Delhi District Court
Memo Of Parties vs Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh on 31 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE17
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 174/00
Unique ID No. 02401C0059772000
MEMO OF PARTIES
Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.
Corporate Office:
nd
Kailash, 2 Floor, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi 110001
...........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh
R/o Flat No. 3 & 12, Shanti Niwas
124 Janpath Lane, New Delhi
..........Defendant
Date of institution of the Suit: 22.05.2000
Date on which judgment was reserved: 26.10.2013
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: 31.10.2013
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking a decree of possession against the defendant with respect to the suit premises i.e. a store room on flat no. 12, Shanti Niwas, 124, Janpath Lane, Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 1/20 New Delhi (hereinafter referred as to the suit premises). Case of the plaintiff:
2. The plaintiff states that it is a public limited company incorporated under th the Indian Companies Act. The plaintiff company was incorporated on 27 July, 1932 in the name of Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. and subsequently its name was changed to Gangeshwari Limited w.e.f. 03.04.1973. Vider order dated 06.03.2000 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in company petition no. 15/00 and company application number 34/1999, Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd was amalgamated with M/s. Gangeshwari Ltd. under the scheme of amalgamation of the said companies. As per the scheme of the amalgamation and with the approval of the Central Government the name of Gangeshwari Ltd. was changed to Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Mr. V.P. Ghuliani was the group General Manager (legal) and company secretary and was competent to institute the present suit, sign and verify the plaint. The plaintiff is the owner of lease hold rights in the property known as Shanti Niwas, 124, Janpath Lane, New Delhi comprising 13 flats, 20 servant quarters and 5 garages on an area of 0.857 acres. The said property was on lease in perpetuity with the plaintiff from land and development office, Government of India. Out of the aforesaid property, flats no. 1, 3 and 12 were sold by the plaintiff's predecessor in Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 2/20 interest. Flat no. 3 and 12 were sold to one Smt. Lila Uttam Singh, mother of the defendant. Flat no. 1 was adjacent to flat no. 13 and both were on the first floor of the same building in Shanti Niwas. Flat no. 13 and a portion of store room of flat no. 12 with entrance from flat no. 13 (store room of flat no. 12 being the suit premises) were in the tenancy and possession of one of the plaintiff's senior officer and tenant Sh. Jai Karan Kohli. Sh. Jai Karan Kohli had been given the tenancy by the plaintiff's predecessor in interest with respect to the flat no. 13 and the store under one single composite tenancy. The factum of Sh Jai Karan Kohli being the tenant and in possession of flat no. 13 and the store was duly recorded in the sale deed by which flat no. 3 and 12 were sold to the mother of the defendant. Sh. Jai Karan Kohli vacated the tenanted premises i.e. flat no. 13 and the store and handed over its actual, vacant, physical possession to the plaintiff some time in 1980. Plaintiff had been in actual physical possession of the store since then and had been using the suit store for keeping its important records for the last many years. The said store only had an entry through the flat no. 13 and was completely and permanently cut off from Flat no. 12 by a permanent wall. On 05.12.1999 one of the plaintiff's staff Sh. Julmi Ram went to the flat no. 13 to take out some records from the store and when he tried to open the door which opened into the store he could not do so and he called for help from the plaintiff's office Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 3/20 and two persons tried to open the door but were not able to do so. From the position of the door it was found that a permanent wall had been constructed just at the back of the said door due to which the door was not opening. The plaintiff made inquiry and was informed by reliable sources that in the first week of December, 1999 the defendant had gained entry into the store through the flat no. 12 and constructed a was behind the entry door of the store and thus he had illegally and unauthorizedly trespassed into the store without the plaintiff's consent and otherwise than in due course of law had dispossessed the plaintiff from the store. Defendants had also taken away the records of the plaintiff company which were lying in the store. The plaintiff filed a police complaint on 16.12.1999 but no action was taken by the police till date. It is averred that the cause of action to file the present suit arose in the first week of December, 1999 when the defendant trespassed into the suit store and dispossessed the plaintiff without its consent and otherwise that in due course of law. The cause of action further arose on 15.12.1999 when the plaintiff came to know about the defendant's illegal action. It is averred that the suit had been filed within six months of dispossession and is within limitation. Case of the Defendant:
3. The defendant filed the written statement. Various preliminary objections were taken. It was averred that the suit was not maintainable U/s 6 of the Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 4/20 Specific Relief Act since the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff had no right title or interest in the property and had never been in possession of the suit premises. It was averred that the land measuring 0.817 acres, Shanti Niwas, Janpath Lane, New Delhi was initially alloted in the name of Sh. RBL Tirath Ram Shah by the Secretary of State of Indian in council in pursuance of the perpetual lease deed dated 09.03.1923, who constructed a set of 13 flats over the same. Subsequently, the mother of the defendant purchased the flats no. 2 and 12 by virtue of sale deed dated 06.08.1957. It was alleged by the defendant that it was specifically provided in the said sale deed that the flats no. 3 and 12 were situated one above the other and were in possession of the tenants of the seller. One Smt. Amar Devi Chadha was stated to be in occupation of the flat no. 12 as a tenant thereof as month to month tenants of the vendors at the time of the purchase of the flats no. 3 and 12 by the mother of the defendant. The entire flat no. 12 was in possession and in occupation of Smt. Amar Devi Chadha as tenant thereof except the suit premises. Subsequently, the defendant came to know in the year 1985 that Sh. Jai Karan Kohli had vacated the store i.e. suit premises and flat no. 13 and had handed over the possession of flat no. 13 to the landlord M/s. Gangeshwari Ltd. in the year 1980. The defendant called upon Sh. Jai Karan Kohli vide letter dated 25.03.1988 to return the store room i.e. the Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 5/20 premises in question to the defendant. Sh. Jai Karan Kohli, vide his letter dated 11.04.1985 informed the defendant that the godown i.e. the suit premises was lying vacant and asked defendant to take the possession. The defendant took the possession of the suit premises immediately thereafter and wrote a letter dated 21.04.1985 to Sh. Jai Karan Kohli to that effect. After taking the possession of the suit premises the same was given to Sh. U.S. Chadha as a tenant. Subsequently, the defendant filed a suit for possession against Sh. Shyam Chadha and & Ors. bearing no. 504/96 in respect of flat bearing no. 12, Shanti Niwas, 124, Janpath Lane, New Delhi including the disputed suit premises. The said suit was duly contested by Sh. Shyam Chadha and Ors however they admitted their possession with regard to the disputed premises as well. The said suit for possession was decreed by the court of Ld. ADJ on 15.04.1999. The appeal thereto filed by Sh. Shaym Chadha & Ors. was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in August/September, 1999 however time was granted to Sh. Shyam Chadha & Ors. to vacate and handover the possession of the flat bearing no. 12 by 30.09.1999 in pursuance to the undertaking given by Sh. Shyam Chadha & Ors. Sh. Shyam Chadha & Ors. accordingly vacated the entire flat bearing no. 12 on 13.09.1999 and handed over the possession of the same to the defendant. Since then the defendant was in possession and occupation of the flat bearing no. 12 as Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 6/20 owner thereof including the suit premises therefore neither the plaintiff nor Sh. Jai Karan Kohli were in possession of the suit premises since the year 1980. It was averred that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person.
4. On merits, the defendant admitted that the flats no. 3 and 12 were sold to the mother of the defendant and also admitted that the flat no. 12 was adjacent to flat no. 13 and both were on the first floor of the building known as Shanti Niwas. It was denied that the portion of the store room on flat no. 12 with entrance from flat no. 13 was in the tenancy and possession of Sh. Jai Karan Kohli. It was averred that Sh. Jai Karan Kohli was a tenant under the predecessor in interest of the defendant and had vacated the suit premises in question in the year 1980. The defendant avers that prior to the year 1985, entrance to the premises in question was from both the flats bearing no. 12 and 13. The site plan filed by the plaintiff has been denied. It had been also denied that the plaintiff has been using flat no. 13 and store for keeping its important records for the last many years. It was averred that neither Sh. Jai Karan Kohli nor the plaintiffs had ever been in possession of the portion of the store of flat no. 12 since more than 20 years. Any instant of 15.12.1999 as alleged by the plaintiff was denied. It was submitted that the permanent wall was constructed long back to prevent any mis happening in flat n o. 12 and the Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 7/20 defendant was well within his rights to do so.
5. It was denied that the defendant had illegally and unauthorizedly trespassed into the store. The claim of the plaintiff was denied and was prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.
Replication:
6. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. It was stressed that upon vacating the premises the tenant Sh. Jai Karan Kohli handed over the vacant, physical possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had since then been in physical possession of the suit property till he was dispossessed by the defendant. It was alleged that the reference to the letting of flat no. 12 by the defendant and the legal proceedings against the tenant were totally irrelevant as if at all the said flat excluding the suit property was given on rent to the tenant it was only the said portion which was rented out that appeared to have been taken back by the defendant from the tenant on 30.09.1999 as the defendant did not have the possession of the suit premises. The correspondence between the defendant and Sh. Jai Karan Kohli was alleged to be fabricated and concocted only for the purpose of the present suit. The allegations made in the written statement were denied those of the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. Issues
7. On 19.07.2002 the following issues were framed Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 8/20
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified by a competent person? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the court as pleaded in preliminary objection no. 2 and if so its effect? OPD
4. Relief.
Evidence:
8. In evidence, plaintiff examined PW1 Sh. Darshan Lal Datta, PW2 Sh.
Julmi Ram and PW3 Sh. Deepak Jain hand writing expert. The defendant in evidence examined himself as DW1 and Sh. B.N. Srivastava, hand writing and finger print expert as DW2. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Final Arguments:
9. It may be noted here that thereafter for a long time the parties sought adjournment for addressing the final arguments on the ground that compromise talks were going on. Finally, however the court granted last opportunity to both the parties to address final arguments since the matter was only lingering on without any progress. Counsel for plaintiff addressed final arguments. Despite opportunities the defendant did not address final Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 9/20 arguments and his right to address oral arguments was closed however liberty was granted to the defendant to file the brief written arguments atleast one week prior to the date of the order. Even till date, no written arguments have been filed by the defendant. Needless to say the matter is being decided on merits as per the material already on record.
10. At the stage of judgment/clarifications, clarification was sought from counsel for plaintiff regarding the document i.e. resolution mentioned as Ex.
PW1/1 which though found mention in the evidence of PW1 however was not on record. Counsel for plaintiff vide his statement recorded on 07.10.2013 stated that Ex. PW1/1 was never filed by the plaintiff though inadvertently at the stage of tendering there was a mention thereof and clarified that however the minutes of the meeting dated 14.02.2000 had been exhibited as PW1/D1. Issue Wise Findings:
My issue wise findings are are as follows Issue No. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
11. The present suit has been filed U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Section 6 of Specific Relief Act provides as follows "Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 10/20 than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
(3) (4) "
12. It is well settled that in a suit U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the question of title is not to be gone into and it is the previous possession which has to be established by the plaintiff along with establishing that the suit had been filed within six months from the date of dispossession.
13. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that flat no. 13 and a portion of the store room of flat no. 12 with entrance from flat no. 13, (the store room of flat no. 12 being the suit property) were in the tenancy and possession of one Sh. Jai Karan Kohli who had been given the tenancy by the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, which was recorded in the sale deed by which flats no. 3 and 12 were sold to the mother of the defendant. As per the plaintiff, Sh. Jai Karan Kohli vacated the tenancy premises comprising flat no. 13 and the store and handed over the actual, and physical possession to the plaintiff in the year Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 11/20 1980 and the plaintiff in the year 1980 and the plaintiff was in possession of the store since the, till the alleged dispossession by defendant which occurred allegedly in the first week of the December, 1999. The present suit has been filed on 22.05.2000.
14. The defendant/DW1 on the other hand denied the possession of the plaintiff qua the suit property though it was admitted that Sh. Jai Karan Kohli had been in possession of the flat no. 13 as well as the suit property till the year 1980. A defence taken by the defendant is that in the year 1985, Sh. Jain Karan Kohli was called upon by the defendant to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the defendant, who in turn informed the defendant that the suit property was lying vacant and asked the defendant to take possession. The letter of the defendant to Sh. J.K. Kohli in this regard dated 25.03.1985 has been proved by defendant as Ex. DW1/1 and the response thereof dated 11.04.1985 by Sh. J.K. Kohli is Ex. DW1/2. The defendant's letter dated 21.04.1985 i.e. Ex. DW1/3 is addressed to Sh. J.K. Kohli wherein defendant stated that he had taken possession of the suit property in pursuance to the letter of Sh. J.K. Kohli. Ex. DW1/2 has gone unrebutted in as much as the plaintiff has not even put a suggestion to defendant/DW1 that the letter Ex. DW1/2 is false or fabricated. Pertinently, Sh. J.K. Kohli used to be, as per the plaintiff's own case, the senior officer of the plaintiff, and his testimony would Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 12/20 have been relevant for the plaintiff to prove that not just the flat no. 13 but also the suit property had been handed over to the plaintiff by him, as well as to rebut the genuineness of the letter Ex. DW1/2 but plaintiff did not call him in evidence. In fact, there is not even a suggestion put to the defendant that Ex. DW1/2 did not bear the signatures of the said Sh. Jai Karan Kohli.
15. The plaintiff has not even called in evidence its particular official/employee to whom Sh Jai Karan Kohli purportedly handed over the possession of the suit property. In absence of any evidence to rebut the genuineness and authenticity of Ex. DW1/2, the contents of the same can safely be read and considered, wherein Sh. J.K. Kohli had expressly stated that the suit property was lying vacant, which is contrary to the plaintiff's plea that the same was handed over to the plaintiff.
16. The letter Ex. PW1/7 on which the plaintiff has placed heavy reliance and for proving the signatures on which the plaintiff called the handwriting expert PW3 as a witness who opined that the signatures thereon were the signatures of the defendant, is in fact not even proved in evidence since PW1 in crossexamination deposed that he was not present at the time the letter Ex. PW1/7 was delivered, which he deposed had been delivered by hand, further testifying that one Mr. Pandit Jagdish Ram told this to him at the time of handing over the records; PW1 admitted that Ex. PW1/7 was never delivered Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 13/20 in his presence and importantly, deposed that he had no dealing with the defendant, nor had he ever seen the defendant signing and writing and also deposed that he could not identify the signatures of the defendant. The defendant/DW1 on the other hand denied that Ex. PW1/7 bore his signatures. It is well settled that the testimony of a handwriting expert is only corroborative evidence and must be read in corroboration with the other evidence on record. It came out in the testimony of PW1 that the person to whom Ex. PW1/7 was allegedly addressed i.e. one Sh. Puran Chand Sahni died four years prior to the date of the trial however the plaintiff could have produced any person as a witness who had dealings with the defendant and was acquainted with the writing of the defendant, or had personally received or atleast witnessed the receiving of the purported letter Ex. PW1/7. This letter Ex. PW1/7 in fact does not even find mention in the plaint or even the replication and no reason has been furnished by the plaintiff for not filing this document earlier or not mentioning about this document in its pleadings. PW1 has no personal knowledge about Ex. PW1/7 and this document cannot at all be considered as being proved as per law. The handwriting experts have only come and deposed in favour of the respective parties that engaged them and their evidence as such is not relevant since the plaintiff has in fact failed to prove Ex. PW1/7 as per law.
Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 14/20
17. The plaintiff was required to establish its prior possession within six months of the date of alleged dispossession. The plaintiff in this regard claimed that it had been keeping its important records in the suit property for the last many years. PW2 deposed in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW2/A that the plaintiff had been using flat no. 13 and the store i.e. the suit property for keeping its important records and that in the month of November, 1999, he had gone to flat no. 13 and the suit property 23 times and thereafter on 15.12.1999 when he tried to open the door which opened into the store, he could not do so. In cross examination, PW2 deposed that he had not brought the appointment letter issued to him by the plaintiff company nor had he filed any documents to show that he had been working with the plaintiff company. The real drawback to the case of the plaintiff in the testimony of this witness is that this witness deposed in his cross examination that the company's officers used to give him direction in writing on a slip about the description of the file to be brought but no such written directions for the period within six months immediately preceding the filing of the present suit, or for that matter any other period, have been placed on record by the plaintiff. PW2 evasively answered that he could not say whether the company prepared any record about the bringing or taking of files from the suit property; the plaintiff is a public limited company and if the files allegedly being stored in the suit premises were Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 15/20 important as averred, then there would be a proper system of taking the files to and fro the suit property and the plaintiff's office of which there would have been a record, otherwise there would be no way of knowing which file had been taken away and which had been returned. No such record has been produced by the plaintiff. It is unbelievable that no such system was followed by the plaintiff and the evasive response of PW2 does more harm to the plaintiff's case than good. In a bid to support the plaintiff's case as much as possible, PW2 even denied the suggestion that the suit property formed part of the flat no. 12 though the plaintiff in the plaint itself avers that the store room of flat no. 12 was the suit property (see: para no. 3 of the plaint).
18. There is absolutely no documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff to show its possession of the suit property at any time during the six months which immediately preceded the date of filing of the present suit. PW1 had testified in cross examination that Sh. Jai Karan Kohli used to pay rent of the suit property to the plaintiff but deposed that he could not produce any record to show that Sh. Jai Karan Kohli ever paid any rent for the suit premises to the plaintiff.
19. It could be argued by the plaintiff that the defendant in the written statement claimed that after taking possession of the suit property, the suit property had been given on rent to one Sh. U.S. Chadha, however Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 16/20 defendant/DW1 deposed in crossexamination that the store/suit property was not rented to U.S. Chadha as it was in his own possession. Of course, this lacunae is there in the case of the defendant but it has to be remembered that the plea of giving possession to U.S. Chadha is only a limb of the defence of the defendant, the other limb being that defendant took possession of the suit property in 1985 in response to the letter of Sh. J.K. Kohli Ex. DW1/2 vide his letter Ex. DW1/3 and that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and this limb of the defendant's arguments could not be rebutted by the plaintiff. This defence is also more probable for the reason that the sale deed between the plaintiff and mother of the defendant Ex. PW1/5 ( I note here that the site plan annexed to the sale deed has not been filed by the plaintiff) mentions in schedule A annexed thereto the portion in the store room opening into the adjoining flat no. 13 in occupation of Sh. Kai Karan Kohli (it seems that due to a typographical error the name of Sh. Jai Karan Kohli has been misspelt) tenant of flat no. 13, as being amongst the property sold to the purchaser. As earlier mentioned, the question of title is irrelevant in a proceeding U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act and has not been considered in the present case but the fact that the suit property was in fact sold to the defendant's mother probabilises the defendant's case that Sh. Jai Karan Kohli asked the defendant to take possession of the suit property which, as is Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 17/20 specifically mentioned in Ex. DW1/2, was lying vacant in the year 1985. The plaintiff cannot seek to take advantage from the deficiencies in the defendant's case without first establishing its own case.
20. The very first and essential ingredient of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act i.e. prior possession of the plaintiff within six months of the date of dispossession has not at all been established by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to discharge its onus qua this issue.
This issue is thus decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified by a competent person? OPP
21. It was clarified by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and it is also clear from the crossexamination proceedings that the plaintiff did not ever file the document Ex. PW1/1 i.e. a resolution dated 14.12.2000 however in any case the plaintiff's witness PW1 produced Ex. PW1/D1 (OSR) i.e. the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of the plaintiff dated 14.02.2000 wherein the resolution in favour of PW1 was passed. Ex. PW1/2 is the certified copy of the resolution dated 02.04.1999 in favour of Sh. V.P. Ghuliani, amongst others while the minutes of the meeting dated 02.04.1999 were brought by the witness in cross examination and exhibited as Ex. PW1/D2 (OSR). No suggestion was put that Sh. V.P. Ghuliani though whom the suit was filed was not a principal officer of Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 18/20 the plaintiff, nor could the veracity of the documents Ex. PW1/2 as well as Ex. PW1/D1 and Ex. PW1/D2 be challenged successfully by the defendant. Sh. V.P. Ghuliani, described as the Group General Manager (legal) and Company Secretary being a principal officer of the plaintiff would naturally be duly authorized to file the present suit, and had been duly authorized vide the resolution Ex. PW1/2 in this regard. The plaintiff has suitably discharged the onus of proving this issue. I hold that the suit has been signed and verified by a competent person.
Issue decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the court as pleaded in preliminary objection no. 2 and if so its effect? OPD
22. The plaintiff has itself filed the sale deed executed by it in favour of the mother of the defendant, it is not as if there has been any concealment on the question of title, but in any case, as already stated above, the question of title is irrelevant in the present case, the plaintiff's case fails on merits and plaintiff has not been able to establish its previous possession of the suit property within six months preceding the filing of the suit but the defendant has not led cogent and positive evidence to demonstrate the concealment of material facts by the plaintiff, therefore though the suit fails on merits however the onus of Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 19/20 this issue is not satisfactorily discharged by defendant.
Issue decided against the defendant.
Issue no. 4. Relief.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, especially on issue no. 1 above, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 31.10.2013 Civil Judge - 17 (Central)
31.10.2013
Suit No. 174/00 Triveni Engineering & Industried Ltd. Vs. Capt. S.B. Uttam Singh 20/20