Delhi District Court
Pramod Kumar vs Karunesh Kumar Pandey on 9 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02: NORTH ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. : DLNT01-000707-2025
RCA DJ No. 06/25
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Pramod Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramhirday Yadav
R/o A- 13, Lakhi Ram Park, Sector - 22,
Rohini, Delhi - 110089.
.....Appellant/defendant
VERSUS
Sh. Karunesh Kumar Pandey
S/o Sh. Raghuvansh Mani Pandey
R/o Care : Dinesh Kumar, R - 1212,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi - 110027.
.....Respondent/plaintiff
Date of Institution : 21/01/2025
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 08/01/2026
Date of Order/Judgment : 09/01/2026
APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22/11/2021
PASSED BY THE COURT OF LD. SCJ-CUM-RC (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS DELHI, IN CS NO. 172/2020 TITLED AS SH.
KARUNESH KUMAR PANDEY VS. SH. PRAMOD KUMAR, FOR
SETTING ASIDE THE SAME.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant/defendant is challenging order dated 22/11/2021 passed by Ld. SCJ-cum-RC (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi. Parties will be referred as per their status before RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 1 of 20 the Ld. Trial Court at some places for convenience. Tersely put; plaintiff-contractor is seeking recovery of dues for work done. Defendant was ex parte before trial Court. Suit was decreed.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Omitting unnecessary details, while giving importance to material circumstances; facts as borne out from record are that plaintiff was engaged by the defendant for work of white washing the house i.e. property bearing No. A - 13, Lakhhi Ram Park, Sector - 22, Rohini, Delhi measuring 100 Sq. Yards. It is case of the plaintiff that it was agreed and settled between the parties as follows :-
"(i) The plaintiff was to use the Velvet Asian Royal paint and the defendant was to pay for the same at the rate of Rs.28/- per Sq. Ft. to the plaintiff.
(ii) Plastic pain Apez (Asian) at the rate of Rs. 25/- per Sq. Ft.
(iii) Wooden Polish melamine glossy at the rate of Rs.85/- per Se. Ft."
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that for entire work, bill of Rs. 3,39,270/- was raised. Besides this, additional work was done by plaintiff. Five almirahs were painted and cleaned. Rs.10,000/- are due towards this work. For renovation and cleaning of kitchen, Rs.3,000/- are due. For polishing of dewan bed, Rs.1,500/- are due. Thus, the total cost of all the work was Rs.3,53,770/-. Part payment of Rs.2,46,000/- was received from defendant by plaintiff. Balance of Rs.1,07,770/- is RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 2 of 20 outstanding. Legal Notice dated 07/12/2019 was sent but to no avail. Thereafter, the present suit was filed seeking recovery of Rs.1,07,770/- with 18% interest per annum.
EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS
4. The defendant was proceeded ex-parte by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 21/01/2021. The report of the Process Server dated 27/02/2020 shows that defendant had refused to write his name and had identified himself as Pramod Kumar, which is deemed service.
5. Plaintiff led evidence and examined himself.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE.
S. No. of Name of witness Important Admission/denial in cross examination. witness
1. PW 1 Sh. Karunesh He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Kumar Pandey Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents :-
1. Diary maintained by the plaintiff as Ex.
PW1/1 (Colly.) (OSR).
2. Page of spiral binding/notebook in which rate of material was written by defendant as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Details of work done on different floors of the property as Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) (running into 7 pages).
4. Legal Notice dated 07/12/2019 as Ex.
PW1/4.
5. Postal Receipt Ex. PW1/5.
RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 3 of 20
6. PE was closed on 29/10/2021.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY LD. TRIAL COURT.
7. Ld. Trial Court returned a finding that summons were duly served on the defendant on 27/02/2020. Defendant was proceeded ex- parte. The averments in the plaint remained intact, unchallenged and uncontroverted. Following relief was granted to the plaintiff :-
"The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant for a sum of Rs.1,07,007/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. Although, plaintiff has prayed for 18% per annum interest but that seems to be an exorbitant rate. The plaintiff is also awarded the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to Record-Room after due compliance."
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES FIRST ARGUMENT
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that after service on 27/02/2020, due to COVID, the appellant could not appear. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 in RE: Cognizance for extension of limitation dated 10/01/2022 wherein it was held that period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 stands excluded for purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. It is argued that due to COVID RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 4 of 20 situation, the defendant could not appear on 21/01/2021 before the Court and thus, the trial Court proceedings did not afford sufficient chance to the defendant to defend the case.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that the appellant/defendant was duly served on 27/02/2020, as per the report of the Process Server. The next date for appearance was 12/03/2020 and nothing stopped the defendant from appearing o 12/03/2020. Even on 12/03/2020, Ld. Trial Court granted opportunity for filing of Written Statement. Another opportunity was granted on 17/08/2020. Finally on 21/01/2021, defendant was proceeded ex-parte. No Written Statement was filed. It is argued that proper opportunities were granted by the Ld. Trial Court.
SECOND ARGUMENT
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff is not credible. Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) is not in the handwriting of the plaintiff. No invoices are on record. The fact that plaintiff purchased material is thus, not proved on record and thus, the suit deserves to be dismissed.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that PW1 - Sh. Karunesh Kumar Pandey in Para No. 12 (1) of his evidence affidavit has specifically stated that payments made by defendant to the plaintiff are reflected in Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). Rate of material as written by the defendant after fixing the same with the deponent is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). Measurement of work done by the deponent on different floors RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 5 of 20 of the property is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.). It is specifically mentioned in Para No. 12 (3) that photocopy is being attached as original is with the defendant. It is argued that evidence of plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
12. It is further argued that in Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) at internal page no. 7, the details of expenses on account of Asian Royal Paint on first floor, Parking Hall, expenses on putti, expenses on staircase, expenses on swing, expenses on five pieces of Almirah, kitchen cleaning, polishing of Diwan are mentioned specifically. This evidence has gone unattributed and unchallenged.
THIRD ARGUMENT
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that plaintiff has failed to prove the bifurcation of charges i.e. what amount was spent on material and what amount was spent on account of labour charges (Reliance is placed upon Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872)
14. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that merely recovery of Rs.1,07,770/- is sought by the plaintiff. No damages for breach of contract are sought. Reliance is placed upon payments made by defendant to the plaintiff are reflected in Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). Rate of material as written by the defendant after fixing the same with the deponent is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). Measurement of work done by the deponent on different floors of the property is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.).It is further argued that in Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) at internal page no. 7, the details of expenses on account of Asian Royal Paint on first floor, RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 6 of 20 Parking Hall, expenses on putti, expenses on staircase, expenses on swing, expenses on five pieces of Almirah, kitchen cleaning, polishing of Diwan are mentioned specifically. This evidence has gone unattributed and unchallenged.
FOURTH ARGUMENT
15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff has failed to prove the case on touchstone of preponderance of probability. Even in absence of defence evidence, the plaintiff ought to have discharge the burden upon him under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is argued that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective.
16. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that payments made by defendant to the plaintiff are reflected in Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). Rate of material as written by the defendant after fixing the same with the deponent is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). Measurement of work done by the deponent on different floors of the property is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.). Case of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Defendant did not even appear in the witness box and thus, the plaintiff has proved his case, as per law.
FIFTH ARGUMENT
17. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that no written contract between plaintiff and defendant has been proved and thus suit ought to be dismissed.
RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 7 of 20
18. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that in Paras No. 14 & 15 of the appeal itself, the factum of contract is admitted by the defendant/appellant SIXTH ARGUMENT
19. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that order dated 05/04/2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court, allowing for secondary evidence is illegal. It is argued that no notice to produce/interrogatories was ever given to the defendant regarding the documents sought to be produced by way of Secondary Evidence and thus, the order is illegal.
20. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that there is no infirmity in the order dated 05/04/2021. It is argued that original documents were taken by fraud by the defendant and thus, notice to produce was not required (Reliance is placed upon proviso (3) of Section 66 of Indian Evidence Act,1872). Reliance is placed upon Para No. 1 of the application seeking secondary evidence dated 15/02/2021, wherein the malafide intention of the defendant is specifically averred.
21. It is further argued that interrogatories were not required to be served as the defendant was already proceeded ex-parte.
SEVENTH ARGUMENT
22. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that order dated 21/12/2024 passed in execution by Ld. Trial Court dismissing RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 8 of 20 application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Valuer is illegal as independent valuation of the work done was essential.
23. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that order dated 21/12/2024 was passed in execution proceedings. Section 105 of CPC permits appeal against orders of trial Court and not of appeal against orders in execution. It is argued that executing Court cannot go behind the decree and hence, the order dated 21/12/2024 is legal.
EIGHTH ARGUMENT
24. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff never completed his work. The amount as per completed work already stands paid and thus, the suit deserved to be dismissed.
25. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that onus of these allegations is upon the defendant. Defendant was ex-parte. Onus has not been discharged.
NINTH ARGUMENT
26. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that proper material was not used by the plaintiff while completion of work and thus, the suit be dismissed.
27. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contends that onus of these allegations is upon the defendant. Defendant was ex-parte. Onus has not been discharged. No notice regarding use to inferior RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 9 of 20 quality material was ever served upon the plaintiff and proved on record.
28. This Court has carefully heard counsel for parties. Record has been perused. After carefully considering rival contentions following findings are returned:
FOLLOWING POINTS OF DETERMINATION UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 31 CPC ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT:
FIRST Whether the trial Court did not afford sufficient chance to the defendant to defend the case?
SECOND Whether the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff is not credible and thus, the suit deserves to be dismissed?
THIRD Whether plaintiff has failed to prove the bifurcation of charges i.e. what amount was spent on material and what amount was spent on account of labour charges and thus, the suit deserves to be dismissed?
FOURTH Whether plaintiff has failed to prove the case on touchstone of preponderance of probability?
FIFTH Whether contract between plaintiff and defendant has not been been proved and thus suit ought to be dismissed?
SIXTH Whether order dated 05/04/2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court, allowing for secondary evidence is illegal?
RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 10 of 20 SEVENTH Whether order dated 21/12/2024 passed in execution by Ld. Trial Court dismissing application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Valuer is illegal?
EIGHTH Whether the plaintiff never completed his work. The amount as per completed work already stands paid and thus, the suit deserved to be dismissed?
NINTH Whether proper material was not used by the plaintiff while completion of work and thus, the suit is liable to be be dismissed?
FINDINGS FIRST POINT OF DETERMINATION
29. The first point of determination which arises for consideration is whether the trial Court did not afford sufficient chance to the defendant to defend the case?
30. Submissions on behalf of appellant that after service on 27/02/2020, due to COVID, the appellant could not appear. (Reliance was placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 in RE: Cognizance for extension of limitation dated 10/01/2022 wherein it was held that period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 stands excluded for purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings). Further arguments that due to COVID situation, the defendant could not appear on 21/01/2021 before the Court and thus, the trial Court proceedings did RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 11 of 20 not afford sufficient chance to the defendant to defend the case; so suit be dismissed. These submissions are without merits. Their is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court however pending proceedings were not abated. Perusal of record shows that appellant/defendant was duly served on 27/02/2020, as per the report of the Process Server. The next date for appearance was 12/03/2020 and nothing stopped the defendant from appearing on 12/03/2020. Even on 12/03/2020, Ld. Trial Court granted opportunity for filing of Written Statement. Another opportunity was granted on 17/08/2020. Finally only on 21/01/2021, defendant was proceeded ex- parte. Appearance through VC was also possible. No Written Statement was filed. Proper opportunities were duly granted by the Ld. Trial Court.
31. First point of determination is decided against appellant.
SECOND POINT OF DETERMINATION
32. The second point of determination arises for consideration is whether the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff is not credible and thus, the suit deserves to be dismissed?
33. Submissions on behalf of appellant that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff is not credible. Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) is not in the handwriting of the plaintiff. No invoices are on record. The fact that plaintiff purchased material is , not proved on record. Submissions that the suit deserves to be dismissed, are without merits. These submissions are rejected, as:
RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 12 of 20
34. Perusal of record shows that PW1 - Sh. Karunesh Kumar Pandey in Para No. 12 (1) of his evidence affidavit has specifically stated that payments made by defendant to the plaintiff are reflected in Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). Rate of material as written by the defendant after fixing the same with the deponent is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). Measurement of work done by the deponent on different floors of the property is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.). It is specifically mentioned in Para No. 12 (3) that photocopy is being attached as original is with the defendant. Evidence of plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
35. Perusal of record shows that in Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) at internal page no. 7, the details of expenses on account of Asian Royal Paint on first floor, Parking Hall, expenses on putti, expenses on staircase, expenses on swing, expenses on five pieces of Almirah, kitchen cleaning, polishing of Diwan are mentioned specifically. This evidence has gone unattributed and unchallenged.
36. Second point of determination is decided against appellant.
THIRD POINT OF DETERMINATION
37. The third point of determination is whether plaintiff has failed to prove the bifurcation of charges i.e. what amount was spent on material and what amount was spent on account of labour charges and thus, the suit deserves to be dismissed?
38. Submissions on behalf of appellant that plaintiff has failed to prove the bifurcation of charges i.e. what amount was spent on RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 13 of 20 material and what amount was spent on account of labour charges (Reliance is placed upon Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872). Submissions that suit be dismissed are without merits. These submissions are rejected, as:
39. Perusal of record shows that merely recovery of Rs. 1,07,770/- is sought by the plaintiff. Payments made by defendant to the plaintiff are reflected in Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). Rate of material as written by the defendant after fixing the same with the deponent is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). Measurement of work done by the deponent on different floors of the property is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.)Further in Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) at internal page no. 7, the details of expenses on account of Asian Royal Paint on first floor, Parking Hall, expenses on putti, expenses on staircase, expenses on swing, expenses on five pieces of Almirah, kitchen cleaning, polishing of Diwan are mentioned specifically. This evidence has gone unattributed and unchallenged. Thus on the basis of evidence on record suit of plaintiff deserves to be decreed as loss to plaintiff has been duly established.
40. Third point of determination is decided against appellant.
FOURTH POINT OF DETERMINATION
41. The fourth point of determination which arises for consideration is whether plaintiff has failed to prove the case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities?
RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 14 of 20
42. Submissions on behalf of appellant are that the plaintiff has failed to prove the case on touchstone of preponderance of probability. Further submission is that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective, so suit be dismissed are without merits. These submissions are rejected, as :
43. Perusal of record shows that payments made by defendant to the plaintiff are reflected in Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). Rate of material as written by the defendant after fixing the same with the deponent is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). Measurement of work done by the deponent on different floors of the property is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.). Case of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
44. Defendant did not even appear in the witness box and thus, the plaintiff has proved his case, as per law. Adverse inference is inferred against the defendants. In case titled as "Iqbal Basith And Others (S) Vs. N. Subbalakshmi And Others (S)", 2020 INSC 696 , it was held that :
"...Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross-examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of the principles contained in Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872...."
FIFTH POINT OF DETERMINATION
45. The fifth point of determination which arises for consideration is whether contract between plaintiff and defendant has not been proved and thus suit ought to be dismissed?
RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 15 of 20
46. Submissions on behalf of appellant that no contract between plaintiff and defendant has been proved and thus suit ought to be dismissed, are without merits these submission are rejected, as:
47. Perusal of record shows that in Paras No. 14 & 15 of the appeal itself, the factum of contract is admitted by the defendant/appellant though terms are stated to differ. The terms of oral contract as projected by plaintiff in his evidence have gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
48. Fifth point of determination is decided against appellant.
SIXTH POINT OF DETERMINATION
49. The sixth point of determination which arises for consideration is whether order dated 05/04/2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court, allowing for secondary evidence is illegal?
50. Submissions on behalf of appellant is that order dated 05/04/2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court, allowing for secondary evidence is illegal. Further argument is that no notice to produce/interrogatories was ever given to the defendant regarding the documents sought to be produced by way of Secondary Evidence and thus, the order is illegal. These submissions are without merits. These submissions are rejected, as:
51. Perusal of record shows that there is no infirmity in the order dated 05/04/2021. Original documents were taken by fraud by the defendant and thus, notice to produce was not required (Reliance is RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 16 of 20 rightly placed on behalf of plaintiff upon proviso (3) of Section 66 of Indian Evidence Act,1872). Reliance is rightly placed by plaintiff upon Para No. 1 of the application seeking secondary evidence dated 15/02/2021, wherein the malafide intention of the defendant is specifically averred.
52. It is further rightly argued on behalf of plaintiff that interrogatories were not required to be served as the defendant was already proceeded ex-parte.
53. Sixth point of determination is decided against appellant.
SEVENTH POINT OF DETERMINATION
54. The seventh point of determination which arises for consideration is whether order dated 21/12/2024 passed in execution by Ld. Trial Court dismissing application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Valuer is illegal?
55. Submissions on behalf of appellant is that order dated 21/12/2024 passed in execution by Ld. Trial Court dismissing application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Valuer is illegal as independent valuation of the work done was essential. The submission is that order dated 21/12/2024 passed in execution by Ld. Trial Court dismissing application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Valuer is illegal. These submissions are rejected, as :
56. Perusal of record shows that order dated 21/12/2024 was passed in execution proceedings. Executing Court cannot go behind the RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 17 of 20 decree and hence, the order dated 21/12/2024 is legal. No challenge to order dated 21/12/2024 was made as pre law. Same has already attained finality.
57. Seventh point of determination is decided against appellant.
EIGHTH POINT OF DETERMINATION
58. The fourth point of determination which arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff never completed his work. The amount as per completed work already stands paid and thus, the suit deserved to be dismissed?
59. Submissions on behalf of appellant that the plaintiff never completed his work. The amount as per completed work already stands paid and thus, the suit deserved to be dismissed. Are without merits. These are rejected, as :
60. Onus of these allegations is upon the defendant. Defendant was ex-parte. Onus has not been discharged. Their is no pleading and proof of these allegations by defendants.
61. Eighth point of determination is decided against appellant.
NINTH POINT OF DETERMINATION
62. The ninth point of determination which arises for consideration is whether proper material was not used by the plaintiff while completion of work and thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed?
RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 18 of 20
63. Submissions on behalf of appellant that proper material was not used by the plaintiff while completion of work and thus, the suit be dismissed, are without merits. These submissions are rejected; as:
64. Onus to prove these allegations was upon the defendant. Defendant was ex-parte. Onus has not been discharged. No notice regarding use to inferior quality material was ever served upon the plaintiff and proved on record. Their is no pleading and proof of these allegations by defendants.
65. Ninth point of determination is decided against appellant.
COURT FEES
66. A memorandum of appeal, as provided in Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, has to be stamped according to the value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal; in other words, the relief claimed in the memorandum of appeal determines the value of the appeal for the purposes of court fees.(reliance is placed upon case titled as "Nemi Chand v. Edward Mills Co. Ltd.", reported as (1952) 2 SCC 409 : 1952 SCC OnLine SC 114). Appellant is directed to file proper Court fees before 31/03/2026.
CONCLUSION
67. As a result, the present appeal fails because the appellant has utterly failed to prove any illegality, infirmity and perversity in the impugned judgment dated 22/11/2021. The appeal is dismissed with RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 19 of 20 costs being devoid of merits. The judgment and decree of the Ld Trial Court dated 22/11/2021 is upheld.
68. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.
69. A copy of this order along with the TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court immediately by the Ahlmad. File of the appeal be consigned to Record-Room. Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.01.09 15:48:58 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Vikram Bali) th on this 9 Day of January, 2026 District Judge-02, North, Rohini Court Complex, Rohini, Delhi RCA DJ No.06/25 Pramod Kumar Vs. Karunesh Kumar Pandey Page No. 20 of 20