summons of the suit was issued to the defendant. The defendant was served on 18.07.2020 and Sh. Kamal Garg, the Ld. Counsel for defendant appeared on 06.08.2020 and time was given to file written statement vide order dated 16.09.2020. Again 10 days' time was given to file written statement vide order dated 17.11.202. However, defendant despite that did not file written statement. Accordingly, the right of the defendant to file written statement was closed on 30.03.2021 and was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.09.2022.
5. As per Order 8 Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in absence of any denial of allegations in the plaint by the defendant, the Court shall presume the facts to be admitted. Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act states that a fact admitted even by way of any rule of pleading need not be proved. However, both the provisions empower the Court to require the admitted facts to be proved, whether admitted expressly or impliedly. Order 8 Rule 5 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 9 of 24 1908 is similar to Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, Order 8 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with power of Court in total absence of written statement also leaves it to the discretion of the Court whether to pronounce judgment or make such other order as the court deems fit.
6. In Balraj Taneja & Anr v. Sunil Madan & Anr [(1999) 8 SCC 396], in the context of Section 58 and Order 8 Rule 5, it was held by the Hon'ble SC that: -
"A court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically."
In exercise of the above powers and as a matter of caution, this Court had required the plaintiff to prove its case through evidence. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
7. In support of its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Sunil Sharma, Chairman of plaintiff as PW-1 who tendered his affidavit in evidence which was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:
a) Ex.PW-1/1 was site plan.
CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 10 of 24
b) Ex.PW1/2 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-A (colly) being
photocopy of court proceedings related to suit no.1246/06 tilted as Rameshwar Nath Goel v. Raghunath Sharma & Ors.
c) Ex.PW1/3 office copy of legal notice dated 13.09.2013.
d) Ex.PW1/4 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-B being photocopy of some notice dated 26.02.2002.
e) Ex.PW1/5 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-C being photocopy of donation receipt no.17 dated 20.08.1992.
f) Ex.PW1/6 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-D being photocopy of letter dated 19.06.2002.
g) Ex.PW1/7 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-E being photocopy of notice dated nil.
h) Ex.PW1/8 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-F (colly) being two photographs (without certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872).
PW-1 was duly examined and discharged on 02.09.2024. CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 11 of 24
8. PW-2 Sh. Nutan Gupta, Assistant Engineer was a summoned witness from MCD, City S.P. Zone who deposed that he along with Sh. S.K.S. Rawal (Junior Engineer - Building) prepared the status report along with three photographs and same bears his signatures at point A. Same was then exhibited as Ex.PW-2/1 (colly.).
9. PW-3 Sh. S.K.S. Rawal, Junior Engineer was also a summoned witness from MCD who deposed that he had prepared the status report already Ex.PW-2/S (colly.) and same bears his signatures at point B.
10. PW-4 Sh. Jagmender Singh, Kanungo was also a summoned witness from Land & Estate Department who deposed that the status report Ex.PW-2/1 (colly) was prepared after inspection of the suit property by the concerned Patwari under his control.
11. PW-5 Sh. Aasheesh Kumar, DEO was also a summoned witness from the office of Sub Registrar-I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi who brought the original volume containing record of Trust Deed dated 01.05.2014, Registration CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 12 of 24 No.1395, Book No. IV, Vol. No.3203, Pages 122-138. Photocopy of the same was then exhibited as Ex.PW-5/1 (OSR) (colly.). He further deposed that the record of Will dated 01.02.1932 has been transferred to Department of Delhi Archives, Mehrauli, Delhi.
12. PW-6 Sh. Sevajit, Record Attendant was also a summoned witness from Department of Delhi Archives who brought the original volume containing document dated 06.02.1932, document No.6, Vol No.46, Pages 177-180. Photocopy of the same was then exhibited as Ex.PW-6/1 (OSR). He further deposed that the document is in Urdu language and the volume no.46 pertains to Wills only.
13. PW-7 Sh. Abul Hassan, Translator from Tis Hazari Courts was also a summoned witness. He deposed that he translated the Will Ex.PW-6/1 dated 06.02.1932 which was in Urdu language.
14. None of the PWs were cross examined on behalf of defendant as none appeared for defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed on CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 13 of 24 02.09.2024.
15. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and have perused the record.
FINDINGS WITH REASONS:
16. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property/Mandir at bearing Plot No.3119, 3120, Ward No.VI, Mohalla Dassan, Charkha Walan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 and further that defendant be restrained from creating third party interest in the aforesaid suit property. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that nobody is the owner of the suit property and that persons namely Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Goel, Rabindra Nath Goel and Rameshwar Nath Goel in connivance with the defendant have fraudulently executed some documents in favour of the defendant and that defendant for last seven years has been threatening plaintiff to create third party interest in the suit property.
17. At this juncture, it is very relevant to take note of the documents relied CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 14 of 24 upon by the plaintiff to prove its allegations against the defendant. However, before proceeding to the contents of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, certain observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd. [1995 (34) DRJ 86] are relevant to be taken note of and are reproduced below:-
(13) Admission of a document in evidence is not to be confused with proof of a document.
(14) When the Court is called upon to examine the admissibility of a document it concentrates only on the document. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box; it would take into consideration probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. It could not have been intendment of any law, rule or practice direction to expect the Court applying its judicial mind to the entire record of the case, each time a document was placed before it for being exhibited and form an opinion if it was proved before marking it as an exhibit.
(15) The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is only for the purpose of identification. While reading the record the parties and the Court should be able to know which was CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 15 of 24 the document before the witness when it was deposing. Absence of putting an endorsement for the purpose of identification no sooner a document is placed before a witness would cause serious confusion as one would be left simply guessing or wondering while was the document to which the witness was referring to which deposing. Endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the document has been held proved;
nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an exhibit.
18. Thus, it is trite that mere filing of or exhibition or tendering of documents at the stage of evidence and proving the same before the court are two different concepts. Contents of the document cannot be proved a person merely by filing such document in a court. As per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is essential that contents of the document are proved either by primary or by secondary evidence, as defined under Section 62 and 63, respectively. Mere marking a document as an "exhibit" or "mark" will not absolve the duty of the litigant to prove the relied upon documents in accordance with the provisions of law. CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 16 of 24
19. Coming back to present case, plaintiff got Sh. Sunil Sharma, Chairman examined as PW-1 who tendered his affidavit in evidence which was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A and placed on record site plan (Ex.PW-1/1). Further placed on record Mark-A (colly) being photocopy of court proceedings related to suit No.1246/06 tilted as Rameshwar Nath Goel v. Raghunath Sharma & Ors; Ex.PW1/3 which is office copy of legal notice dated 13.09.2013. Further filed photocopy of some notice dated 26.02.2002 (Mark B); photocopy of donation receipt No.17 dated 20.08.1992 (Mark C); photocopy of letter dated 19.06.2002 (Mark D) and photocopy of notice dated nil (Mark E). Further filed two photographs (Mark F colly), however same were not supported with certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872), hence cannot be read into evidence.
20. The plaintiff is mainly relying upon one will dated 11.01.1932 one person namely Sh. Lala Babu Ram who is alleged to reside in the property adjacent to the suit property in the year 1932 and that he has also mentioned fact in the Will dated 11.01.1932 that the Mandir which CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 17 of 24 is situated adjacent to his property is situated on the Panchayati Land and no ownership and title has been confirmed on the suit property and the Mandir/suit property has been situated in the locality for nearly 100 years and has been looked after by the people of the locality including late Lala Babu Ram and there has been no owner of the suit property/land upon which the Mandir is situated. However, same cannot prove the alleged non-title of defendant at all. Hence, same is not relevant evidence for the purpose of adjudication of matter in issue.
21. Further in the present case the rights of the plaintiff are not dependent upon declaration of title of the defendant. The suit for negative declaration is not permissible under the law as the plaintiff can claim only that right which is vested in it but cannot alternatively seek a declaration that no right is vested in the defendant. The object of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is to protect the plaintiff's title from adverse attachment and to dispel the cloud cast upon the plaintiff's title or legal character he is entitled to. A negative declaration with regard to the status of the defendant, however, cannot be CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 18 of 24 maintained without showing the plaintiff's own right.
22. In view of the court, plaintiff has further failed to prove its allegations regarding alleged existing threat by the defendant against the plaintiff. Further plaintiff has failed to show that how it is entitled to relief of declaration that defendant is not the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has not placed on record any alleged documents executed in favour of defendant nor filed any documents showing that he ever filed complaint against the defendant ever against the alleged threats for last seven years. Present case appears to be filed merely on an apprehension of the plaintiff.
23. It is well settled that the burden to prove such essential and pivotal fact regarding cause of action and legal liability of defendants was only upon the plaintiff in terms of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and unless such burden is discharged by the plaintiff, the Court cannot proceed on the basis that the defendant did not contest the allegations. At this juncture, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 19 of 24 Rangammal v. Kuppuswami & Anr. [(2011) 12 SCC 220] are relevant to be noted and are extracted below: -
21. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" which clearly lays down that:
"101.Burden of proof. --Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts it. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party.
31. Application of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 thus came up for discussion in Subhra Mukherjee case [(2000) 3 SCC 312 : AIR 2000 SC 1203] and while discussing the law on the burden of proof in the context of dealing with the allegation of sham and bogus transaction, it was held that the party which makes the allegation CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 20 of 24 must prove it. But the Court was further pleased to hold, wherein the question before the Court was "whether the transaction in question was a bona fide and genuine one" so that the party/plaintiff relying on the transaction had to first of all prove its genuineness and only thereafter would the defendant be required to discharge the burden in order to dislodge such proof and establish that the transaction was sham and fictitious. This ratio can aptly be relied upon in this matter as in this particular case, it is Respondent 1-plaintiff Kuppuswami who relied upon the alleged sale deed dated 24-2-1951 and included the subject- matter of the property which formed part of the sale deed and claimed partition. This sale deed was denied by the appellant-defendant on the ground that it was bogus and a sham transaction which was executed admittedly in 1951 when she was a minor.
36. The onus was clearly on the plaintiff to positively establish his case on the basis of material available and could not have been allowed by the High Court to rely on the weakness or absence of defence of the defendant-appellant herein to discharge such onus. The courts below thus have illegally and erroneously failed not to cast this burden on Respondent 1-plaintiff by clearly misconstruing the whole case and thus resulted into recording of findings which are wholly perverse and even against the admitted case of the parties. (emphasis supplied).
24. Further, it is also well settled that mere absence of the defendant in the CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 21 of 24 suit does not amount to proof of the claims made by the plaintiff in the plaint and does not entitle the plaintiff to an automatic decree. It is trite that court is required to be mindful and cautious even in the cases where defendant is proceeded ex-parte to ensure that the allegations made by the plaintiff are proved during the trial and the burden under Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stands discharged. In this context the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad [(2015) 5 SCC 588] are required to be noted which are reproduced below:-
41. The absence of the defendant does not absolve the trial court from fully satisfying itself of the factual and legal veracity of the plaintiff's claim; nay, this feature of the litigation casts a greater responsibility and onerous obligation on the trial court as well as the executing court to be fully satisfied that the claim has been proved and substantiated to the hilt by the plaintiff. Reference to Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha v. TELCO Ltd.
[(2013) 4 SCC 396 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 632] , will be sufficient. The failure to file a written statement, thereby bringing Order 8 Rule 10 CPC into operation, or the factum of the defendant having been set ex parte, does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree.
Both under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and on the CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 22 of 24 invocation of Order 9 CPC, the court is nevertheless duty-bound to diligently ensure that the plaint stands proved and the prayers therein are worthy of being granted.
25. Bare perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the court is not required to turn a blind eye towards the allegations in the plaint and the court must seek proof of the same by way of evidence. The plaintiff is required to prove the allegations in terms of the process prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, however, in the present case, despite opportunity plaintiff did not prove its allegations against the defendant, in terms of the applicable law.
RELIEF:
26. Accordingly, in view of the observations hereinabove and as the contentions of the plaintiff have remained unproved on record, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
27. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 23 of 24
28. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.18 (This judgment contains 24 pages and 15:53:22 +0530 each page has been signed by me) ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Divya Gupta) Today i.e. on 18.08.2025 Civil Judge-08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi CS No. 801/20 Pracheen Shiv Mandir Vs Sunil Kumar Sareen Page 24 of 24