Delhi District Court
Jindal Kumar vs . Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr. on 12 October, 2015
Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR : CIVIL JUDGE12
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO : 282/13 & M.No.11/15
In the matter of :
Unique ID Number : 02401C0438352011
Jindal Kumar
Proprietor of M/s. Wah Wah Style Fashions,
RZ155, 1st Floor, Gali No.1,
Dabri Village, New Delhi - 110 045. ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Sunil Kumar Jain,
2998, Chandni Chowk,
Balimaran, Near Chhotti Baradari,
Opposite Karan Photo Studio,
Delhi - 110 006.
2. M/s. Ankit Enterprises,
Through its Proprietor Sh. Aditya,
2128, Ajay Complex,
Chandpal Bazar, Jaipur. ...DEFENDANTS
Date of institution : 21.09.2011
Date of judgment : 12.10.2015
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.95,895/ ALONG WITH INTEREST @
18% PER ANNUM
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.95,895/ CS No.282/13 Pg 1 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
along with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. against the defendant on the grounds that he is proprietor of M/s. Wah Wah Style Fashions, dealing in the surplus garment of various qualities and standards. Plaintiff supplied 12786 pieces of export garment to defendant No.2 through invoice No.104 dated 07.11.2009 for Rs.95,895/. The defendant No.1 under instructions and directions of the plaintiff, had collected sum of Rs.95,895/ from defendant No.2 on 14.11.2009 against signing and executing the voucher dated 14.11.2009. Plaintiff several times requested defendant No.1 to give Rs.95,895/ but he avoided the matter on one pretext or the other. Defendant No.2 has confirmed that he had made this payment to defendant No.1, further to be paid by him to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 in gross violation of trust of the plaintiff, has misappropriated the aforesaid sum and not returning it to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
2. Defendant No.1 in his his written statement stated that CS No.282/13 Pg 2 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
plaintiff and defendant No.2 in connivance with each other have forged and fabricated the voucher dated 14.11.2009, by forging his signatures. Defendant No.1 alleges to have lodged some complaint with the police against plaintiff and defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 has no concern either with plaintiff or defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 never received any sum from defendant No.2 on behalf of plaintiff. Rest of the case of the plaintiff is denied being wrong and incorrect.
3. Defendant No.2 in his written statement supported the case of the plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant No.1 denying its contents and reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
5. Plaintiff has also filed an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. moved on dated 28.02.2013 for initiation of criminal proceedings against defendant No.1 for denying his signatures on the voucher. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has also filed an CS No.282/13 Pg 3 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
application u/s 340 Cr.P.C moved on dated 11.09.2014 (M.No. 11/15 registered separately) for initiation of proceedings against defendant No.2 for giving false statement in the court.
6. Replies to both these applications u/s 340 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the concerned parties.
7. Ld. counsel for the parties in all fairness stated that these applications may be disposed off in view of the evidence led on record and the documents placed. Therefore, the fate of these applications will be decided vide this judgment.
8. To decide the controversy between the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD1.
2. Whether the plaintiff has filed a false suit against the defendant? OPD1.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to CS No.282/13 Pg 4 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
decree of Rs.95,895/, as prayed for?
OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
5. Relief.
9. Plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on the following documents:
1. Cheque book Ex.PW1/1.
2. Legal notice dated 25.03.2011 Ex.PW1/2.
3. Reply sent by defendant No.2 to the legal notice dated 25.03.2011 Ex.PW1/3.
4. MarkB to MarkG TATA Indicom bills.
5. MarkH complaint dated 27.11.2011 to the police.
6. MarkI rent agreement.
7. MarkJ telephone bill, CS No.282/13 Pg 5 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
8. MarkK photocopy of voucher dated 14.11.2009.
10.PW2 HC Mahender from PS Sagar Pur deposed that no complaint dated 27.11.2011 was ever received in PS Sagar Pur as per record, either on transfer or directly. But he had said that this complaint was marked to SI Manjeet Singh.
11.PW3 Inspector Satvir Singh, Addl. SHO PS Dabri deposed that on 01.12.2011, he was posted as Inspector (Investigation) at PS Dabri. On that day, he had received a complaint of Jindal Kumar vide diary No.4805/ACP Dabri dated 01.12.2011. The said complaint was found pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of PS Sagar Pur. It was accordingly transferred to PS Sagar Pur through ACP Dabri on 09.12.2011. The reply brought by PW3 is Ex.PW3/A. The copy of compliant register showing entry of complaint at serial No.48 is Ex.PW3/B.
12.PW4, Aditya, is defendant No.2, who in his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW4/A, has supported the case of the plaintiff.
CS No.282/13 Pg 6 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
He filed on record the original voucher dated 14.11.2009 Ex.PW4/1 bearing his signatures at point B and that of defendant No.1 at point A.
13.Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 by way of his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied on the complaint dated 04.01.2012 PS Sagar Pur MarkD1 and another complaint dated 05.05.2012 at PS Subzi Mandi Ex.DW2/1. The criminal complaint bearing No.82/01 pending in the court of Sh. Pawan Singh Rajawat, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, is Ex.DW3/1.
14.DW2 Ct. Bhuvindra P. Singh PS Subzi Mandi has proved the entry at serial No.276 of PGO register 2012, made by defendant No.1 against Aditya Kumar and Jindal Kumar dated 05.05.2012. Copy of the complaint is Ex.DW2/1 along with the report Ex.DW2/2.
15.DW3 Sunita Rani is the Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Pawan Singh Rajawat, Ld. MM, who had brought the judicial CS No.282/13 Pg 7 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
file of complaint No.82/01/12 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. titled Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. Aditya Kumar & Ors., Ex.DW3/1.
16.DW4 Ct. Narender Kumar had brought the original complaint register of 04.01.2012, when defendant No.1 had made a complaint at PS Sagar Pur. Copy of the complaint register serial no.3 is Ex.DW4/1. Copy of complaint dated 04.01.2012 is Ex.DW4/2.
17.DW5, Aditya Kumar, is defendant No.2, who had brought the income tax return for the assessment year 20102011 Ex.DW5/1. However, he did not bring the record i.e. books of accounts for the year 20092010 showing the entry of challan No.104 of Wah Wah Style Fashions of Rs.95,895/ along with the entry of voucher dated 14.11.2009 (these documents were called upon by defendant No.1 in the application for summoning the defence witnesses filed before the court on 25.09.2013). DW5 had deposed that these documents are not available with him. He did not maintain books of account as CS No.282/13 Pg 8 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
he deals in cash only. The items delivered by the plaintiff were delivered on the basis of challan and no bill was ever raised by him or raised against him.
18.I have heard ld. Counsel for plaintiff, ld. Counsel for defendant No.1 and have carefully gone the record. Defendant No.2 remained exparte after filing written statement.
19.My issue wise findings do as follow: ISSUES NO.1 & 2 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD1.
Whether the plaintiff has filed a false suit against the defendant? OPD1.
20.Onus of proving both these issues was on defendant No.1. Neither in the WS nor in the cross examination of PWs nor during addressing final arguments, ld. Counsel for defendant No.1 could satisfy the court as to how the present suit is not maintainable in the present form and what should have CS No.282/13 Pg 9 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
been the correct form. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, prima facie it could not have been held that plaintiff has filed a false suit against defendant. In fact this issue is covered in issue No.3. This issue (No.2) has been framed without any need. Both these issues are accordingly disposed off. ISSUES NO.3 & 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.95,895/, as prayed for? OPP.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
21.Both these issues are taken up together as they are interconnected and intermingled. Onus of proving both these issues was on the plaintiff. As per case of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 had collected Rs.95,895/ from defendant No.2 on the instructions and directions of the plaintiff on his behalf under the voucher Ex.PW4/1. On the contrary, defendant No.1 has stated that he never visited defendant No.2 and never collected any sum under the voucher CS No.282/13 Pg 10 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
Ex.PW4/1 and that the said document also does not bear his signatures at point A as alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 has supported the case of the plaintiff that he paid Rs. 95,895/ to defendant No.1 vide Ex.PW4/1 on the asking of plaintiff.
22.PW1/plaintiff has reiterated his case in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination he deposed that he had no transaction with defendant No.1 in respect of the present suit. PW1 volunteered that he had transaction with defendant No.1 for the other account and defendant No.1 had taken the payment from the defendant No.2 but had not given it to him. PW1 further admitted that defendant No.1 is neither his agent nor employee but is in the same business. Only the voucher was prepared in respect of transaction with the defendant No.2. PW1 do not have any sales tax number. PW1 had not maintained any ledger book or cash book except the challan.
CS No.282/13 Pg 11 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
23.PW4 Aditya (defendant No.2 also) has been cross examined by ld. Counsel for defendant No.1 wherein he deposed that his office was situated at Palam at the time of alleged incident and that Jindal Kumar - plaintiff was residing at Dabri Mor, Palam. It takes about 30 minutes to reach the office of defendant No.2 from the residence of the plaintiff. PW4 files the return. PW4 did not know whether he had shown this bill in the return or whether the bill has been shown by him in books of account as his CA used to maintain the books. He denied the suggestion that present bill has not been shown in his books of account as it was never raised and the voucher is also fake. At this stage, PW4 had volunteered that voucher has been filled up by Sunil Kumar Jain i.e. Defendant No.1 and the signatures appearing upon the voucher pertain to Sunil Kumar Jain. PW4 had never given any money to Sunil Kumar Jain before this transaction. The instructions given by Jindal Kumar/plaintiff CS No.282/13 Pg 12 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
to PW4 were through mobile phone. PW4 did not have the record of phone call. The office and residence of defendant No.1 are situated at Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk.
24.DW1 Sunil Kumar (defendant No.1 also) has been cross examined by ld. Counsel for plaintiff wherein he deposed that he has a cloth shop and knew the plaintiff for last 45 years. DW1 has been cross examined on 30.08.2013. He had visited office of plaintiff at Janak Puri once or twice. The plaintiff also does the business of ready made garments. DW1 did not know any person by the name of Aditya Kumar. He came to know of this person only after receipt of summons of this case. DW1 denied the suggestion that MarkX bears his hand writing, filled in by him as the finger of the plaintiff was fractured at that time. Rest of the cross examination is in denial suggestion form. DW1 used to sign his initials as well as full signatures. He had sent reply to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff. Same is Ex.PX2.
CS No.282/13 Pg 13 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
25.After going through the cross examination of DW1, a new thing has come up; that the challan MarkX1 has been filled up by DW1 as the finger of the plaintiff/PW1 was fractured at that point of time. In the replication filed by the plaintiff to the WS of defendant No.1, nowhere the plaintiff alleged that the challan MarkX1 was filled up by defendant No.1 in his own hand writing as the finger of the plaintiff was fractured.
26.The plaintiff has also not explained the circumstances to the court as to why he sent defendant No.1 to collect the money on his behalf from defendant No.2 when the places of plaintiff and that of defendant No.2, at that point of time, were at a distance of 30 minutes journey whereas the office and residence of defendant No.1 is situated at Ballimaran.
27.DW5 Aditya Kumar did not produce the ledger account and the record as asked by ld. Counsel for defendant No.1 i.e. Books of account for the year 20092010 showing the entry of challan No.104 of Wah Wah Style Fashions along with the CS No.282/13 Pg 14 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
entry of voucher dated 14.11.2009. Defendant No.2/DW5 in his written statement has nowhere stated that he maintains any books of account. DW5 when examined by plaintiff as PW4 has deposed that he files his return. But he did not produce the return for the year 20092010 as asked by defendant No.1 when examining defendant No.2 as DW5. The return filed by defendant No.2 for the year 20102011 is Ex.DW5/1. However the same is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
28.Defendant No.1 has denied his signatures on the voucher Ex.PW4/1 at point A. I have compared the alleged signatures of defendant No.1 at point A on the original voucher Ex.PW4/1 with his WS, bearing his signatures at point X and X1, as also on his affidavit supporting the WS at point Y and Y1 as also on his affidavit in evidence Ex.DW1/A at point A and point B but find that they do not match with the alleged signatures of defendant No.1 appearing at point A on CS No.282/13 Pg 15 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
Ex.PW4/1. I have also compared the signatures of defendant No.1 on his application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. filed on 11.09.2014 but again they do not match with the alleged signatures of defendant No.1 on Ex.PW4/1. Whether the challan MarkX1 is filled by the defendant No.1, is not a relevant fact. The relevant fact which was required to be proved by the plaintiff was that defendant No.1 had received payment of Rs. 95,895/ under voucher Ex.PW4/1 under his signatures appearing at point A on his instructions. I have also seen the signatures of defendant No.1 on the complaint Ex.DW2/1 but again find the same not as similar with alleged signatures of defendant No.1 on Ex.PW4/1 at point A.
29.Both parties have filed police complaints against each other regarding the voucher in question. Plaintiff has filed complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C against defendant No.1. Again, at the cost of repetition, all those complaints and counter complaints by the parties against each other, is not relevant CS No.282/13 Pg 16 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
for the purpose of deciding the issue in question. It is nowhere the case of plaintiff that defendant No.1 earlier used to sign in the manner as appearing at point A on Ex.PW4/1 and that later on after filing of the present suit, to wriggle out of his liability qua the plaintiff, he has changed his signatures. The plaintiff in support of his contention that he had instructed the defendant No.1 to collect money from defendant No.2, has not examined any independent witness in corroboration. Defendant No.2 cannot be believed for the reason that he himself is exparte in the present proceedings and further for the reason that he did not produce any books of account or any other document, having made the payment of Rs.95,895/ to the plaintiff against bill MarkX1 through defendant No.1. The plaintiff also could have examined the CA of defendant No.2 when defendant No.2 had deposed that it was his CA who used to maintain the books. But no such books of account has been produced by CS No.282/13 Pg 17 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
DW5/PW4. Therefore, the court has to draw adverse inference against defendant No.2 which has the adverse bearing on the case of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also not explained either in the pleadings or otherwise as to what circumstances prevented him from going to the place of defendant No.2 to collect the money himself when the defendant No.2 was situated in Delhi at Palam itself at that point of relevant time. Defendant No.1 has constantly denied having received any payment on behalf of the plaintiff from defendant No.2 through voucher Ex.PW4/1. He has also denied his signatures.
30.Ld. counsel for plaintiff has filed on record the expert opinion u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per opinion of hand writing expert Syed Faisal Hooda, he had opined that S1, S2, S3 and S4 writing have been written by same or one writer. Interestingly, S1, S2 and S3 are the enlarged photographs of MarkX1 taken by the Forensic expert for the CS No.282/13 Pg 18 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
purpose of comparison with S4 i.e. the vakalatnama allegedly filled in, by defendant No.1. Even if we go by the report of the hand writing expert, it may be that MarkX1 is filled in by DW1, even then, the main issue whether the voucher Ex.PW4/1 bears the signatures of PW1 does not stand proved and it remained unanswered. The alleged report of handwriting expert on MarkX1 is of no value for the purpose of this case.
31.Further the same handwriting expert in his report on the disputed and admitted signatures of defendant No.1 on voucher Ex.PW4/1 and other admitted signatures of DW1, has opined that "there are some strong similarties in between the disputed and admitted signatures Marked as D1 and A1 to A3 which proves the possibility of common authorship. But additional facts through further investigation are also required along with this opinion."
32.After going through this opinion of the handwriting expert, it CS No.282/13 Pg 19 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
in itself is not sure whether the D1 and A1 to A3 are of the same person as further investigation is required. Be that as it may, the fact remains that any opinion of the so called handwriting expert Faisal Hooda and Syed Faisal Hooda, cannot be relied on as it is not authentic report. The said handwriting expert never appeared before the court to prove his report. In AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 99 "Mrs. Veenu Handa Vs. Narender Kumar Handa" their lordships while dealing with section 45 of Indian Evidence Act held that: "the comparison of handwriting is not a perfect science. Deviations in signatures can arise due to natural variations and various other causes. Therefore, it would not be safe to rely on the testimony of the handwriting expert especially when he had not obtained permission from the court for taking photographs of the signatures and did not even verify from the court as to which were the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures and had acted on the basis of the information given to CS No.282/13 Pg 20 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
him by the counsel of the party, and that too behind the back of the opposite counsel."
33.In this case, the plaintiff never took permission from the court to take from the record the admitted or disputed signatures of defendant No.1.
34.Defendant No.2 has not produced any document like his account statement or any other documentary proof that in fact the payment of Rs.95,895/ had been made by him against bill No.104 to the plaintiff through defendant No.1. Merely, saying that the payment has been made to the plaintiff under the voucher, particularly when the defendant No.1 has disputed his signatures, and they are with naked eye found to be not that of defendant No.1, it is not sufficient on the part of defendant No.2 as believed by plaintiff that defendant No.2 had made payment of Rs.95,895/ to defendant No.1. Though defendant No.2 as PW4 has been cross examined by plaintiff, but still, except defendant No.2 CS No.282/13 Pg 21 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
proving his signatures on the voucher Ex.PW4/1 and further stating that at point A signatures of defendant No.1 appear, nothing more has been proved. Having made the payment of Rs.95,895/ to the plaintiff through defendant No.1 against bill No.104, something more corroborative was also required to be produced by defendant No.2 on the asking of plaintiff. Defendant No.2 when examined by defendant No.1 as DW5, withheld the relevant record of accounts book for the relevant period 2009 - 2010. Had defendant No.2 as DW5 produced the accounts book showing the entry of Rs. 95,895/, as payment made to the plaintiff against bill No. 104, the case of the plaintiff would have been believable on the scale of probabilities at least. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not been able to prove on record that Ex.PW4/1 bear the signatures of defendant No.1 at point A. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed for by him in the present case. Both these issues are decided against plaintiff.
CS No.282/13 Pg 22 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
35.So far application u/s 340 Cr.P.C moved by the plaintiff on dated 18.02.2013 as also moved by the defendant No.1 on dated 07.09.2015 against defendant No.2 separately registered as M.No.11/15, are concerned, this court is of the opinion that all the parties herein, have been contesting the case bonafidely. It is something else that plaintiff could not prove his case as required under the law, but that does not mean that defendant No.1 was deposing falsely or that defendant No.2 had deposed falsely before this Court as alleged by defendant No.1 in his application u/s 340 Cr.P.C separately registered as M.No.11/15. It is further to be added that the superior courts have time and again held that the power u/s 340 Cr.P.C has to be exercised springily and cautiously and it is not that in each and every case the courts are supposed to exercise the extreme provisions of Criminal proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C along with allied provisions. Hence, no ground for initiation of any criminal proceedings, CS No.282/13 Pg 23 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
as demanded by the plaintiff against defendant No.1 under the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C moved on dated 18.02.2013, and that of defendant No.1 moved on dated 07.09.2015 against defendant No.2 u/s 340 Cr.P.C registered separately as M.No.11/15, is made out. The plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 have filed these applications just to create havoc without there being any interest of justice.
36.I have also again carefully gone through the evidence led by the parties on record for the purpose of deciding these applications and finds that none of them have been successful to lead any convincing evidence on these applications u/s 340 Cr.P.C. There also apparently seems no interest of justice as motive for filing these applications by the parties. Under the circumstances, it is also not expedient in the interest of justice that some inquiry should be held u/s 340 Cr.P.C r/w Section 195 Cr.P.C. These penal provisions are to be exercised cautiously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CS No.282/13 Pg 24 of 27 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
AIR 1973 SC 2190 had held that: "It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood, amounting to an offence u/s 193 and 195 (where conviction is highly likely and the court should direct prosecution.
The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances to determine the question of expediency and other prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of Justice and not to gratify feeling or personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party.
37.Both these applications are accordingly dismissed. RELIEF
38.In above of my discussion hereinabove, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no orders as to cost. One copy of the judgment be kept in the M.No.11/15 (u/s 340 Cr.P.C). Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (KISHOR KUMAR) on 12.10.2015 CJ12/CENTRAL/DELHI CS No.282/13 Pg 25 of 27
Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
Suit No.282/13
12.10.2015
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, announced and dictated in open court, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no orders as to cost. One copy of the judgment be kept in the M.No.11/15 (u/s 340 Cr.P.C).
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Kishor Kumar
CJ12 (Central)/THC
Delhi/12.10.2015
CS No.282/13 Pg 26 of 27
Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr.
M. No.11/15
12.10.2015
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
In view of the judgment passed in main suit bearing CS No. 282/13, this application also stand disposed off. One copy of the judgment passed in main suit bearing No.282/13 be kept in this file.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Kishor Kumar
CJ12 (Central)/THC
Delhi/12.10.2015
CS No.282/13 Pg 27 of 27