Delhi District Court
Om Prakash Grover vs Mr. S. C. Singhal on 29 September, 2016
In the Court of Ms. Sonam Singh, Civil Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi
Suit No. 93468/16 and 96023/16
Om Prakash Grover
S/o Late Sh. Kaura Ram,
R/o B-1/199 ( Ground Floor),
Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058 ...Plaintiff/Respondent
Versus Mr. S. C. Singhal, Advocate R/o B-1/279, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 ...Defendant/Counter Claimant Date of Institution: 14.05.2003 Date of final decision: 29.09.2016 Judgment:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,17,500.00/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the same and also dispose of the the counter claim filed by the Counter Claimant/Defendant for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest.
Plaintiff's version as per the plaint
2. Plaintiff has made the following averments in his plaint:
a) The Plaintiff engaged the Defendant as his counsel in the case titled as: "O.P. Grover Vs. MCD". The said case was an appeal preferred by the Plaintiff, before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, THC, Delhi.
b) The fees of Rs. 7,500/- was settled between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and it was also duly paid by the Plaintiff.
c) The Plaintiff had observed that after filing of the appeal, the conduct of the Defendant was not satisfactory, as per the professional norms expected from the Defendant, who was from the legal profession.
d) At the time of filing of the appeal, the Defendant had informed the Plaintiff that there is no need of the Plaintiff to appear in the civil cases personally and as such, unless specifically asked to appear in person, on some date of hearing. The Defendant assured the Plaintiff that he will be looking after the case himself and appear in the case, on each and every date of case. However, the conduct of the Defendant was not in conformity with the assurance given.
e) The Presiding Officer of the MCD Tribunal where the appeal of the Plaintiff was pending, had left and the said court was without a Presiding Officer. The Defendant was careless in attending the court and this was pointed out to the Defendant but the Defendant would avoid the matter and also rebuke the Plaintiff, stating that he knows his responsibilities well. Further, he told the Plaintiff that whenever there is a Presiding Officer appointed to the deal with MCD appeal cases, he will appear and deal with the case.
f) The Plaintiff reminded the Defendant, few days before the day of hearing that the case was fixed for 21.04.2003, before a new Presiding Officer of MCD Tribunal and that the Defendant should definitely attend the case, since the Plaintiff is in-disposed and will not be able to attend. The Defendant assured the Plaintiff that he will attend the case and also told the Plaintiff that there is no need for the Plaintiff to attend the case personally.
g) On 21.04.2003, the Defendant did not appear before the MCD Tribunal and as a result of which, the appeal was dismissed in default. The Plaintiff had acted on the instructions of the Defendant and thus, did not appear before the Tribunal.
h) On coming to know on 22.04.2003, the Plaintiff telephonically called the Defendant regarding the said fact but the Defendant rebuked him and said that it is a fact that the appeal has been dismissed, as he did not appear. The Defendant also told the Plaintiff that he can appoint someone else and used harsh words against the Plaintiff.
i) Due to the non-appearance on part of the Defendant, which had resulted in dismissal of the appeal on 21.04.2003, the MCD demolished the construction of house No. B-1/199, (Ground Floor), Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Further, had the appeal not been dismissed, the action taken by the MCD might not have happened.
j) The Defendant had filed a Vakalatnama with names of other counsels also but since the Plaintiff had engaged only the Defendant as his counsel, only the Defendant is liable.
k) The Defendant was also engaged in another case by the Plaintiff but it was observed by the Plaintiff that the Defendant hobnobbed with the opposite party, i.e. Sh.
Ajaib Singh and made the Plaintiff agree, through his immature advice to withdraw the said case. The Defendant made the Plaintiff suffer rather than protecting his interest.
l) The Plaintiff has suffered, due to the negligence of the Defendant, for which the Defendant should be made liable.
m) Had there been no dismissal of the appeal, the MCD would not have taken the action, as the appeal was to compound the case and generally in many cases, the cases do get compounded and the litigants, succeed in such matters, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
n) The Plaintiff has suffered and claims the final amount from the Defendant, in view of the aforesaid:
i) Demolition of the construction on 23.04.2003 by Municipal Corporation of the Delhi, in House No. B-1/199, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 ...Rs. 50,000/-
ii) Mental agony and tension, and overall disturbance of peace, all suffered by the Plaintiff on account of Dismissal... Rs. 1,50,000/-.
iii) Refund of fees as paid to Defendant, as he did not defend the case as per facts given in the plaint...Rs. 7,500/-.
iv) Appointing the new counsel for appeal case-paying fees afresh... Rs. 10,000/-.
o) The Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 26.04.2003 to the Defendant highlighting the facts of the case and claiming the amount totaling to Rs. 2,17,500.00/-. The Defendant replied to the said notice, which is dated 06.05.2003 but did not accept his liability.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the present suit has been filed.
Defendant's version as per the written statement:
3. Defendant has made the following averments in his written statement:
a) There is no substantive cause of action, as the suit is based on ifs and buts.
b) The suit is not maintainable being barred under Section 91 and Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'IEA). The Plaintiff has signed a Vakalatnama in favour of the Defendant for the appeal, pending before MCD Tribunal which contains one of the condition given as below :
" And I/We undertake that I/We or my/our duly authorized agent would appear in the Court on all hearings and will inform the Advocate for appearance when the case is called".
Hence, the Plaintiff was under a legal bligation to call the Defendant, at the time of the case and admittedly, the Plaintiff never called the Defendant, as he was himself not available and did not attend the proceedings.
c) The Plaintiff has not come up to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The Plaintiff had entered into a settlement, in a suit instituted by him, i.e. Suit no.89/02 against Sh. Ajaib Singh, in the court of Sh. Daya Prakash, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi but did not deliberately file the same in this case. The allegations of the Plaintiff are defamatory and are uncalled for. The Plaintiff had withdrawn the said suit, in the absence of the Defendant and had made the statement before the court and thus, the allegations made by the Plaintiff are false and he has deliberately concealed the material facts of the said suit, which relates to the present case also.
d) The appeal before the MCD Tribunal was filed on 09.09.2002. The said appeal was barred by time and hence, the application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Tribunal had issued the notice returnable for 11.09.2002 and had also observed that there was no demolition order on the record and the existing site plain had not been filed, for which time was sought by the Plaintiff. The next date of hearing was fixed for 25.09.2002 but the Ld. Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 03.10.2002. On 03.10.2002, it was found that Ld. Presiding Officer was transferred and his successor had not joined. The case was adjourned from date to date i.e. on 01.11.2002, 23.12.2002, 24.02.2003 and to 21.04.2003. Since, the case was fixed for proper orders, as there was no Presiding Officer, the Plaintiff was informed that he should attend the case himself and intimate the Defendant, as and when the Presiding Officer would join. The Plaintiff never intimated the Defendant about the joining of the Presiding Officer. The averment that the Plaintiff was indisposed and also that he had reminded the Defendant few days before the next date of hearing are vague averments. The Plaintiff has deliberately made a vague averment regarding his illness and also not stated regarding the mode, time, date and how he contacted the Defendant in this regard.
e) The Plaintiff has deliberately not disclosed that in fact, he had ended the relationship of client and counsel between himself and the Defendant, after the withdrawal of the suit filed in the court of Sh. Daya Pakash on 29.04.2002. He had got a fresh suit filed in February 2003, which shows that the Plaintiff was not in touch with the Defendant at all.
f) The Plaintiff has claimed multifarious reliefs and as such, he is under a legal obligation to pay separate court fees on each relief. The Plaintiff has clubbed all the claims together and is liable to pay the deficient court fees.
g) The Plaintiff had himself violated the law by raising unauthorized construction in his house bearing no. B-1/199, Janak Puri, Ground Floor New Delhi-110058.
h) There is no question of any carelessness on the part of the Defendant to attend the dates in appeal. There are only two effective dates of hearing before the Tribunal, i.e. on 09.09.2002 and 11.09.2002. The perusal of the aforesaid orders, would show that on both dates the Defendant was present and on the subsequent dates of hearing, there was no Presiding Officer and the appeal was dismissed in default for non-appearance on part of the Plaintiff, for which the Defendant is not at all responsible.
i) Plaintiff deliberately failed to perform his duties, which is apparent from the fact that Plaintiff was to file the copy of the site plan but the same was not done. Further, there was no stay against the demolition order and if the MCD has done without following the law, the Plaintiff has the right to initiate action against the MCD.
j) The Plaintiff has not even disclosed as to what was the unauthorized construction, in respect of which he sought compounding and what was the construction which the MCD has demolished. The Plaintiff has also not stated as to how he arrived at the figure of damages.
Hence, the Defendant has pleaded that the present suit being devoid of merits, should be dismissed.
Replication
4. Plaintiff denied the averments made by the Defendant in his written statement and reiterated its stand taken in the plaint. Further, it was stated by the Plaintiff that it was the moral and professional duty of the Defendant to have appeared but the Defendant failed in his duty. The Defendant cannot deny his duty, even if the Vakalatnama has been signed by the Plaintiff, in view of the moral and professional duty cast on the Defendant. It is also pleaded that the Defendant has not clarified as to what prevented him for appearing on 21.04.2003. It was also alleged that the site plan was duly supplied to the Defendant but he did not bother to file the same in the court. Moreover, it was averred that the Defendant, out of revenge, on account of the Plaintiff, not engaging him in another case, deliberately did not appear before the MCD Tribunal which led to the appeal being dismissed in Tribunal. It is also alleged that the Plaintiff has also filed a complaint against the Defendant with the Bar Council of Delhi for gross professional misconduct shown by him in MCD appeal case.
Counter Claimant's version as per the Counter Claim
5. The Counter Claimant/Defendant has stated the following in his counter claim:
a) The Defendant is a lawyer, practicing law in District Courts, Delhi High Court and various other Tribunals and Forums situated in Delhi.
b) The Defendant is a social worker and commands great respect in the society. He has also been appointed in various prestigious posts.
c) The Plaintiff had contacted the Defendant in the beginning of 2002, in respect of construction in the property adjoining his property bearing house No. B-1/198, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058. Thereafter, the Plaintiff desired to file the civil suit but did not disclose that he had sold the upper floors to other persons and also did not disclose that the unauthorized construction was also in existence in his own property. Subsequently, the Defendant drafted the suit for injunction against the owner of the adjoining property i.e. against Sh. Ajaib Singh and Sh. Walia, who was disclosed by the Plaintiff as the Builder.
Thereafter, the court directed for issuance of summons and the JE of MCD was directed to visit the site and file the status report. The Court also directed that no unauthorized construction should be raised without the prior permission of the Commissioner, MCD. The order continued and the MCD in their written statement disclosed that a similar unauthorized construction was in existence in property of the Plaintiff as well. Vide order dated 01.04.2002, it was also stated that the property of the Plaintiff/Defendant was booked. The court had passed the order:"Let the MCD take action as per law" and the matter was adjourned to 24.04.2002. The Plaintiff was present in the court when the order was passed. Meanwhile, the purchaser, of the first and second floor of the property bearing house No. B-1/199, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058, came to know of the proceedings and also that MCD is seeking the help of police, to demolish their portion and desired to file an appeal before the MCD Tribunal. Thereafter, the Plaintiff on coming to coming to know that MCD wishes to demolish the property, filed an appeal in September 2002. The site plan of the property was never filed by the Plaintiff nor handed over to the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not attend the case regularly, as a result of which the appeal was dismissed in default.
d) The Defendant received a notice dated 26.04.2003, signed by Sh. M.R. Saigal, Advocate, counter signed by the Plaintiff making false and defamatory allegations against the Defendant questioning his professional competence and integrity. Further, by sending the notice through his counsel, who is also in the same profession, the Plaintiff made false allegations, amounting to defamatory publication. A detailed reply to the said notice was sent stating each and every fact and it was clearly mentioned that it was the Plaintiff who never intimated with the Defendant about the joining of the succeeding Presiding Officer in the MCD Tribunal and also that he never contacted the Defendant regarding the date i.e. 21.04.2003.
e) Notice dated 26.04.2003 as well as the present suit are defamatory publications against the Defendant, who is a professional. It has caused him mental shock, pain and suffering and no amount of money is sufficient to compensate the same but the Defendant is claiming a token amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff for the deliberate acts of blackmailing and defaming of the Defendant by filing the false suit. The false suit was filed by the Plaintiff, in order to enrich himself, as the Plaintiff knew that he raised unauthorized constructions and is responsible for his own suffering.
Written statement on behalf of the Plaintiff in reply to the counter claim filed by the Defendant:
6. The Plaintiff has made the following in his written statement:
a) The Defendant/Counter Claimant has not come to the court with clean hands, as he is afraid of his own acts, which he has done against the interests if the Plaintiff and in order to save himself from compensation, the Defendant has made the false claim of defamation.
b) The Defendant/Counter Claimant has also raised huge unauthorized construction at his residence which has not been demolished by any authority and thus, the Defendant/Counter Claimant cannot be said to be a law abiding citizen. Hence, the averment made by the Defendant to show his glowing personality and also the fact that he is a law abiding citizen is false.
c) As soon as the Plaintiff came to know about the proceedings of MCD, he took legal recourse to get his construction declared legal or alternatively to get compounding done from the Appellate Tribunal. The site plan was duly handed over to the Defendant but who carelessly did not file the same before the Appellate Tribunal.
d) It was denied that after the withdrawal of suit bearing no. 89/02, all the contacts between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had come to an end. The Plaintiff was in good contact with the Defendant and repeatedly reminded the Defendant about the appeal case.
e) Sending of a notice or filing of a case against any lawyer, through another lawyer, cannot be called a defamatory publication against the advocate, against whom the said case is filed.
f) True facts upon which any genuine case is filed cannot constitute defamation against the person, against whom the case is filed. The Defendant is guilty of misconduct of professional duties, carelessness and hobnobbing with opposite party for which he should be made liable and directed to compensate the Plaintiff.
g) The Defendant is under a legal obligation to tell how he has come to the figure of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation sought by the Defendant.
Replication on behalf of the counter claimant:
7. Counter Claimant/Defendant denied the averments made by the Plaintiff/Respondent in the written statement and reiterated its stand taken in the counter claim.
8. Issues were first framed on 17.03.2007 and additional issues pertaining to the counter claim were framed on 03.08.2013. The following issues were framed as given below:
1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 2,17,500/-? OPP
2) Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order VII rule 11 CPC? OPD
3) Whether the suit is not maintainable and is barred Under Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act? OPD 3A) Whether the Plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 3B) Whether the Plaintiff has not affixed appropriate court fee for the relief claim in the plaint? OPD 3C) Whether the Defendant is entitled to recover of Rs. 3,00,000 (Three lakhs only) as prayed in the counter claim ? OPD 3D) Whether the Counter claim does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff? OPP 3E) Whether the Defendant has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPP
4) Relief.
Evidence on behalf of Plaintiff:
9. PW-1 Sh. Om Prakash Grover, the Plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box and was examined-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:
Sr. No Exhibit/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex. PW 1/1 Certified copy of order dated 21.04.2003
passed by Sh. B. S. Mathur, Appellate
Tribunal, MCD, Delhi
2. Ex. PW 1/2 Legal notice dated 26.04.2003
3. Ex PW-1/3 Postal receipt of post office under which
registered notice was sent
4. Ex. PW-1/4 UPC receipt under which said legal notice was
sent
5. Ex. PW-1/5 Reply of Defendant dated 06.05.2003 to legal
notice
PW-1, Sh. Om Prakash Grover, was duly cross examined by Defence Counsel. In the cross-examination, PW-1 was shown following documents:
Sr. No Exhibit/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex. PW1/D Certified copy of appeal along
with affidavit
2. Ex. PW1/D-2 Copy of the plaint
3. Ex. PW1/D-3 Certified copy of the application
along with affidavit
4. Ex. PW1/D-4 Certified copy of the statement
dated 29.11.2002
5. Ex. PW1/D-5 Certified copy of order sheets
from 29.01.2002 till 29.11.2002
6. Ex. PW1/D-6 Certified copy of the another
plaint of the suit bearing no.
65/2003
7. Ex. PW1/D-7 Certified copy of the statement
dated 15.05.2003
6. Ex. PW1/D-8 Certified copy of the order
sheets from 26.02.2003 till
26.05.2003
7. Ex. PW1/D-9 Memorandum of understanding
8. Ex. PW1/D-10 Complaint to the MCD
9. Ex. PW1/D-11 to Ex. Three complaints dated
PW1/D-13 23.01.2002, 03.02.2002 and
03.02.2002
10. Ex. PW1/D-14 to Ex. Complaint to the Executive
PW1/D-15 engineer dated 13.03.2002,
05.04.2002
11. Ex. PW1/D-16 Copy of order passed by the
Tribunal
12. Ex. PW1/D-17 Application under Section 340
CrPC
13. Ex. PW1/D-18 Reply to the application under
Section 340 CrPC
14. Ex. PW1/D-19 Notice dated 19.08.2002
15. Ex. PW1/D-20 Copy of the sanction plan of the
year 1995
16. Ex. PW1/D-21 Letter dated 13.01.2014
17. Ex. PW1/D-22 Copy of the pass book
18. Ex. PW1/D-23 Copy of the application of
withdrawal of order 39 rule 2A
10. The Plaintiff further brought PW-2, Sh. Anil Kumar, LDC from office of Assistant Assessor and Collector, A & C Department, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, who placed on record the ledger of house tax in question on record which is Ex. PW-2/1. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant had cross examined the said witness.
11. The Plaintiff also brought PW-3, Sh. Kishan Devnani, AE from SDMC, who placed on record,a letter dated 12.04.2007, as per which the summoned record i.e. demolition register is seized by the CBI. Further, he brought a photocopy of dispatch register indicating the demolition charges which were sent at the time to the owner builder vide diary No. 235.
12. The said witness was cross examined by the defence counsel. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 11.12.2015.
Evidence on behalf of Defendant:
13. The Defendant in support of his case, himself stepped into the witness box and filed his affidavit in evidence , which is Ex. DW-1/A and relied on following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits Nature of Documents
1. Ex. DW-1/1 Paras 9 to 20 of the plaint.
2. Ex. PW-1/2 Paras 4 to 7 of notice dated
( Already exhibited) 26.04.2003.
3. Ex. PW-1/5 Copy of reply to the notice.
( Already exhibited)
14 The Defendant also brought DW-2, Sh. Naresh Kumar, Ahlmad, Appellate Tribunal,
THC, Room No. 29, Delhi, who placed on record appeal no. 290/ATMCD/2002 and
certified copy of the appeal index, documents, Vakalatnama of Sh. S. C. Singhal, Advocate and Sh. M. R. Sehgal, Advocate order sheets and they are collectively exhibited as Ex DW-2/1 (Colly) (total pages 57). The witness was not cross examined by Plaintiff's counsel, though opportunity was granted.
15. The Defendant further brought DW-2, Sh. Inder Singh, who should have been numbered as DW-3 but was by an inadvertent mistake given the number of DW-2. He filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence as Ex.DW-2/B and was duly cross examined by Plaintiff's counsel.
Thereafter, Defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 22.02.2016.
16. Common evidence was led in both the suit and the counter-claim.
17. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully.
18. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Since issue no. 1, 2 and 3 are inter-connected, the same are taken up together for a common discussion:
Issue No. 1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 2,17,500/-? OPP Issue No. 2) Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order VII rule 11 CPC? OPD Issue No.3) Whether the suit is not maintainable and is barred Under Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act? OPD
a) Pithily put, the Plaintiff has averred that he had engaged the Defendant as a lawyer but due to his negligence and dereliction of duty, on account of his non-appearance in the appeal before the MCD Tribunal, the Plaintiff has suffered heavy losses. It is averred by the Plaintiff that had there been no dismissal of appeal, the MCD would not have demolished the construction of House No. B-1/199, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. It is also averred by the Plaintiff that in such cases, the cases use to get compounded and the litigants, use to succeed, depending, on facts and circumstances of each case. The Defendant has admitted in its written statement regarding the appeal being dismissed in default on 21.04.2003 and also the MCD demolishing the portion on 23.04.2003.
b) The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant is guilty for the tort of negligence. He has alleged that the Defendant is liable for an amount of Rs. 2,17,500.00/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the same as tortious liability, on the ground of non-appearance before the MCD tribunal.
c) It is settled law that for the plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff requires to prove that (i) the defendant is under a duty to take care; (ii) the burden of proof owed by the plaintiff has been discharged by the proof of breach of duty and (iii) the breach of the duty of care is the cause for damage suffered by the plaintiff (also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & Ors on 17 January, 1997) First ingredient: Duty of Care
d) Duty of care means a legal duty, rather than a mere social or moral duty. Every person who enters into a profession undertakes to bring to the exercise of it, such care and skill as becomes one belonging to the profession. The practice of profession, art or calling, with it a representation that the person practicing or exercising it possesses, to a reasonable extent, the amount of skill, ability, and experience which it demands. His duty is to use such care as would by used by others in the same profession. They are bound to conduct themselves in a skillful manner. However, the first thing which is to be deciphered is whether the lawyer owes a duty to take care or not? The Indian position on advocates' liability for negligence is dictated by Section 5 of the Legal Practitioner's (Fees) Act, 1925, which provides:
"No legal practitioner who has acted or has agreed to act shall, by reason only of being a legal practitioner be exempted from liability to be sued in respect of any loss or injury due to any negligence in the conduct of his professional duties."
e) In fact, the preamble to the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926 also highlights about the liability of the legal practitioner, and the fact that he can be sued for negligence. The same reads as follows:
"An Act to define in certain cases the rights of legal practitioners to sue for their fees and their liabilities to be sued in respect of negligence in the discharge of their."
f) Further, the liability of a legal practitioner, on account of negligence, was also dealt in the case of M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira, (1988) 1 SCC 556 , at page 571, which has been relied on by the Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff and in which the Hon'ble apex court further clarified that:
"24. Therefore, a legal practitioner cannot claim exemption from liability to be sued in respect of any loss or injury suffered by the client due to any negligence in the conduct of his professional duties merely by reason of his being a legal practitioner"
g) The same was also held in Moti Natwarlal v. Raghavayya Nagindas & Co., (1977) 2 SCC 761 and Muni Reddi v. K. Venkata Rao, 1912 SCC OnLine Mad 30 : AIR 1914 Mad 512 : 1912 Cri LJ 800.
h) In the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, a legal practitioner has been defined as "an advocate, vakil or attorney of any High Court, a pleader, mukhtar or revenue agent".
Hence, in light of the aforesaid, it is clear that since the Defendant was engaged as an advocate and squarely falls in the definition of a "legal practitioner", a fact which has been admitted by the Defendant also. Thus, being a counsel of the Plaintiff, the Defendant had a duty of care towards his client i.e. the Plaintiff.
in view of the aforesaid discussion, the first ingredient stands satisfied and it stands established that the Defendant being the counsel was under a professional duty towards his client, i.e. the Plaintiff.
Second ingredient of Negligence: Breach of Duty
i) Now, coming to the second ingredient, i.e. breach of the duty. In this regard, certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") are relevant, which state that that a pleader must be duly appointed before he can appear, act and plead in a case. Reference may be made to rule 1 and rules 4(1) and 4(2) of Order III of CPC.
"Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognised agent, or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf.
Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person."
"The appointment of a pleader to make or do any appearance, application or act for any person shall be in writing, and shall be signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by power of attorney to act in his behalf."
"Every such appointment, when accepted by a pleader, shall be filed in Court, and shall be considered to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court, by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court or until the client or the pleader dies or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client."
j) In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Plaintiff had engaged the Defendant as his counsel, by signing a Vakaltnama. The main contention on part of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff, in terms of Section 91 and Section 92 of IEA is estopped from contending orally against a written contract, i.e. the Vakalatnama filed, which expressly stipulated that the plaintiff was under a legal obligation to call the defendant, at the time of the call of case but the Plaintiff never called the defendant, as he was not himself available at the proceedings.
k) In this regard, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff stated that under the provisions of the Advocate's Act, 1961, the Defendant, owed the duty to attend the case of his client and a contract could not have an overriding effect. The contention of the plaintiff has force in it. The courts have held that the duty of an advocate, under the Advocate's Act and also under professional ethics, it to uphold the interest of the litigant and a key aspect of that is that on each date of hearing, the advocate should appear and in case, the advocate does not appear, he would be liable for the loss suffered by his client. The same was held by the apex court in Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor, (2001) 1 SCC 118 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 3 : 2001 SCC (L&S) wherein, it was stated that:
"It is unjust and inequitable to cause the party alone to suffer for the self- imposed dereliction of his advocate. We may further add that the litigant who suffers entirely on account of his advocate's non-appearance in court, has also the remedy to sue the advocate for damages."
l) Further, it is settled law that the parties cannot contract against the statutory provisions. Thus, in light of professional ethics and Advocate's Act and also the case laws stated above, the part of the Vakalatnama, wherein, the duty has been cast on the client to attend each hearing and inform the advocate is engaged cannot be relied upon.
m) Admittedly, in the present case, the Defendant did not appear on 21.04.2003, before the MCD tribunal and as a counsel, he was under a legal obligation to appear but by his non-appearance, he did commit a breach of his legal duty. He cannot use the Vakaltnama as a shield, in order to avoid his statutory, ethical and professional duty towards the Plaintiff.
Third ingredient of Negligence : The breach of the duty of care is the cause for damage suffered by the plaintiff
n) The third ingredient which is required to be proved by the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff suffered damages as a consequence of the breach committed. In other words, it is necessary that the breach of duty committed by the Defendant is not too remote a consequence of the Defendant's negligence. It is settled law that a defendant is liable for the wrongful act, only if it is the proximate, direct or immediate cause of injury (causa causans) and not merely a causa sine qua non(cause without any other cause). The test to determine whether the damages suffered are remote or not, is the test of reasonable foresight, which is also called the test of probability, i.e. a man is responsible for the probable consequences of his act.
o) In view of the settled law, the factual matrix of the case is examined and it is admitted that the appeal of the Plaintiff was dismissed in default for non-prosecution by the MCD Tribunal. It is also relevant to observe that the Plaintiff has successfully proved that the demolition was not carried out, till the appeal was dismissed in default, a fact which is also admitted by the Defendant.
p) In this regard, it is important to examine the legal principle that once a party briefs a lawyer in a civil case, he is required to appear. In this regard, the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme court, in the case of Deptt. of Horticulture v. Raghu Raj, (2008) 13 SCC 395 held and relied on by the Ld.counsel for the Plaintiff is relevant and which elaborates on the point that it is the duty of an advocate to appear and in case of non- appearance, a party should not be made to suffer:
"23. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an advocate has no right to remain absent from the court when the case of his client comes up for hearing. He is duty- bound to attend the case in court or to make an alternative arrangement. Non- appearance in court without "sufficient cause" cannot be excused. Such absence is not only unfair to the client of the advocate but also unfair and discourteous to the court and can never be countenanced.
24. At the same time, however, when a party engages an advocate who is expected to appear at the time of hearing but fails to so appear, normally, a party should not suffer on account of default or non-appearance of the advocate."
19. Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble apex court relied on the judgment of Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 which had held that once a party engages a counsel, they have done effectively everything to participate in the judicial proceedings and should not be made to suffer due to inaction or deliberate absence of his counsel. The relevant paragraph in this regard is given below:
" 3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. ...What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. "
20. In view of the aforesaid case laws, the facts of the present case are examined. It is seen that after the Plaintiff engaged the counsel i.e. the Defendant, he can be said to have effectively done everything in his control to participate in the appeal proceedings before the MCD Tribunal. Further, the direct result of the non-appearance on part of the Defendant led to the dismissal of the appeal, which led to the demolition of the unauthorized construction. Had the Defendant appeared, the appeal would not have been dismissed and the demolition would not have been carried out, consequently the Plaintiff would not have been made to suffer damages. Hence, it is clear that the damages suffered by the Plaintiff is the direct cause of the non- appearance on behalf of the Defendant. In this regard, it is also pertinent to observe that the demolition proceedings were not carried out throughout but were only carried out after the appeal was dismissed in default.
21. Another reason which weighs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant is that despite knowing the fact that the appeal is pending before the MCD Tribunal, the Defendant did not withdraw his Vakalatnama. His bonafide would have been proved, had he withdrawn the Vakalatnama but till the time his Vakalatnama was on the record, it was the duty of the Defendant to have appeared on each date. In case the Defendant was not interested in pursuing the proceedings, he should have filed an application before the MCD Tribunal and also brought the same to the knowledge of the Plaintiff. In such a case, the Plaintiff would have engaged another counsel and the appeal would not have been dismissed.
22. The defence raised by the Defendant is that the Plaintiff had ended the relationship of counsel-client between himself and the Defendant, as it was apparent that a new suit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff in February 2003 and the Plaintiff had not engaged the Defendant in that suit. But this contention of the Defendant lacks force as only because a new case was instituted on behalf of the Plaintiff, in which Defendant was not engaged does not lead to the corollary that the relationship of lawyer-client had ended in the previous suit. The relationship could have ended only if the Defendant had withdrawn his Vakalatnama and informed regarding the same to the Plaintiff.
21. Another defence taken by the Defendant is that in the testimony of PW1 i.e. the Plaintiff, he has himself admitted that after withdrawal of another suit in November, 2002, he lost faith in the Defendant and also did not call the Defendant before 21.04.2003 to remind about the date of hearing before the MCD Tribunal, which shows that the Defendant was not negligent in his duties. However, this submission also lacks substance, since the duty of a counsel carries on till he withdraws his Vakaltnama and the client is under no obligation to inform his counsel regarding the date of hearings. The same principle was recognized also in the case of Emperor v. Rajani Kanta Bose, 1922 SCC OnLine Cal 15 : ILR (1922) 49 Cal 732 : AIR 1922 Cal 515:
"...it is clear that when a pleader has accepted a vakalatnama, with or without implied conditions, his liability continues, till he has discharged himself by recourse to the appropriate procedure. It is a mistake to suppose, however, that this is a matter solely between the pleader and his client. The statutory provisions on the subject leave no room for doubt that the appointment of a pleader, when filed in Court with his acceptance, continues in force, until determined with leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client, or the pleader as the case may be; to this rule, there are two exceptions, namely, first, the death of the client or the pleader, and secondly, the termination of the proceedings in the suit so far as regards the client."
22. The test of reasonable foresight also stands satisfied, since the Defendant who is a lawyer of such a long standing, as per his own deposition in his affidavit in lieu of evidence, Ex.DW1/A, would be perfectly aware of the ramifications that might ensue from non-appearance in the court.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the third ingredient of negligence stands proved, since the Defendant had the reasonable foresight that in case, he does not appear before the MCD Tribunal, the appeal can be dismissed and the Plaintiff can suffer damages.
23. With respect to the damages claimed, it is important to observe that the Plaintiff has claimed damages under four broad headings:
(i) Rs. 50,000/- has been claimed as monetary loss suffered on account of demolition of the construction by MCD
(ii) Rs.1,50,000/- has been claimed as compensation/damages for mental agony, tension and overall disturbance of peace, on account of appeal being dismissed in default
(iii) Rs. 7,500/- has been claimed as amount pertaining to the fees which was paid to the Defendant, as he did not defend the case,
(iv) Rs. 10,000/- has been claimed as amount for appointing a new counsel for the purpose of appeal.
Hence, the Plaintiff has claimed a total of Rs. 2,17,500/- from the Defendant.
24. Let us deal with all the heads of claims separately, in order to see what has been proved by the Plaintiff:
(i) Rs. 50,000/- has been claimed as monetary loss suffered on account of demolition of the construction by MCD-
The Plaintiff duly proved that demolition of the unauthorized construction had taken place, on account of action by the MCD. However, the Plaintiff cannot be held to be entitled to the said amount, as admittedly, the construction was in contravention of rules.
(ii) Rs.1,50,000/- has been claimed as compensation/damages for mental agony, etc, on account of appeal being dismissed in default:
I have already given my finding that the Defendant is guilty of committing the tort of negligence. The negligence committed by the Defendant resulted in personal injury of to the Plaintiff i.e. mental shock and tension, for which he should be adequately compensated and hence, he stands entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as claimed by him.
(iii) Rs. 7,500/- has been claimed as amount pertaining to the fees which was paid to the Defendant, as he did not defend the case:
The Defendant in its reply to the legal notice Ex. PW-1/5 dated 06.05.2003 admitted that Rs. 7500/- was paid as fees by the Plaintiff. Since the failed in his duty and deliberately did not appear before the MCD Tribunal, the Plaintiff is entitled to the refund of fees paid by him to the Defendant.
(iv) Rs. 10,000/- has been claimed as amount for appointing a new counsel for the purpose of appeal:
With regard to this head, except a bald averment, no evidence was brought by the Plaintiff to show that he had engaged a new counsel for the purpose of appeal. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was brought to show the appointment of a new counsel. Plaintiff did not place on record any proof from which account he paid nor any proof regarding mode of payment. In view of the aforesaid, Plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled to the amount of Rs. 10,000 allegedly paid for engagement of a new counsel.
25. Additionally, This court also takes note of the fact that the damages suffered by the Plaintiff have been caused by the professional negligence by the Defendant and thus, in the interest of justice, this court deems it appropriate to award exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- , so that such behavior is not repeated by the Defendant in the future. Lawyers are the repository of faith, hope and confidence for a client and hence, they should always aim at upholding the interest of the client. In this context the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264 is relevant:
"In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon (sic beacon) light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. No effort should be made or allowed to be made by which a litigant could be deprived of his rights, statutory as well as constitutional, by an advocate only on account of the exalted position conferred upon him under the judicial system prevalent in the country..."
26. The Plaintiff has also claimed interest@ 18 % per annum, from the date of the institution of the present suit till the realisation of the same. However, this court is of the opinion that interest@18% per annum is exorbitant and interest of justice would be met, in case, interest @ 9% per annum from date of the institution of the present suit till the realisation of the same is awarded.
Hence, the issue no.1, 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant
27. Issue no. 3A) Whether the Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD The onus to prove this was on the Defendant, who had alleged that the suit of the Plaintiff was not maintainable, on account of the fact that he had not come to the court with clean hands. It is observed by the court that the averment made by the Defendant, in this regard was that the Plaintiff deliberately did not file the compromise which he had settled with one Sh. Ajaib Singh in another suit i.e. Civil Suit no.89/02, in the court of Sh. Daya Prakash, the then Ld. Civil Judge and was thus, guilty of suppression of material facts. But that civil suit cannot be said to have any bearing on the present suit, which is based upon the professional negligence allegedly committed by the Defendant. Further, except a bald averment, no evidence was brought by the Defendant to show as to how the Plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid, issue no.3A is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
28. Issue No.3B)Whether the Plaintiff has not affixed appropriate court fee for the relief claim in the plaint? OPD The onus to prove the present issue was on the Defendant. However, except a bald allegation, the Defendant did not bring any oral or documentary evidence to show as to how the Plaintiff was guilty of not paying the proper court fees.
Thus, the issue under consideration is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
29. Since Issue no.3C and Issue no.3D are inter-connected, they are taken up together for a common discussion:
Issue No. 3C) Whether the Defendant is entitled to recover of Rs. 3,00,000 (Three lakhs only) as prayed in the counter claim? OPD Issue No. 3D) Whether the Counter claim does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff? OPP
a) In the counter-claim, the Counter Claimant/ Defendant has alleged that he was served with the legal notice dated 26.04.2003 sent on behalf of the Plaintiff, signed by Sh.
M.R. Saigal, Advocate and counter-signed by the Plaintiff, which contained false and defamatory allegations. Further, the Counter Claimant/ Defendant has averred that the defamatory publication questioned his professional competence and integrity and also since it was sent through a lawyer, who was also part of the same profession, it lowered his reputation. Moreover, it is alleged by the Counter Claimant/ Defendant that even the institution of the present suit, which is false has given rise to a cause of action for the tort of defamation, in favour of the Counter Claimant/ Defendant. Hence, the Counter Claimant/Defendant has alleged that being a man of repute, the said actions of the Respondent/ Plaintiff amounted to a tort of defamation.
b) Per contra, the Respondent/ Plaintiff has pleaded that merely sending of a legal notice to the Counter Claimant/Defendant, through another lawyer cannot be called a defamatory publication, as the notice was only sent to the person against whom the legal proceedings were to be initiated. Further, it was averred by the Respondent/ Plaintiff that merely by using his legal remedies, i.e. service of legal notice and the institution of the suit against the Counter Claimant/ Defendant, he has not committed the tort of defamation.
c) It is first important to understand what the tort of defamation connotes. An eminent jurist, Prof. Winfield has defined "Defamation" as:
"Defamation is the publication of statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person."
d) In view of the aforesaid definition, the essential elements of Defamation, can be said to be the following:
(i) The words must be defamatory;
(ii) The said words must refer to the Plaintiff; and
(iii) The words must be published.
First Ingredient of Defamation:
e) Let us first examine the first ingredient of the tort of Defamation vis-à-vis the present case. As far as the first ingredient is concerned, it is observed by the court that the Counter Claimant/ Defendant has pleaded and deposed in his examination in chief Ex. DW1/A that the paras 4 to 7 of the legal notice dated 26.04.2003 Ex.PW1/2 and paras 9 to 20 of the plaint Ex. DW1/1 were defamatory. However, the averments made are bald, as they do not point out as to how the words reflect on character or reputation or how the publication has caused the Defendant to be shunned by the right-thinking members of the society. The Defendant had brought a witness DW-3, Sh. Inder Singh, who had deposed that in the year 2003, he noticed that the Counter Claimant/Defendant is standing in a civil uniform, outside the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, the then Ld. Civil Judge, THC, Delhi and that he was shocked to know about the present suit and that the Respondent/ Plaintiff had openly alleged that the Counter Claimant/Defendant had hobnobbed with the opposite party. Further, he had deposed that he had been engaging the Counter Claimant/Defendant in various courts and it put him in doubt about the conduct of the Counter- Claimant/Defendant and after 6 months, he came to the conclusion that the allegations leveled were false.
f) In this regard , the cross-examination of the said witness is relevant. The relevant portion of his deposition is :
" I cannot show any proof about the fact that on the day of the incident,as mentioned in para 4 of my affidavit that I was present in Tis Hazari Court. I do maintain my court case diary in which court cases or days are mentioned...I cannot show diary for the year 2003 as I have not kept the same... I do not remember the date and time of the incident when I saw Mr. S.C. Singhal standing in the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge..."
Hence, it is apparent the testimony of the said witness is shaken to quite an extent. The witness could neither show any proof of him being present in the court nor he could remember the date and time of the incident. Thus, the testimony of the said witness does not inspire confidence at all. No other oral or documentary evidence in this regard was led. Further, no other witness was examined to show how the reputation of the Defendant had been injured. Thus, the Counter Claimant/Defendant could not prove the first essential i.e. that the statement caused injury to his character and reputation.
g) Since, the first essential itself could not be proved, the other essentials need not be delved into.
h) However, in this regard, it is important to appreciate the defence raised by the Ld. counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff to the plea of defamation alleged by the Counter Claimant/Defendant :The contention raised by the Ld. counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff was that the legal notice dated 26.04.2003 and the present suit instituted cannot be said to be amounting to a tort of defamation, as they fall in the defence to the defamation, which is commonly known as the "Defence of absolute privilege" and hence the said legal notice Ex.PW1/2 and the averments of the plaint i.e. Ex.DW1/1 are absolutely privileged.
i) It is settled law that a statement is absolutely privileged, when no action lies for it even if it is not true and defamatory and made with direct malice. The object of this defence is that in certain circumstances, the interest of the society require that a man should speak out his mind fully and freely, without fear of the ramifications, eg: parliamentary proceedings or in the course of judicial, military or naval proceedings etc. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brig. B.C Rana (Retd.) v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5421 : (2013) 198 DLT 35 further explained the concept of "Absolute privilege" and its object by holding the following:
" 29. A statement is said to be Absolutely Privileged when it is of such a nature that no action will lie for it, however false and defamatory it may be, and even though it is made maliciously, that is to say, from some improper motive. These cases are extremely opposite to the ordinary cases of unprivileged defamation. When a statement is not privileged, it is actionable, however honest its publication may have been; but if it is Absolutely Privileged it is not actionable, however dishonest its publication may have been.
30. The wide principle which underlies the defence of privilege is the common convenience and welfare of the society as observed by Lord Uthwatt, in M.G Perera v. Andrew Vincent Peiris, AIR 1949 PC 106, on an appeal to the Privy Council from Ceylon.
31. The occasios for the Absolute Privilege may be grouped under the head parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings and acts of State. We are concerned here with judicial proceedings.
32. The Kerela High Court in K. Daniel V.T Hemavathy Amma, AIR 1985 Ker 233, explains the reason for conferring Absolute Privilege to the statements made in the course of judicial proceedings as below:-
"It is imperative that judges, counsel and witnesses participating in thejudicial proceedings must be able to conduct themselves without any apprehension of being called upon to answer a claim for damages fordefamation. They must be able to act uninfluenced by any such fear. Freedom of speech on such occasions has to be totally safeguarded. Hence it is necessary to protect the maker of such statements on such occasions. The privilege arises on account of privilege attached to the occasion and not to the individual....Basis of privilege is not absence of malice or the truth of the statement or the intention of the maker, but public policy. Any restriction on privilege during the occasion would create constraints in the process of administration of justice."
a. It was pleaded by the Respondent/ Plaintiff that the the legal notice and the institution of the present suit were only legal remedies which he had used and thus, fall in the category of an "Absolute Privilege" which amounts to the defence of defamation, if at all committed. It has been held by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Pandey Surinder Nath Singh v. Bageshwari Prasad AIR 1961 Patna 164 that the absolute privilege is not confined only to judicial proceedings but also to the steps which are essential to the judicial proceedings. The observations of the court are given as below:
"37...The privilege attaches not merely to proceedings at the trial, but also to proceedings which are essentially steps in judicial proceedings, including statements in pleadings..."
j) In view of the aforesaid law and applying the said law to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the legal notice and the plaint for the purpose of institution of the present case fall in the category of absolute privilege as they have been used as legal mechanisms/remedies for the Plaintiff to initiate the judicial proceedings and thus, he is entitled to the defence of absolute privilege.
In view of the aforesaid discussion,the issue no 3(C) and 3( D)are decided in favour of the Respondent / Plaintiff and against the Counter-Claimant/ Respondent.
30. Issue no. 3E) Whether the Defendant has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPP The onus to prove this was on the Plaintiff, who had alleged that the counter-claim of the Counter Claimant was not maintainable, on account of the fact that he had not come to the court with clean hands. It is observed by the court that the averment made by the Counter Claimant / Defendant, in this regard was that the counter claim was filed only to save himself from the compensation and damages and the allegation of defamation was completely false. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that except a bald averment, no evidence was brought by the Respondent/ Plaintiff to show as to how the Counter Claimant / Defendant, did not come to the court with clean hands.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid, issue no.3E is decided in favour of the Counter Claimant / Defendant and against the Respondent/ Plaintiff.
31. Relief In view of the observations made above, suit of the plaintiff stands partly decreed and the counter claim filed by the counter claimant stands dismissed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and based on the discussion aforesaid, the Plaintiff is held to be entitled to the following reliefs in this matter:
(i) Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded as compensation/damages for mental agony caused to the Plaintiff and payable by Defendant.
(ii) Rs. 7,500/- is also awarded to the Plaintiff, as refund of amount pertaining to the fees which was paid to the Defendant.
(iii) Exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- is also awarded to the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
(iv) Plaintiff is also held entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the total amount awarded, from date of institution of the suit till the date of realization.
32. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled to a total amount of Rs. 2,07,500/-(Two Lakhs Seven Thousand Five Hundred Rupees) along with interest @ 9% p.a. on the total amount awarded, from date of institution of the present suit till the date of realization.
33. The Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff has filed the "Pleader's Fees", the same to be calculated as per Delhi High Court Rules and also be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
Decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms.
All pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not pressed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court on 29.09.2016.
(Sonam Singh) Civil Judge-05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi Present judgment consists of 44 pages and each page is signed by me.