Delhi District Court
Asha vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 March, 2026
CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030023932023
CS SCJ/1245/2023
DLWT030023932023
SMT ASHA
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar
R/o BG-6/D-355-D,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-63.
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
2. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
At M3J9+WVC, State Co-operative Bank Buidling,
Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041
3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Through its Commissioner,
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Civic Center Digitally
signed by
Minto Road, JLN Marg, Delhi-02. VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
AGARWAL
KUMAR Date:
4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AGARWAL 2026.03.23
16:45:24
Through its Deputy Commissioner, +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),
PAGE 1/18 23.03.2026
CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Keshav Puram Zone
At Dr. Satpal Sachdeva Marg,
Keshav Puram, Tri Nagar
Delhi-34.
5. MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
At 90A, Udyog Vihar,
Sec, 18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015
6. MS. DIVIYA KOHLI
D/o Sh. Anil Kumar
7. SH. RAJU
S/o Anil Kumar
Both R/o
BG-6/D-355-D,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-63.
......DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff seeking declaration and mandatory injunction. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of the civil death of her husband namely, Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Pyare Lal, who has been missing since 15.11.2010 and seeking further a relief of mandatory injunction in favor of the VIVEK plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendants, KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 2/18 23.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.23 16:45:32 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI its officials and employees etc. to release all the benefits to the plaintiff and other beneficiaries.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT
2. It is pertinent to mention here that intially the plaintiff have impleaded the seven defendants in the present suit, however, the defendant no. 1,4, 5, 6 and 7 were deleted from the array of parties vide detailed order dt. 05.05.2025. It is clarified that defendant no. 2 was not deleted vide the said order, however, in the amended memo of parties filed by plaintiff, the name of defendant no.2 / SDM has been omitted and therefore, to avoid any confusion, the previous memo of parties has been taken up for considertion.
VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
3. It has been averred by the plaintiff, Smt Asha is the legally wedded wife of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Pyare Lal, R/o BG-6/355D, Block BG 6, Pachim Vihar, Delhi and plaintiff has been living with her family including her husband, Sh. Anil Kumar, her daughter Ms. Divya Kohli and her son Sh. Raju at the above stated address since 2007. That the husband of the plaintiff, Sh. Anil Kumar has been missing since 15.11.2010 as he had gone to Saharanpur, U.P. and from there he did not come back, and since then whereabouts of him is not known to anyone. That the plaintiff and her family put all there efforts to trace and search Sh. Anil Kumar from relatives and VIVEK friends but no clue was got about her husband, Sh. Anil Kumar. That KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 3/18 23.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.23 16:45:38 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI the plaintiff informed at the PS Janakpuri, Janpath, Distt. Saharanpur, U.P. about the missing of Sh. Anil Kumar and gave a written complaint dt. 15.11.2010, but all exercise proved futile and no result yielded. That the plaintiff ran from pillar to post, however, the office of the police also failed to traced out about the missing Sh. Anil Kumar despite the efforts made by the police and recorded the report in their PS that Sh. Anil Kumar is untraceable. 3.1. It is further stated that more than 7 years have now passed and till date the whereabouts of Sh. Anil Kumar is not know to anyone though efforts made and therefore the plaintiff and her family members have presumed that Sh. Anil Kumar is no more alive and continuous 7 years have been passed since 15.10.2010 Sh. Anil Kumar is missing and thereafter whereabouts are not known, therefore in the eye of law Sh. Anil Kumar is deemed/presumed to be dead person. That even the police has also not able to trace out about said Sh. Anil Kumar till date and the police of P.S. Janakpuri Janpath, Distt. Sharanpur has issued a untraceable report regarding the husband of the plaintiff.
3.2. It is further stated that Sh. Anil Kumar during his lifetime got LIC policies and the matured sum and benefits could only be given to the LRs. of a dead person therefore the plaintiff approached the office of LIC office but since the death certificate of Sh. Anil Kumar was not there, therefore on taking the legal advise, the plaintiff approached the competent court for a decree of declaration, declaring VIVEK Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Pyare Lal missing since 15-11-2010 is dead KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 4/18 23.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.23 16:45:46 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI and also for releasing the amount of the LIC policy in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Pyare Lal be released in favour of the plaintiff and other LRs being the beneficiary. The LIC office was also made party in the said suit which was registered as CS no. 1205/2018, titled as Asha Devi versus LIC and ors" which was concluded on merits vide order dated 04-07-2019 whereby the Hon'ble Court partly decreed the suit and directed the LIC of India to released the amount under the LIC policy of Sh. Anil Kumar in favour of the plaintiff and other beneficiaries. That the relief declaring Sh. Anil Kumar is dead cannot be granted and the relief was granted that the sum assured under the LIC policy as above be given to the LRs vide order dated 04-07-2019 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS no. 1205/2018, titled as Asha Devi versus LIC and ors". 3.3. It is pertinent to mention here that the situation is now same as without the death certificate or decree of declaration that the person whose whereabouts are not known for 7 years continuously be presumed to be dead but the earlier order dated 04-07-2019 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was only for getting the sum assured under the LIC policies but the said decree is not sufficient for getting the other benefits to the beneficiaries and therefore the present suit is being filed so that every time the plaintiff should not approach for the decree of declaration of the presumption of death of Sh. Anil Kumar in order to avail all the benefits in present or in future under the capacity of LRs. That the plaintiff requires the need of the declaration of Sh. Anil Kumar presumed to be dead and VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by PAGE 5/18 23.03.2026 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.23 16:45:53 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI the said declaration shall be taken for all purpose where the death certificate of Sh. Anil Kumar is required necessary. The plaintiff is a widow now in view of the forgoing and intended to apply the pension being given to the Widow by the office of the Delhi at SDM office, Nangloi, M3J9, WVC, State Co-operative Bank Building, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041, The policy with Max life Insurance Co Ltd bearing policy no. 470612953 in name of Sh. Anil kumar, nominee Mrs. Asha, office-90-A, Udyog Vihar, Sec-18 Gurgaon (Haryana) 122015, and also for getting the mutuation as well as transfer of the ownership right of the property bearing no BG-6/D-355-D Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063 from the concerned department, for death certificate to MCD through its commissioner in the name of the plaintiff and other beneficiaries being the Legal heirs which is in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar and for all other future purposes which the plaintiff and other Legal heirs used to meet the requirement of the certificate of the death of Sh. Anil Kumar in present and in future. That under these circumstances, the plaintiff has been left with no other option but to seek the decree of declaration from this Hon'ble Court.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT No. 2/ SDM
4. No formal WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.2, however, a report has been filed by his office as per the report sought VIVEK on the field staff, it has been found that Sh. Anil Kumar has been KUMAR missing since 15.11.2010, when he had gone to Sharanpur U.P. and AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 6/18 23.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.23 16:45:59 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI since then till date he has been missing. That the statement of one person namely Ishu Khandewal was also recorded in this regard.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT No. 3 & 4:-
5. As per the written statement, the preliminary objections have been taken that the suit is time barred since the year of missing of the husband of the plaintiff from 15.11.2010 and the filling of the present suit as per the provisions of Limitation Act. That as per Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a person who is unheard for more than seven years is presumed to be dead and the said section does not speak about the date and place of death, the date and place of death of a missing person has to be determined by the competent Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produces before the court. That in the Untrace/Status report from the concerned Police Department has neither write down that husband of plaintiff is dead or alive, which is relevant in such matters for the adjudication before the Hon'ble Court and after the decision of the court the answering defendants can issue such certificate to the person. That as per order dated 29th December 2011 of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Government of India) In the view of the above, this issue has been referred to the union ministry of Law & Justice for their advice. The ministry has advised that:
"The earliest date to which the death can be presumed can only be the date when the suit or claim of that right is files as has been held in the matter of Jeshankar vs Bai Divali, reported in VIVEK (1920)22Bom Lr 771. The issue has been made more clear on the KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 7/18 23.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.23 16:46:05 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Point of date of death in the matter reported in AIR 1945 madras 440 Bhagat vs. LIC Madras wherein it was observed that in the absence of probable motive of foul play or accident One has to speculate as to cause of his disappearance, and it could not be presumed that he was dead, on the date of his disappearance and in the absence of proof that he was alive the only conclusion possible is that he as at time the question arose (date of Plaint) In view of the foregoing when the provision of section 13(3) of the Act are specific that registration will be on the basis of court order, an entry be made in the relevant record on the basis of court order only and as has been held by the Courts the date of death may be mentioned on which plaintiff approached to the Court."
5.1. In reply on merits, it is submitted that it is for the plaintiff and police officers to prove before the Hon'ble Court that the plaintiff making efforts to found the missing person. It is submitted that the present suit is hopelessly time barred from the year of missing to the filling of the present suit for declaration. It is submitted that no cause of action has ever arose against the answering defendant/MCD. All the other averments of the plaint are denied.
ISSUES :-
6. After pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed vide order dated 24.11.2025:-
Issue no.1: Whether Sh. Anil Kumar, husband of plaintiff has been missing since 15.11.2010, when he had gone to Saharanpur, UP? OPP VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 8/18 23.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.23 16:46:12 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Issue no.2: Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration of civil death of her husband Sh. Anil Kumar? OPP Issue no.3: Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction against MCD, as prayed for? OPP EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF :-
7. In plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit ire. Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:
Ex.PW1/1(colly) : The certified copy of order / judgment dt. 04.07.2019.
Ex.PW1/2 : The copy of missing report dt. 15.11.2010. Ex.PW1/3 : The copy of publication by police dt. 30.10.2010. Ex.PW1/4 : The copy of untraceable report. Ex.PW1/5(Colly) : The copy of legal notice to MCD dt. 21.08.2023.
Ex.PW1/6 : The copy of postal receipt. Ex.PW1/7 : The copy of track report.
Mark A : The copy of electricity bill Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) : The copy of election card of Sh. Anil Kumar.
Thereafter, the witness has been cross-examined VIVEK accordingly and PE, stood closed vod. 16.12.2025.
KUMAR AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.03.23 PAGE 9/18 23.03.2026 16:46:19 +0530 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 7.1. It is pertinent to mention here that no evidence was led on behalf of defendants and accordingly DE stood closed vod. 17.01.2026.
FINDINGS:-
8. I have heard the rival arguments advanced by both the Ld. Counsel at length in the present suit have perused the court record.
ISSUE NO. 1 and 2 :-
8.1. Both the issues being interconnected are taken together.
The onus to prove the issues was upon the plaintiff. Before going into merits of the case, I find it pertinent to discuss the relevant law on the subject involved in the present suit regarding declaration of civil death.
8.2. It is observed that the jurisdiction of a civil court to grant declaratory relief flows from section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:
" 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.- Digitally signed by Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any VIVEK right as to any property, may institute a suit against any VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such AGARWAL Date:
2026.03.23 16:46:25 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 10/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.--A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence"
34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.-
Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.--A trustee of property is a , he would be a trustee."
8.3. Strictly speaking, the relief as to declaration of civil death does not fall within the purview of section 34 of Specific Digitally Relief Act, 1963, since generally neither it relates to the legal signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR character nor right as to property of the person seeking such KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.03.23 declaration nor can the civil authorities be said to be interested 16:46:31 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 11/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI to deny such character or right. Moreover, such declaration is generally sought without seeking any further relief. However, it is no more res integral that section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not exhaustive of all kinds of declaratory reliefs and that a declaratory suit can still be maintained which may not fall within its purview. In Maravedi Ramachandra Eddy v. Rondure Shush Eddy, AIR 1967 SC 436, It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"In our opinion, s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section. It follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act."
8.4. It was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that declaratory reliefs falling outside Specific Relief Act may fall under the general provisions of Civil Procedure Code, like section 9 or Order VII Rule 7 CPC. This was reiterated in General Films Exchange Ltd. v. HUH. Maharajah Sir Breathing Singh Doe, AIR 1975 SC 1810, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court: Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2026.03.23
16:46:38
+0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 12/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI "It has long been established that the general power vested in the Courts in India under the Civil Procedure Code to entertain all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is barred by any enactment for the time being in force, does not carry with it the general power of making declarations except in so far as such power is expressly conferred by statute."
8.5. Therefore, section 34 of Specific Relief Act cannot be held to be the sole repository of the cases in which declaratory decrees may be made and the Courts have the power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section, and such declarations can be granted even though no consequential relief is capable of being granted. Further, there are judicial precedents to hold that a suit for declaration of civil death of a person unheard of for more than seven years is maintainable. In Swat & Others V's Ab hay & Others, MAUN/MG/0334/2016, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held such a suit to be maintainable. The relevant observation are as under:
" 7. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court as above, I am of the firm opinion that the Civil Court acting under Section 9, has inherent powers in its plenary jurisdiction de hoes with reference to Digitally Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act to grant relief signed by VIVEK qua Section 108 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the VIVEK KUMAR reason that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
required to be called in aid does not appear to be 2026.03.23 sound." 16:46:44 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 13/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 8.6. In Vijayawada Shrinkage Reval v. Irishism Shrinkage Reval & Ora., 2016 CSC On Line Bim 1898, It was held that a civil court has the power to grant declaratory relief of civil death. It was observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court as under :
"10. It is true that only Civil Court has power to give surest relief of declaration in such matters. The inquiry under section 372 of the Act is limited. However, the Court which conducts the inquiry under Section 372 of the Act is a civil Court and therefore the said Court is competent to decide the issue of declaration of death of Shrinkage Vishnu pant Reval."
8.7. Lastly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. Anuradhapura, AIR 2004 SC 2070, held as under:
" On the basis of the above said authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which were sum up in the following words. The law as to presumption of death remains the same whether in Common Law of England or in the statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the scheme of Evidence Act, though Sections 107 and 108 are drafted as two Sections, in effect, Section 108 is an exception to the rule enacted in Section 107. The human life shown to be in existence, at a given point of time which according to Section 107 ought to be a point within 30 years Digitally signed calculated backwards from the date when the question by VIVEK arises, is presumed to continue to be living. The rule is VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR subject to a proviso or exception as contained in AGARWAL Date:
2026.03.23 Section 108. If the persons, who would have 16:46:49 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 14/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI naturally and in the ordinary course of human affairs heard of the person in question, have not so heard of him for seven years the presumption raised under Section 107 ceases to operate. Section 107 has the effect of shifting the burden of proving that the person is dead on him who affirms the fact. Section 108 subject to its applicability being attracted, has the effect of shifting the burden of proof back on the on the SA.18.16 one who asserts the fact of that person being alive. The presumption raised under Section 108 is a limited presumption confined only to presuming the fac tum of death of the person who's life or death is in issue. Though it will be presumed that the person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. There is no presumption as to the facts and circumstances under which the person may have died. The presumption as to death by reference to Section 108 would arise only on lapse of seven years and would not by applying any logic or reasoning be permitted to be raised on expiry of 6 years and 364 days or at any time short of it. An occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a Court, Tribunal or before an authority who is called upon to decide as to whether a person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum and in any legal proceedings the occasion for raising does not arise".
8.8. In Narbada v. Ram Dayak, AIR 1968 Raj. 48, it was held that under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, presumption about the death of a person is to be drawn when the Digitally signed by dispute is brought to the Court and death can be presumed on the VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.03.23 16:46:55 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 15/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI date on which the suit was filed and it cannot be given a further retrospective effect.
8.9. Coming to the facts of the case, there is nothing on record to discredit the testimony of PW1 / plaintiff. The report filed from the SDM office, as mentioned above duly corrobrate the case of plaintiff. Again the police report Ex.PW1/4 and the relevant documents ExPW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 clearly support the case of plaintiff that her husband has been missing since 15.11.2010, when he went to Sharanpur, UP. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the husband of plaintiff namely Anil Kumar S/oPyare Lal has not been seen or heard for last more than seven years before the date of filing of the suit, by the plaintiff and her neighbors, who would naturally heard of him, if he had been alive, and therefore, the presumption can be certainly drawn regarding the death of Anil Kumar S/o Pyare Lal, u/S 108 of IEA (114 BSA). Accordingly, plaintiff is held entitled to a declaration that Sh.Anil Kumar S/o Pyare Lal be presumed dead. The declaration of his civil death shall be effective from the date of filing of the suit in the light of judgment of Narbada v. Ram Dayal (supra).
Issue no. 1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2026.03.23
16:47:06
+0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 16/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ISSUE NO. 3
9. As far as the prayer for release of all the benefits to the LRs of plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff has already deleted the other defendants, however, as far as issuance of death certificate is concerned, nothing has been brought on record by defendant MCD that death certificate cannot be granted without specific date of death being mentioned in such cases where a declaration of civil death has been sought from the court. Again, the direction can be certainly passed by the court to the MCD as well as the department concerned.
Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF
10. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Pyare Lal is declared as dead from the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 28.08.2023. Defendant / MCD or the concerned office of SDM, as the case may be, is hereby directed to issue death certificate in respect of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Pyare Lal, R/o BG-6/355D, Block BG 6, Pachim Vihar, Delhi and his date of death shall be taken VIVEK KUMAR to be the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 28.08.2023. Again AGARWAL in the given circumstance, the place of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.23 16:47:12 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 17/18 23.03.2026 CS SCJ 1245/23 ASHA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Pyare Lal, R/o BG-6/355D, Block BG 6, Pachim Vihar, Delhi shall be taken as Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No order as Digitally signed by to costs. File be consigned to Record Room. VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.23 AGARWAL 16:47:19 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/23.03.2026 (Announced in open court On 23.03.2026).
Note: This judgment contains 18 pages and all the pages have beenDigitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR checked and signed by me. AGARWAL KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.23 16:47:26 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/23.03.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 18/18 23.03.2026