Delhi District Court
Smt. Bhavna vs Sh. Ashok @ Pappu Meterwalla on 9 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GARG : ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
(CENTRAL) : DELHI
Suit No. : 16/2014
Unique ID No : 02401C0089652014
In the matter of:
Smt. Bhavna,
W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Rathor,
R/o House No. 774, Nai Basti,
Mukeempura, Subzi Mandi,
Delhi110007. ....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ashok @ Pappu Meterwalla,
2051, Malka Ganj, Tilak Chowk,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi110007. .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 22.02.2014
Date of order when reserved : 09.03.2015
Date of order when announced : 09.03.2015
JUDGMENT :
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs. 67,200/ (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Only) alongwith pendentelite and further interest at contractual rate of 1.5% per month from the date of filing of the suit till realization and costs has been filed by the plaintiff Suit No. 16/2014 against the defendant.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been living near to the plaintiff's residence within the same locality. Their respective families are well acquainted with each other and therefore, they had family friendship. The defendant was in dire need of funds for business purpose and he approached the plaintiff on 20.07.2012 and requested for a loan of about Rs. 60,000/ for about one year.
3. The defendant stated that the sum was required for employing in his "work of liaison" that he used to undertake for his customers/clients with electricity distribution companies. The plaintiff agreed and on 20.07.2012, she gave the defendant a loan of Rs. 60,000/ (in cash) on interest at the agreed rate of 1.5% per month, out of her own domestic/household savings. The defendant specifically promised and undertook to repay the said loan within one year. No loan document was executed between the parties. The entire loan transaction took place in the presence of one of plaintiff's cousin viz. Smt. Sita.
4. As per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan Suit No. 16/2014 transaction, the defendant paid the interest regularly till 20.06.2013 @ 1.5% per month i.e. Rs. 900/ every month. In the month of June 2013, the plaintiff asked the defendant to return the said loan to her, but the defendant not only ignored to repay the loan, but also stopped paying the due interest thereafter. The defendant has failed to pay the said principal sum of Rs. 60,000/ alongwith the interest due w.e.f. 21.06.2013, as per the defendant's obligations visavis the plaintiff.
5. On 02.02.2014 about 5:30 pm the plaintiff again asked the defendant to repay her entire loan with interest. The defendant and his son Tanu abused and beat her mercilessly and both of them also extended threats and intimidation of eliminating her as well as her entire family. The plaintiff was therefore, constrained to lodge a police complaint against the defendant and his said son Tanu on 03.02.2014 at Subzi Mandi, Police Station. The plaintiff issued demand legal notice dated 05.02.2014 to the defendant, but to no avail. The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 67,200/ (principal amount i.e. misappropriated amount, Rs. 60,000/ + due interest @ 1.5% per month from 21.06.2013 till 20.02.2014 upon principal sum of Rs. 60,000/ i.e. for eight months, Rs. 7,200/).
Suit No. 16/2014
6. The defendant filed his written statement wherein he has denied the allegations leveled by the plaintiff in the petition. It is averred that the plaint is liable to be rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The defendant never took any loan from the plaintiff and plaintiff failed to file any supporting documents in respect of the loan amount. The plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and correct facts. The intention of the plaintiff is bad and she wants to extort the money from the defendant. Defendant neither took any loan, nor given any interest at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ per month. Defendant has not executed any documents in favour of the plaintiff i.e. cheque, promissory note, receipt etc. and the present suit is false and bundle of lies.
7. The plaintiff filed her replication to the written statement, filed by the defendant and has denied the allegations leveled by the defendant in his written statement and she reaffirmed her stance, as averred in the petition.
8. Vide order dated 27.05.2014, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in this case:
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. Suit No. 16/2014 67,200/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 1.5% per month, as prayed for? OPP.
ii) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD.
iii) Relief.
9. In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff herself deposed as PW1. She also examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar, her husband as PW2 and Smt. Sita Rani, her cousin sister as PW3. All the three witnesses deposed on the lines of the plaint and all were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
10. Thereafter, matter was fixed for defendant's evidence. Defendant himself deposed as DW1. He also examined Sh. Surinder Kumar, his friend as DW2 and Sh. Sohan Singh, his neighbour as DW3. All the three witnesses deposed on the lines of the written statement and all were crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
11. The court has heard Ld. Counsel for parties and has perused the record with their able assistance. Issue wise findings are as follows: Suit No. 16/2014 ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 67,200/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 1.5% per month, as prayed for? OPP.
12. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff and to discharge her onus, she deposed herself as PW1 and also examined PW2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar and PW3 Smt. Sita Rani. PW1 Ms. Bhavna has deposed that the defendant is living near her residence in the same locality and both the families are well acquainted with each other. Her family had friendship with defendant's family. On 20.07.2012, the defendant approached her and requested her for grant of loan of Rs. 60,000/ for one year which was required by him for employing in his work of liaison, undertaken by him for his customers with electricity discoms.
13. She consulted her husband and after obtaining his approval, for the sake of maintaining good relations with neighbours, advanced a loan of Rs. 60,000/ in cash to the defendant, out of her Suit No. 16/2014 domestic/household savings. The defendant agreed to pay interest @ 1.5% per month and under took to repay the loan within one year. Since she trusted the defendant, no loan documents were executed between her and the defendant. The entire transaction took place in the presence of her cousin viz. Smt. Sita, at plaintiff's residence. The defendant paid interest of Rs. 900/ per month regularly till 20.06.2013. In June, 2013, she requested the defendant to repay the loan amount, but the defendant not only ignored her request, but also stopped paying interest thereafter.
14. On 02.02.2014, at about 5:30 pm, she again requested the defendant to repay the loan amount, but he and his son Tanu abused and gave merciless beatings to her. They also extended threats of eliminating her plaintiff and entire family. She lodged a complaint on 03.02.2014 with P.S. Subzi Mandi, copy of which is Ex. PW1/1. She issued a legal notice dated 05.02.2014 to the defendant which was sent through registered A.D. as well as Speed Post. Copy of legal notice is Ex. PW1/2 and original postal receipts are Ex. PW1/3 (Colly). The acknowledgment card is Ex. PW1/4. Defendant did not bother to give any reply to legal notice dated 05.02.2014. She has mentioned the factum of advancing loan to the defendant in her income tax return for Suit No. 16/2014 the assessment year 201314, financial year 201213, which is Ex. PW1/5 (Colly). The certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/6.
15. During crossexamination, PW1 stated that even prior to the present loan transaction, she used to lend money to the defendant on his asking. The loan was advanced on 30.07.2012 at about 23:00 p.m. Occasionally, she lends money to other neighbours for helping them. She does not have any money lending license. Her average monthly income from boutique business is about Rs. 25,000/. No neighbour was present at the time when the loan was advanced. She admitted that she had issued demand legal notice after the incident of assault which took place on 02.02.2014. She has been filing IT Returns for the last 810 years. She admitted that she has filed the present case after she was assaulted. There was no acrimony between her and the defendant till she was assaulted on 02.02.2014.
16. PW2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar deposed that she is husband of the plaintiff. The defendant is living near to his residence in the same locality and their respective families are well acquainted with each other. The defendant approached his wife on 20.07.2012 and Suit No. 16/2014 requested her for grant of loan of Rs. 60,000/ for one year which was required by him for employing in his liaison work. His wife consulted him and after obtaining his approval, she gave a loan of Rs. 60,000/ in cash to the defendant. The loan transaction took place in the presence of his wife's cousin namely Smt. Sita at his residence. The defendant regularly paid interest till 20.06.2013 at the agreed rate of Rs. 900/ per month. However, in June, 2013, he ignored the request of his wife to repay the loan amount. He also stopped paying interest.
17. During crossexamination, PW2 admitted that his wife alone used to take interest from the defendant and he was not present at the time of taking interest. They keep cash in the range of Rs. 50,0001,00,000/ in their house for household expenses and extending financial help to their near and dears. He admitted that the quarrel had taken place with his wife and the defendant had stopped paying interest prior to the said incident. He is not maintaining any register pertaining to grant of loans. He had also given loan to the defendant several times in the past.
18. PW3 Smt. Sita Rani deposed that on 20.07.2012, she visited the plaintiff at her residence. In the afternoon, the defendant Suit No. 16/2014 came and requested the plaintiff to advance a loan of Rs. 60,000/ for about one year as she was in dire need of money for business purposes. The plaintiff introduced the defendant to her stating that the defendant is her family friend and neighbour. After consulting her husband on phone, the plaintiff gave a loan of Rs. 60,000/ in cash to the defendant. It was agreed that the defendant will pay interest @ 1.5% per month. Later on, she came to know that the defendant has refused to repay the loan amount as well as interest due for few months and that the defendant and his son had assaulted the plaintiff regarding which the plaintiff had lodged a complaint with the police.
19. During crossexamination, PW3 stated that she did not know the defendant prior to loan transaction in question. She came to meet the plaintiff at her residence on 20.07.2012 and also to attend birthday function of her granddaughter. She regularly visited the plaintiff, but she cannot tell the exact house number of the plaintiff. The defendant came at the plaintiff's place on 20.07.2012 at about 2:30 pm. Defendant came alone. She cannot recall the denomination of currency notes comprising the said sum of Rs. 60,000/. The rate of interest for the said loan amount was fixed at 1.5% per month between the parties. No document regarding the said loan transaction was Suit No. 16/2014 executed. She came to know about the quarrel and assault upon the plaintiff in the month of April, 2014. She came to know in April, 2014 that the defendant had refused to repay the said loan amount to the plaintiff.
20. DW1 Sh. Ashok @ Pappu deposed that he never took any loan from the plaintiff and plaintiff has not filed any supporting documents with the present suit. The plaintiff has not come before this court with clean hands. The intention of the plaintiff is bad and she wants to extort money from the defendant and defendant never taken any loan, neither paid any interest to the plaintiff, nor executed any documents in favour of the plaintiff.
21. The defendant is running business of installing new electric connection from the concerned department and at the outset, he receives security amount from the customers alongwith his service charges. The plaintiff and defendant is residing in the same vicinity and both are neighbours. A quarrel took place on 03.02.2014 between the defendant and plaintiff and matter was reported to the concerned police station. Due to this reason, the plaintiff was adamant and she has filed the present false suit. It is habit of the plaintiff to file false Suit No. 16/2014 suits against several innocent persons and she is extorting money and plaintiff is cheating several innocent persons.
22. During crossexamination, DW1 stated that he does not know as to what is written in his affidavit, Ex. DW1/A as he does not know English language. He again said, affidavit filed in the present case. He admitted that he and Sh. Surender Kumar, Sh. Sohan Singh (DWs) are good friends as they are his neighbours and they have come to depose in his favour on his asking/request. He admitted that he has neither lodged any complaint, nor issued any notice to the plaintiff for alleged extortion of money by her. He cannot specify any incident or date when the plaintiff tried to extort money from him. He admitted that in his area of business i.e. installing of new electric meter, he needs large funds for timely execution of customers orders. The plaintiff lends friendly loan to persons known to her in the colony. He denied that he took loan from the plaintiff. He denied that on 20.07.2012, the plaintiff in the presence of her cousin, Smt. Sita lent him a sum of Rs. 60,000/ on interest @ 1.5% p.m. He denied that he paid interest thereupon till 20.06.2013.
23. No quarrel took place with the plaintiff on 03.02.2014, Suit No. 16/2014 contrary to what is written by him in para no.7 of his affidavit, Ex. DW1/A. He denied that a quarrel took place on 02.02.2014 with the plaintiff when she asked for repayment of loan amount of Rs. 60,000/. He also denied that neither he, nor his son, Tanu or both abused and gave beatings to the plaintiff and also extended threats and intimidation of eliminating plaintiff and her family. He admitted that plaintiff never threatened him of committing any wrong doings. He does not have any proof or evidence to show that the plaintiff has filed false suits against innocent persons and she is cheating several persons or extorting money.
24. DW2 Sh. Surinder Kumar deposed that he is well known to the plaintiff and defendant for long. He is doing private job. He had taken the loan from the plaintiff and plaintiff pledged/mortgaged the golden ornaments about five tolas and thereafter, he paid interest to the plaintiff and also paid the loan installment on time. After clearing the loan amount, the plaintiff has not returned back the golden ornaments to him till date. It is the practice of plaintiff to lend money to needy persons after taking gold ornaments or property documents as security.
Suit No. 16/2014
25. The defendant is well settled in his family and he has never taken loan from the plaintiff. The work of the defendant is very good for his livelihood. A quarrel had taken place between the plaintiff and defendant on 03.02.2014. At that time, he was present on the spot and plaintiff threatened to defendant that she will implicate him in false criminal or civil case. The plaintiff has filed the present false suit against the defendant.
26. During crossexamination, DW2 stated that he knows the contents of his affidavit, Ex. DW2/B. On contrary to what is mentioned in para no.06 of his affidavit, no quarrel took place between the plaintiff and defendant on 03.02.2014. He cannot say how the incident of quarrel on 03.02.2014 got incorporated in his affidavit. He admitted that he and the defendant, Sh. Ashok are good friends and he has to come to depose in his favour on his request. He admitted that he has not mentioned any date or period when he took loan from the plaintiff vide para no.03 of his affidavit, Ex. DW2/B. He also admitted that he has not given the details of the gold ornaments which were pledged and also did not give any details of either principal loan sum or the rate and amount of interest, paid thereupon. He has neither filed, nor brought any proof or evidence regarding the loan transaction. Suit No. 16/2014
27. He did not take any receipt from the plaintiff. He also admitted that he did not lodge either any complaint with police or give any notice demanding his gold back from the plaintiff. He has not mentioned the names of his persons who took loan from the plaintiff after pledging/mortgaging their properties with her. The defendant remains in touch with him everyday, but he do not know if defendant took a loan of Rs. 60,000/ from the plaintiff on 20.07.2012. He was not present at the spot on 20.07.2012 when the transaction between the parties took place. He also admitted that quarrel/altercation took place between the parties on 02.02.2014.
28. DW3 Sh. Sohan Singh deposed that he knows the plaintiff and defendant for long period. The plaintiff is doing business of money lending without license since long. He has introduced needy persons to the plaintiff in connection of taking loan several times. The plaintiff gives loan to the needy persons after taking pledge of gold or property documents as well as pronote, blank cheques without date etc. All the formalities used to be completed by the plaintiff and only thereafter, she used to give loan to the needy persons. The plaintiff has filed a false case against the defendant.
Suit No. 16/2014
29. During crossexamination, DW3 admitted that he has not mentioned any date or period or the names of the persons when and who took loan from the plaintiff anywhere in his affidavit. He does not have any proof or evidence to show that the needy persons pledged gold or property documents to the plaintiff. He has never pledged any property or gold or took any loan from the plaintiff. He and defendant, Sh. Ashok Kumar meet almost daily as they are neighbours, but he does not know about the loan transaction between the parties that took place on 20.07.2012.
30. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that admittedly, no document has been produced by the plaintiff to establish that the alleged loan transaction took place on 20.07.2012. As per norms laid down by the Government, no person can conduct transaction for an amount exceeding Rs. 20,000/ in cash. In her crossexamination, PW1 Smt. Bhavna has stated that he had advanced the loan to defendant on 30.07.2012, whereas, throughout her case is that she had advanced the loan on 20.07.2012 which reflects the falsity of the plaintiff's case. PW3 Smt. Sita Rani is not an independent witness, but she is a close relative of the plaintiff. Suit No. 16/2014
31. The testimony of PW3 does not inspire confidence as she has stated in her crossexamination that she regularly goes to the residence of the plaintiff, but she cannot tell house number of the plaintiff's residence. She cannot recall the denomination of currency notes given to the defendant by the plaintiff although she claimed that the plaintiff had counted the money before handing it over to the defendant. PW3 has claimed that she had gone to the residence of the plaintiff to attend the birthday function of granddaughter. If it is assumed that her testimony is correct, other guests/invitees to the birthday function ought to have been present and witnessed the alleged loan transaction. The plaintiff has failed to name any such invitee/guest. A quarrel had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant on 03.02.2014. The matter was reported to the concerned police station. Due to vengeance, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and she wants to extort money from the defendant. DW2 and DW3 are independent witnesses who have deposed that defendant is well settled and he has never taken loan from the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs.
32. Per contra, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that Suit No. 16/2014 the plaintiff and both the witnesses examined by her have been consistent throughout in their testimonies. Although, no document was executed at the time of entering into the loan transaction, but the plaintiff had shown the loan transaction in her income tax return, Ex. PW1/5 (Colly) for the financial year 201314. In the balancesheet, under the column current assets, loan and advances, the plaintiff has shown loan of Rs. 60,000/ advanced to the defendant. The IT Return was filed by the plaintiff on 19.08.2013 i.e. much prior to the quarrel which took place on 02.02.2014. Moreover, the defendant has not crossexamined the plaintiff on the aspect of IT Return, Ex. PW1/5 at all and therefore, the defendant is deemed to have admitted the factum of filing of the said IT Return and the loan transaction of Rs. 60,000/ shown therein.
33. The defendant never crossexamined PW3 on the aspect of presence of other persons on the occasion of granddaughter's birthday. As a matter of fact, the loan was advanced in the presence of PW3 Smt. Sita Rani alone and therefore no such questions were asked to her during her crossexamination. Similarly, no suggestion was given to PW3 that no loan was advanced on 20.07.2012 and therefore, the defendant is deemed to have admitted the testimony of PW3 Suit No. 16/2014 pertaining to advancing the loan of Rs. 60,000/ by plaintiff to the defendant. A perusal of crossexamination of PW2 shows that a suggestion was given to husband of plaintiff that his wife alone used to take interest from the defendant which implies that the defendant had taken loan in question from plaintiff and he had been paying interest, as claimed by the plaintiff. Further, another suggestion was given to PW2 that prior to the quarrel with plaintiff, defendant had stopped paying interest to the plaintiff which again implies that the defendant had taken loan and he had been paying interest to the plaintiff which was stopped later on.
34. DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar has also admitted during his crossexamination that plaintiff lends friendly loans to people known to her in the colony. Similarly, DW2 & DW3 have also deposed that plaintiff advances loans to people. DW1 has also expressed his inability in proving the plaintiff had earlier filed false suits against innocent persons and she has been cheating several persons and extorting money. On one hand, defendant is alleging that plaintiff has filed the present suit due to a quarrel which took place on 03.02.2014, but he denied this fact in his crossexamination which establishes that the defendant's testimony lacks veracity and he is not worthy of credit. Suit No. 16/2014
35. The plaintiff has duly proved complain lodged by her with SHO, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi on 03.02.2014 which bears seal of the police station and particulars of the D.D. Entry wherein information regarding the said complaint was recorded. The plaintiff has also proved legal notice dated 05.02.2014, Ex. PW1/2, postal receipts, Ex. PW1/3 (Colly) and registered A.D. acknowledgment card, Ex. PW1/4 which establishes that the defendant had received the said legal notice on 10.02.2014. Therefore, the suit of plaintiff deserves to be decreed with costs.
36. The court is of the considered view that there is merit in the case of the plaintiff. Balance of probabilities lie in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had shown the loan transaction in her income tax return, Ex. PW1/5 (Colly) for the financial year 201314 which is relevant U/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the balance sheet, under the column current assets, loan and advances, the plaintiff has shown loan of Rs. 60,000/ advanced to the defendant. The IT Return was filed by the plaintiff on 19.08.2013 i.e. much prior to the quarrel which allegedly took place on 02.02.2014. The defendant has not crossexamined the plaintiff on the aspect of IT Return, Ex. Suit No. 16/2014 PW1/5 at all and therefore, he is deemed to have admitted the factum of filing of the said IT Return as well as the loan transaction of Rs. 60,000/ shown therein.
37. The defendant did not put any question on the aspect of presence of other persons on the occasion of granddaughter's birthday during crossexamination of PW3. No suggestion was given to PW3 that no loan was advanced on 20.07.2012 and therefore, the defendant is deemed to have admitted the testimony of PW3 pertaining to advancing the loan of Rs. 60,000/ by plaintiff to the defendant. A perusal of crossexamination of PW2 shows that a suggestion was given to husband of plaintiff that his wife alone used to take interest from the defendant which implies that the defendant admits that he had taken the loan in question from plaintiff and he had been paying interest, as claimed by the plaintiff. Further, another suggestion was given to PW2 that prior to quarrel with plaintiff, defendant had stopped paying interest to the plaintiff which again implies that the defendant admits that he had taken loan and he had been paying interest to the plaintiff which was stopped later on.
38. DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar has also admitted during his Suit No. 16/2014 crossexamination that plaintiff lends friendly loans to people known to her in the colony. Similarly, DW2 & DW3 have also deposed that plaintiff advances loans to people. DW1 has also expressed his inability in proving the plaintiff had earlier filed false suits against innocent persons and she has been cheating several persons and extorting money. On one hand, defendant is alleging that plaintiff has filed the present suit due to a quarrel which took place on 03.02.2014, but he denied this fact in his crossexamination which impeaches credibility of testimony of DW1 Sh. Ashok @ Pappu Meterwalla.
39. The plaintiff has duly proved complain lodged by her with SHO, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi on 03.02.2014 which bears seal of the police station and particulars of the D.D. entry wherein information regarding the said complaint was recorded. The plaintiff has also proved legal notice dated 05.02.2014, Ex. PW1/2, postal receipts, Ex. PW1/3 (Colly) and registered A.D. acknowledgment card, Ex. PW1/4 which establishes that the defendant had received the said legal notice on 10.02.2014.
40. There is no merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that PW3 is not worthy of credit as she has not been able to Suit No. 16/2014 disclose the denomination of currency notes given by plaintiff to the defendant and also disclose house number of the plaintiff's residence. No government policy pertaining to prohibition of cash loan transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000/ has been placed and proved by the defendant. As a matter of fact, there is no omnibus prohibition of cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000/ and the prohibition is confined to certain categories of transactions and that to in certain context only. Accordingly, the court holds that the plaintiff has been successful in establishing that she had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 60,000/ to the defendant on 20.07.2012 at interest of 1.5% per month. This issue is therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2: Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD.
41. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant and he has failed to discharge his onus. Moreover, in view of the findings on issue no. 1, the court holds that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action Suit No. 16/2014 against the defendant. This issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.3: Relief.
42. In view of the findings on issues no. 1 and 2, the suit of plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for Rs. 67,200/ alongwith interest at the agreed rate of 1.5% per month w.e.f. 21.04.2014 till the date of its realization. Costs are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANDEEP GARG)
on 09.03.2015 Administrative Civil JudgeCum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/09.03.2015
Suit No. 16/2014
Suit No. 16/2014
09.03.2015
Present : Sh. Vikrant Mittal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. P.N. Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has filed his fee certificate. Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open Court today, suit for recovery of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 67,200/ alongwith interest at the agreed rate of 1.5% per month w.e.f. 21.04.2014 till the date of its realization. Costs are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sandeep Garg) ACJcumARC (Central) Delhi/09.03.2015 Suit No. 16/2014