Delhi District Court
Sh. Subhash Chand Jain vs Shiv Kumar Tyagi @ Satish Tyagi on 4 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SCJ-CUM-RC (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
In the matter of :
CS No. 390/2016 CNR No. - DLNE03-000959-2016
Sh. Subhash Chand Jain,
s/o Late Sh. Shekhar Chand Jain,
r/o House no. 54, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shiv Kumar Tyagi @ Satish Tyagi
r/o 5299, Basant Road, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110055.
2. The SHO,
PS Khazuri Khas,
North East District,
Delhi (Deleted) ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 10.05.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment : 29.09.2021
Date of Decision : 04.10.2021
Final Decision : Partly Decreed
JUDGMENT
(Suit for mandatory and permanent injunction)
1. This is a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the CS No. 390/16 Page 1 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of property namely agricultural land measuring two bigha out of khasra no. 615/3 Min situated in the revenue estate of Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan (herein referred as suit property). The said property was initially purchased by plaintiff's father from Smt. Ram Kali vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.1995. It is stated that Sh. Shekhar Chand Jain (father of the plaintiff) died in the year 1998 and after his death the suit property was inherited by the plaintiff and other legal heirs by operation of law. In a family settlement recorded before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OSR) No. 1620/2007 vide order dated 06.11.2008 all other legal heirs have given up their rights qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. It is stated that the plaintiff and his father were in peaceful possession of the suit property since 1995 when the property was purchased. No other person had ever claimed any right, title, ownership or interest in the said suit property for the last more than 12 years. It is stated that an incident of breaking the boundary and room wall, breaking of locks, attempt to theft and criminal tresspass in the said property was found in the morning on 09.06.2009 and a complaint in this regard was given to the SHO, PS Khazuri Khas, but no action taken by the defendant no.2 till date. It is stated that while the plaintiff was out of CS No. 390/16 Page 2 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
Delhi for business, on 07.08.2009 at about 06.00 to 06.30 PM, defendant Shiv Kumar Tyagi @ Satish Tyagi visited the suit property along with his men and illegally and forcibly removed the plaintiff's staff/workers, who were doing plastering and repair work at the said property being damaged earlier, by extending threats and thereafter the defendant put his lock on the entry door. The defendant called the PCR as well as the local police, which came within 10 minutes with malafide intention to create false evidence. Neighbourers and the caretaker Ram Samaj explained the police that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for last many years and further the goods/articles lying inside are those of the plaintiff but the police refused to listen to the plaintiff's staff/workers and allowed the defendant to put his lock. As per the plaintiff the defendant and his associates were in process of removing the plaintiff's articles/goods lying therein consisting of Bitumen Tankers-cum-reactors, testing equipments, stone slabs, bitumen and construction material, sealing compound boxes, etc, relating to construction/bitumen factory, plaintiff under threat to his life and property, in the evening of 08.08.2009 went to the office of DCP, North East Distt, and submitted a complaint vide diary no. 7181 at 06.05 PM on 08.08.2009, but no action taken by the police. It is stated that having no remedy as police was not taking any action the plaintiff filed a criminal writ petition bearing no. 1090/2009 for directions to police to take action against criminal tresspass, etc. It is apprehended that CS No. 390/16 Page 3 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
the defendant no. 1 shall remove all the articles/goods of the plaintiff and put his goods to cause undue hardship/loss to the plaintiff or create any third party rights and occupy the premises in an illegal manner. It is stated that defendant no.1 has illegaly put a lock which prevents the ingress and egress of the rightful owner i.e. the plaintiff, causing obstruction to the peaceful legal enjoyment of the right of the plaintiff to enjoy his property. It is stated that defendant no. 1 has no right, title, interest of concern in the above said suit property. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking following reliefs:-
(a) Decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1, directing defendant no.
1 to remove the lock put by him for the purpose of putting an end to a wrongful state of things created by defendant no. 1to allow plaintiff to ingress and egress of his property.
(b) Decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2, thereby directing the defendant no. 2 to take action as per law against defendant no. 1.
(c) Decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1, thereby restraining him from removing the goods of the plaintiff lying in the suit property, from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property without following due process of law and also restraining the defendant no. 1 from creating third party interest in the suit property in CS No. 390/16 Page 4 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
any manner.
3. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement stating that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property as the suit property is in the possession of defendant no. 1 since its purchase from Satish Kumar Jain vide byana agreement dated 30.12.1991 followed by notorized documents such as GPA, Will, receipt, affidavit and agreement to sell executed on 15.03.1992. It is stated that plaintiff is claiming his right to the suit property on the basis of unregistered General Power of Attorney dated 21.12.1994 executed by one Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- which has got no legal consequences and the said plaintiff executed a sale deed dated 03.08.1998 in favour of his father Sh. Shekhar Chand Jain s/o Late Sh. H.C. Jain. Further, on the death of Sh. Shekhar Chand Jain, the plaintiff claims ownership of the suit land on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 03.08.1998, executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father Late Sh. Shekhar Chand Jain which amounts to creation of a title deed in his own favour by the plaintiff without having any legal authority from the actual owner Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain. Thus, the plaintiff has no rights over the suit property in question. It is stated that Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain was the owner of the entire land measuring 2 bighas 12 biswa out of Khasra no. 615/3 min. situated at Revenue Estate, Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, Delhi
-94 on the basis of the sale deed executed on 30.10.1986 by the CS No. 390/16 Page 5 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
original owners/bhumidars, namely Sh. Chandru and Sh. Hari, both sons of Late Sh. Gokal r/o Village Jagatpur, Delhi. Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain sold the said land measuring 1260 sq. yards to Sh. Satish Kumar Jain vide General Power of Attorney and other connected documents dated 19.07.1991. That the plaintiff has created a forged sale deed dated 03.08.1998 before Sub Registrar-IV and did not allow the defendant to get his documents registered as the Sub Registrar refused to register the sale deed vide order dated 05.03.2009. That the plaintiff has no right or title in the suit property, hence, no cause of action lies profiling the present suit. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings defendant no. 2 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 08.02.2021.
5. Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff remonstrating the contents of the written statement and reinforcing those of the plaint.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 16.09.2010:
1. Whether plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed forcefully on 7/8.08.2009? OPP.CS No. 390/16 Page 6 of 20
Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs of mandatory injunction as prayed for in clauses (a), (b) and (c)? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendent-lite and future damages? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs? OPP.
6. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
7. Plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and reiterated the same facts as that mentioned in the plaint. Same are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. PW1 also relied upon following documents:-
i. Ex. PW1/1 : Sale deed dated 19.10.1995.
ii. Ex. PW1/2 : Site plan.
iii. Ex. PW1/3 : Certified copy of Khasra Girdawari.
iv. Ex. PW1/4 : Certified copy of the order dated 06.11.2008
passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
v. Ex. PW1/5 : Copy of complaint dated 09.06.2009 bearing
receipt.
vi. Ex. PW1/6 : Copy of complaint dated 08.08.2009 bearing
receipt.
vii. Ex. PW1/7 : Complaint dated 02.12.2009.
viii. Ex. PW1/8 : Complaint dated 18.12.2009.
CS No. 390/16 Page 7 of 20
Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
ix. Ex. PW1/9 : Photographs.
to Ex. PW1/15
x. Ex. PW1/16 : Status report filed by police before Hon'ble
Delhi High Court.
xi. Ex. PW1/17 : FIR registered bearing no. 262/09.
xii. Ex. PW1/18 : Order passed subsequent to FIR registered.
xiii. Mark 19 : The copy of WP(Crl) no. 1090/09.
xiv. Ex. PW1/20 : Documents pertaining to business relating to
to the goods lying in the suit property.
Ex. PW1/43
This witness was also cross examined on behalf of defendant no.1.
Plaintiff examined his caretaker Sh. Ram Samajh as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A deposing on the same lines as that of plaintiff.
Plaintiff examined official witness from the office of Sub Registrar, Seelampur, Delhi namely Sh. Budh Prakash as PW3 who brought the summoned record of the sale deed dated 19.10.1995 registered vide registration number 4497 in Book no. 1, Volume 2744 pages 117 to 121. Original is Ex. PW1/1. This witness was cross examined on behalf of defendant no. 1.
Plaintiff also examined another witness namely Sh. Rishi Pal Sharma, Retd. Inspector as PW4. This witness stated that a complaint was received in PS Khajuri Khas from Sh. S.C. Jain on which a case CS No. 390/16 Page 8 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
FIR no. 262 dated 08.09.2009 u/o 448 IPC was registered. The copy of the same is Ex. PW1/17. He further deposed that the articles lying in the suit property belonged to Sh. S.C. Jain and he has verified the same from the witnesses. The witness after going through the site plan Ex. PW1/2, photographs Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/15, stated that the same were of the goods lying in the suit property. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of defendant no. 1.
Plaintiff examined another summoned witness Insp. Pankaj Sharma as PW5. This witness identified the status report Ex. PW1/16 filed by him before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 14.09.2009. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of defendant no. 1.
Plaintiff also examined one independent witnesses namely Sh. Chaudhary Trilochan Singh as PW6. This witness deposed and supported the plea taken by the plaintiff in his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. PW6/A. This witness was cross examined on behalf of defendant no. 1 Sh. Darpan Ahluwallia was examined as PW7 who took the photographs of property and goods and exhibited the same on record as Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/14. This witness was cross examined on behalf of defendant no. 1.
Wife of the plaintiff Smt. Madhu Jain also stepped into the witness box as PW8 by tendering her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. PW8/A supporting the plea of the plaintiff. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of the defendant no. 1.
CS No. 390/16 Page 9 of 20Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
Plaintiff also examined another independent witness namely Sh. Dharam Singh as PW9. This witness tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. PW9/A supporting the case of the plaintiff. This witness was also cross examined on behalf of defendant no. 1.
Plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 07.12.2019 as no more witnesses were to be examined.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
8. Despite granted several opportunities, defendant no. 1 failed to lead his evidence. Hence, defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 22.02.2020.
9. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1Whether plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP.
10. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In order to prove this case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 alongwith several other witnesses including independent witnesses as well as official witnesses. Plaintiff exhibited on record a sale deed dated 19.10.1995 as Ex. PW1/1. The sale deed has been executed by Ram kali through her general attorney Sunil Jain in favour of father of the CS No. 390/16 Page 10 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
plaintiff namely Shekhar Chand Jain. This sale deed has been duly proved by the testimony of PW 3 Sh. Budh Prakash Gautam, LDC from the office of Sub-Registrar, Seelampur, Delhi. This witness brought the original record pertaining to the sale deed. Nothing contradictory has appeared in his testimony and he has duly proved the aforesaid sale deed.
The claim of the plaintiff is that he alongwith other LRs inherited the properties of his deceased father namely Shekhar Chand Jain. As per the plaintiff, a family settlement arrived amongst the LRs whereby several properties were divided and the suit property came into the share of the plaintiff and that is how he became the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has relied upon a document as Ex.PW 1/4 i.e. the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi alongwith the application u/O XXIII Rule 3 CPC moved by all the LRs. Vide the aforesaid order a consent decree was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. By virtue of the family settlement, as per para no. 5 clause B
(ii), the suit property is reflected to be in the share of the plaintiff. The aforesaid document Ex.PW1/4 has been duly proved on record. On the strength of document Ex.PW1/1 i.e. Sale Deed and the document Ex.PW1/4 i.e. the consent decree, plaintiff has been able to prove his ownership over the suit property.
CS No. 390/16 Page 11 of 20Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
11. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that plaintiff has not filed on record the General Power of Attorney in favour of Sunil Jain executed by Smt. Ramkali nor the complete chain of documents pertaining to the suit property has been placed on record, hence, plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership. This court does not find merits in the contention raised by the defendant as the defendant has not placed on record any documents to prove his contrary claim of ownership over the suit property nor defendant has lead any evidence on record to rebut the claim of the plaintiff. The sale deed proved on record and the family settlement established on record is sufficient to hold the plaintiff to be owner of the suit property on the preponderance of probabilities also plaintiff has better title qua the suit property in absence of any evidence lead by the defendant.
12. In view of the discussion above and the evidence lead on record, this issue stand decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed forcefully on 7/8.08.2009? OPP
13. The onus to prove this issue was again upon the plaintiff. For proving this issue, the plaintiff was supposed to establish two aspects, CS No. 390/16 Page 12 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
one that he was in possession of the suit property and secondly he has been dispossessed forcefully from the same. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. In his examination in chief, he has relied upon the photographs Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/14 to show that the material pertaining to his business is lying in the suit property. He further relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/20 to Ex.PW1/43 such as bills, billties, Sale Tax Form to show that plaintiff has been dealing in the material which is reflected in the aforesaid photographs whereas defendant has no concern with the said material. During the cross-examination of PW1 not even a single suggestion has been given by the defendant denying the possession of the plaintiff. The entire cross-examination conducted is around the titled documents and on the aspect as to how the plaintiff has derived his ownership over the suit property. Testimony of plaintiff on the aspect of possession remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
14. Plaintiff examined his caretaker Ramsamjh as PW2. This witness categorically deposed in his examination in chief that the suit plot was constructed in his presence and the material lying in the suit plot was brought by his employer Sh. Subhash Chand Jain i.e. plaintiff herein. He further stated that he has been residing in the suit property and working as watchman since 1996. This witness was cross-examined by the defendant. Bare perusal of the cross-examination of PW2 shows that there is no material infirmity or contradiction appeared in his testimony resulting in unrebutted testimony. This witness during cross-
CS No. 390/16 Page 13 of 20Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
examination gave specific answers qua the description of the property including measurement of tin shed and the room constructed on the suit property. Though, this witness could not produce any document to show his residence in the suit property but his unrebutted oral testimony was enough to be relied upon and it establishes the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
15. PW4 Sh. Rishipal Sharma, who was posted as Inspector Investigation in PS Khajuri Khas at the relevant point of time proved on record the FIR Ex. PW1/17 registered on the complaint of the plaintiff dated 08.09.2009. This witness categorically deposed that after due investigation, it was found and verified that the articles lying in the suit property belonged to the plaintiff. He also identified the actual site of the suit property by seeing the site plan Ex.PW1/2 which has also been proved by the plaintiff. This witness further identified the goods lying in the suit property by seeing the photographs Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/15. Though, the photographs relied upon by the plaintiff have not been proved in accordance with the law as the witness Darpan Ahluwalia PW7 did not place on the record the negatives or the memory card of the photographs. Nor any certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been placed on record, still the testimony of PW4 on the aspect of identifying articles by merely seeing the photographs carries some evidentiary value that corroborates the oral testimony of the plaintiff witnesses showing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
CS No. 390/16 Page 14 of 20Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
PW 4 was cross-examined by the defendant but again not even a single contradiction have come out in his testimony. This witness also established the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
16. PW5 Inspector Pankaj Sharma proved on record status report Ex.PW1/16 relied by the plaintiff. As per the said status report filed by the witness before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff was found in active possession of the suit property and the goods lying therein belonged to him. The status report has been duly proved on record. This witness has also established the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
17. PW 6 Chaudhary Trilochan Singh was the other independent witness examined by the plaintiff to prove his possession qua the suit property. Smt. Ramkali from whom the property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff was the mother of PW6. This witness in his examination in chief deposed that father of the plaintiff constructed the suit property and the plaintiff alongwith his father have been in possession of the same for last 15 years. This witness was cross- examined by the defendant. During his cross-examination also this witness categorically stated that he had seen the father of the plaintiff carrying the construction over the suit property. Not even a single suggestion denying the possession of the plaintiff was put to this witness. The entire cross-examination revolved around the titled CS No. 390/16 Page 15 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
documents. The testimony of this witness on the aspect of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property remained unrebutted. In view of the testimony of witnesses discussed above, it is proved that plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
18. Now coming to the aspect of forceful dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property by the defendant. Plaintiff has filed the complaint dated 08.08.2009 Ex. PW1/6 on the basis of which FIR was registered Ex. PW1/17. The said FIR has been proved on record by the witness PW4. Plaintiff has claimed that defendant on 07.08.2009 in his absence came alongwith his associates and removed the care taker and other workers who were carrying repair work at the suit property and thereafter he put his lock on the entry door. No question or suggestion denying such incident has been put by the defendant to the plaintiff during his cross examination, meaning thereby the claim of the plaintiff remained uncontroverted. PW-2 Ram Samajh was the most important witness who specifically stated that defendant along with associates came at the suit plot and removed the labourers along with the PW2 from the suit property and put his lock on the site. Again, no contradiction has appeared in the testimony of PW2 on the aspect of forceful dispossession. Testimony of PW1 and PW2 along with the documents proved on record clearly establishes the dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property by the defendant. On the contrary, defendant has failed to produce any substantial document or oral CS No. 390/16 Page 16 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
evidence to prove his possession of the suit property since 1992 as claimed by the defendant in his WS.
19. The plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence on record and has successfully discharged the onus to prove his possession and subsequent forceful dispossession from the suit property. Accordingly, this issue also stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs of mandatory injunction as prayed for in clauses (a), (b) and (c)? OPP
20. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. As far as relief of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause (b) of the prayer clause is concerned, the relief has become redundant after deletion of the name of the defendant no. 2 from the array of the parties upon submissions made by the plaintiff himself vide order dated 08.02.2021.
As far as the remaining two reliefs of mandatory injunction are concerned, in view of the finding given in the previous issues, plaintiff is entitled to both the reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed in clause (a) and clause (c) of the prayer clause. Accordingly, this issue also stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1.
CS No. 390/16 Page 17 of 20Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
ISSUE NO. 4Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendent-lite and future damages? OPP.
21. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. No evidence has been led by the plaintiff on the aspect of penden-lite or future damages. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has been deprived of the usage of the property by the defendant during the pendency of the present suit so he should be compensated adequately by awarding damages. Admittedly, the suit property is lying locked and with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the keys of the lock were deposited with the Ld. Registrar General of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 25.11.2009. During the pendency of the present suit the property has not been used by the defendant so any loss suffered by the plaintiff cannot be quantified as damages attributable to the defendant. This court do not find merits in the argument put forth by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in respect to awarding of damages. Accordingly, this issue stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs? OPP.
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The findings of the previous issues with respect to the main reliefs have been CS No. 390/16 Page 18 of 20 Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
returned in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff has been able to establish his case. The plaintiff has prosecuted this suit for a period of more than 10 years and have borne heavy costs in pursuing the present suit. This court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit as well. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1.
Relief
23. In view of the discussion and the finding given in the issues above, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed. Defendant no. 1 is directed to remove his lock put on the suit property i.e. 2 bighas out of Khasra no. 615/3 Min. situated in Revenue Estate of Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/2 enabling the plaintiff to have free ingress and egress to his property. Defendant no. 1 is further restrained from removing the goods/articles belonging to the plaintiff lying in the suit property and also he is further restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property in any manner and shall also not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property without following due process of law. Relief qua the damages stands declined.
24. Costs of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS No. 390/16 Page 19 of 20Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.
25. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date:
2021.10.04
16:50:48 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 04.10.2021 SCJ-cum-RC
North East District,
KKD/DELHI
Containing 20 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date:
2021.10.04
16:50:57 +0530
(VISHAL PAHUJA)
SCJ-cum-RC
North East District,
KKD/DELHI
CS No. 390/16 Page 20 of 20
Subhash Chand v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & ors.