Delhi District Court
Ms Linton Distributors Pvt. Ltd vs Dharam Pal Chhabra on 23 March, 2026
DLST010002062013
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNISH BANSAL,
DISTRICT JUGDE-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT),
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CS No.: 5980/2016
In the matter of :-
M/s Linton Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
Registered office at IB-147,
Sector-III, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata-700106,
Corporate office at D-2, 5th Floor,
Southern Park, Saket, New Delhi-110017
Through it's Director Sh. Ashok Jain.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Dharam Pal Chhabra,
S/o Late Sh. Lal Chand Chhabra,
R/o C-9/9047, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
......Defendant
Munish
Bansal Date of Institution : 17.02.2016
Digitally signed
by Munish
Bansal Arguments heard on : 08.01.2026
Date of decision : 23.03.2026
Date:
2026.03.23
15:26:58 +0530
CS DJ 5980/16 Page 1 of 37
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.45,78,779/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest filed by the plaintiff against defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Facts as epitomized in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff has filed the present suit through it's director/authorized signatory Sh. Ashok Jain.
2.1 That sometime in the month of April-May, 2010, the defendant approached the AR of the plaintiff company and represented that the defendant has certain right, title and interest and had certain arrangement and understanding with the owners of the properties i.e. (i) land bearing Khasra no. 1109 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi, (ii) land bearing Khasra No. 461 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas situated in the village Maidangarhi, New Delhi, (iii) land bearing Khasra No. 1116 ad-measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi and (iv) land/private rasta part of the land bearing Khasra No.1113 and 1114 situated in the village Satbari, New Delhi.
Digitally signed by Munish Munish Bansal Bansal Date:
2026.03.23 15:27:11 +0530 2.2 The defendant further represented to the plaintiff that Smt. CS DJ 5980/16 Page 2 of 37 Sukhjit Kaur alongwith S. Gurukripal Singh, S. Devender Singh, S. Lakhwinder Singh, S. Tejinder Singh, S. Mohinder Singh and Smt. Gurbachan Kaur are the recorded owners of the land bearing Khasra No.1109, ad-measuring 4 bigha 16 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Satbari, Tehsil- Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which is consisting a built-up house in the area of 10 biswas, tube-
well etc. and further represented that all the abovesaid persons except Smt. Sukhjit Kaur executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 10.09.2004 in favour of Smt. Sukhjit Kaur and they authorized her to deal with the said property.
2.3 The defendant further represented to the plaintiff that Smt. Sukhjit Kaur had already sold the said property to him for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- by executing sale documents dated 11.11.2016 and also handed over the actual physical and vacant possession of the said property to defendant. He also represented that M/s Sukhshanti Developer Pvt. Ltd. is the recorded owner and is in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 461 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas situated in the village Maidangarhi, New Delhi and the said company being promoted by and is presently owned and controlled by the family, associates and affiliates of the defendant and defendant has clear understanding and arrangement with the said company with respect to the sale and transfer of the land bearing Khasra No. 461 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas situated in the village Maidangarhi, New Delhi. Digitally signed by Munish Munish Bansal Bansal Date:
2026.03.23 15:27:21 +0530 CS DJ 5980/16 Page 3 of 37 2.4 The defendant also represented that Mrs. Manju Gupta wife of Sh. L.C. Gupta is the holder of all right, title and interest in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 1116 ad-measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi and land/private rasta part of the land bearing Khasra no. 1113 and 1114 situated in the village Satbari, New Delhi and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property and that same is held by her in terms of sale documents executed in December 2007. The defendant further represented that he has entered into certain arrangement and understanding with Mrs. Manju Gupta for purchase the abovesaid property. The defendant offered to sell the above said four properties to the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company agreed to purchase the said properties for the sale consideration, the details of which are a under :-
i. The land bearing Khasra no. 1109 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi for the sale consideration of Rs. 4,50,00,000/-
ii.The land bearing Khasra No. 461 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas situated in the village Maidangarhi, New Delhi for the sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-
iii. The land bearing Khasra No. 1116 ad-measuring 5 bighas and 4 Digitally signed by Munish biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi and land/private rasta Munish Bansal Bansal Date:
2026.03.23 15:27:32 +0530 part of the land bearing Khasra no. 1113 and 1114 situated in the CS DJ 5980/16 Page 4 of 37 village Satbari, New Delhi for the sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-
2.5 For the sale-purchase of the land bearing Khasra no. 1109 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi, a separate Agreement to Sell and Receipt both dated
12.07.2010 were executed between the plaintiff company and defendant and the transaction of the said property was treated as a separate transaction.
2.6 On 12.07.2010, the plaintiff company paid a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as earnest money to the defendant for purchase of the above mentioned properties and on the same day, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.07.2010 was executed between the plaintiff company and the defendant. The defendant also acknowledged the receipt of the said amount by executing a separate receipt. On 12.07.2010, a separate Agreement to Sell and receipt both dated 12.07.2010 in respect of sale-purchase of the property bearing khasra no. 1109 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi was also executed between the plaintiff company and defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff company paid the said earnest money of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the defendant in the following manner :-
Munish Bansal Digitally signed by Munish i. Rs. 70,00,000/- for the land bearing Khasra no. 1109 ad-Bansal
measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Date: 2026.03.23 15:27:42 +0530 CS DJ 5980/16 Page 5 of 37 Delhi, the said amount was paid by the plaintiff company through cheque No. 000051, dated 12.07.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Saket, New Delhi. The earnest money of the Rs. 70,00,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff company to the defendant in pursuance of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 as for the sale-purchase of the said property, a separate Agreement to Sell and Receipt dated 12.07.2010 were executed between the parties.
ii. Rs. 10,00,000/- for the land bearing Khasra No. 461 ad- measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas situated in the village Maidangarhi, New Delhi, the said amount was paid by the plaintiff company through cheque No. 000052, dated 12.07.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Saket, New Delhi.
iii. Rs. 20,00,000/- for the land bearing Khasra No. 1116 ad- measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi and land/private rasta part of the land bearing Khasra no. 1113 and 1114 situated in the village Satbari, New Delhi, the said amount was paid by the plaintiff company through cheque No. 000053, dated 12.07.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Saket, New Delhi.
2.7 In compliance of abovesaid agreement dated 12.07.2010 pertaining to the sale-purchase of the land bearing Khasra no. 1109, Munish Bansal defendant was required to obtain the necessary and requisite NOC Digitally signed from the concerned authorities which is mandatory for execution by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:27:52 +0530 and registration of the sale deed in respect of the said property in CS DJ 5980/16 Page 6 of 37 favour of the plaintiff company, hence, the transaction of the said property is a separate and distinct transaction from the transaction of the other three properties.
2.8 On believing the above said representation made by the defendant, the plaintiff company entered into an MOU dated 12.07.2010 in respect of three other properties i.e. land bearing khasra no. 461, ad-measuring 4 bigha 4 biswas situated in village Maidangarhi, New Delhi, land bearing khasra no. 1116 ad- measuring 5 bigha 4 biswas and the land/private rasta part of Khasra no. 1113 and 1114, situated in village Satbari, New Delhi and the earnest money of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff company to the defendant for these three properties. The transaction in respect of the land bearing Khasra no. 1109 is separate and distinguished from the transaction of other three properties as mentioned herein above.
2.9 It was also specifically agreed between the defendant and plaintiff company that the plaintiff company shall make every endeavor to conclude the transaction on or before 31.12.2010. As per the said MOU, it was specifically agreed that in case the plaintiff company is not satisfied with the result of comprehensive Munish Bansal due diligence (CCD) with respect to all/or either of the Digitally signed by Munish Bansal constituents, of the above said properties, it shall, in its sole and Date: 2026.03.23 15:28:03 +0530 absolute discretion, be entitled to terminate the above said MOU in whole or in part with respect to the above said properties. It was CS DJ 5980/16 Page 7 of 37 also specifically agreed that the defendant shall be liable to bear and pay to the plaintiff company all the cost and expenses of the comprehensive due diligence to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs and other legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff company. The defendant shall be obliged to refund all the sums of money received by him from the plaintiff company alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till its realization by the plaintiff company from the defendant.
2.10 For getting the comprehensive due diligence, the plaintiff company engaged the advocates of Mine & Young Advocates and Legal Consultants and was apprised that the land bearing Khasra no. 1109 ad-measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi and the land bearing Khasra No. 1116 ad- measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas and land/private rasta part of the land bearing Khasra no. 1113 and 1114 situated in the village Satbari, New Delhi were acquired by the Government and there is an immediate threat of the possession being taken by the Government Authority and the defendant had not given the entire documents which conferred the right, title on the defendant in respect of the said properties. It was also apprised to the plaintiff company that there is no arrangement, undertaking or agreement between the defendant and Mrs. Manju Gupta who herself claims Munish Bansal to be the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 1116 ad-measuring Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:28:14 +0530 5 bighas and 4 biswas situated in village Satbari, New Delhi and one Hasan Mohd. claims to be the owner of the land/private rasta CS DJ 5980/16 Page 8 of 37 part of the land bearing Khasra no. 1113 and 1114 situated in the village Satbari, New Delhi.
2.11 It is submitted that the plaintiff company through their advocate also gave a public notice in the newspaper namely "Times of India" dated 01.12.2010 and Mrs. Manju Gupta and Hasan Mohd. filed their objections in response of the said public notice. It also came in the notice of the plaintiff company that the above said Rasta being part of the land bearing khasra no. 1113 and 1114 of village Satbari, New Delhi has been acquired by the Government and its possession has been taken by the Land and Building Department and it was found that there is no rasta to the land measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas comprising in khasra no. 461 of village Maidan Garhi and the said property cannot be used conveniently.
2.12 That as the defendant had failed to give any documents related to the above said properties, hence the plaintiff company terminated the above said MOU in respect of the abovesaid properties. Thereafter, it came to the notice of the plaintiff company that qua the land ad-measuring 4 bigha 16 biswa Munish comprising in khasra no. 1109, situated in Revenue Estate of Bansal Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Village Satbari, New Delhi, the acquisition proceeding under the Date: 2026.03.23 15:28:26 +0530 Land Acquisition Act has already been commenced. On 23.12.2010, the plaintiff company also issued a legal notice upon the defendant to get the sale documents qua the land comprising in CS DJ 5980/16 Page 9 of 37 khasra no. 1109, executed from Smt. Sukhjit Kaur in favour of the plaintiff company as assured and promised by the defendant.
2.13 After receiving the above said notice dated 23.12.2010, in the second week of January 2011, the defendant approached the authorized representative of the plaintiff company namely Sh. Ashok Jain and assured him that within one month, he will try to get the documents executed in favour of plaintiff company directly from Smt. Sukhjit Kaur. But later on in the first week of April, 2011, when the representative of the plaintiff company tried to make the contact with the defendant, the defendant avoided the same and refused to co-operate to get the transaction matured in term of the above said agreement executed between the parties and committed the breach of the said agreement. Thereafter no option was left with the plaintiff company but to file a suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 executed between the plaintiff company and the defendant, hence on 29.04.2011, the plaintiff company filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendant and Smt. Sukhjit Kaur being C.S (OS) 1192/2011, which is pending disposal before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
2.14 As the plaintiff company has already terminated the MOU Digitally signed by Munish Munish Bansal Bansal Date:
2026.03.23 15:28:37 +0530 dated 12.07.2010 in respect of the said three properties, hence, in view of the agreed terms and conditions of the said MOU, the defendant is liable to refund the said amount of Rs. 30 lakhs to the CS DJ 5980/16 Page 10 of 37 plaintiff company alongwith interest @ 18% upon the said amount w.e.f. 12.07.2010. The plaintiff company also paid sum of Rs. 2,96,687/- to M/s Mine and Young, Advocates and legal consultants, towards due diligence and legal expenses in regard to the above said properties along with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 25.11.2010. In the first week of April 2012, the authorized representative of the plaintiff company namely Sh. Ashok Jain personally met the defendant and demanded the due amount from the defendant, but the defendant flatly refused the same.
2.15 Upto the date of filing the present suit, an amount of Rs.
11,84,795/- is due upon the defendant as the interest upon the principal amount of Rs. 30 lacs (interest upon the said amount of Rs. 30 lakhs @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 12.07.2010 to 21.09.2012) and an amount of Rs. 97,297/- is due upon the defendant as the interest upon the principal amount of Rs. 2,96,687/- (@ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 25.11.2010 to 21.09.2012) is due upon the defendant as charges of comprehensive due diligence and other legal expenses incurred by plaintiff company. Hence, upto the date of filing the present suit, an amount of Rs. 45,78,779/- is due upon the defendant which the plaintiff company is entitled to recover from the defendant. Hence, the present suit.
Munish Bansal Digitally signed 2.16 This Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:28:46 +0530 suit. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:-
CS DJ 5980/16 Page 11 of 37"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of recovery of Rs. 45,78,779/- in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant and also direct the defendant to pay the pendent lite and future interest upon the due amount @ Rs. 18% p.a. till its realization as agreed between the parties in the MOU dated 12.07.2010.
Award the cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant.
Pass any further order/s which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. On service of summons upon the defendant, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant denying all the allegations and averments contained in the plaint.
3.1 Defendant is the owner of farmhouse property comprising of agricultural land of 4 bighas, 16 biswas situated in K No. 1109, Munish Bansal village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas, having acquired the same by Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 way of GPA, agreement to sell, Will etc from Mrs. Sukhjit Kaur, 15:28:56 +0530 through her brother Gurkirpal/Pali who was having full authority CS DJ 5980/16 Page 12 of 37 on her behalf, in defendant's favour. In October 2010, defendant was approached by his immediate neighbour Sh. Sujit Kanoria, who claimed to be director of the plaintiff company, with the proposal to buy the four properties, by way of one unified and common transaction for Rs. 16.5 Cr., excluding all taxes, duties etc, subject to completion of the entire transaction, in all respects, on or before 31.12.2010 for the following properties:-
i. Farm house belonging to Defendant bearing no. K No. 1109, village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas.
ii. Agricultural land measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas in K No. 461 Maidan Garhi.
iii. Agricultural land measuring 5 bighas 4 biswas in K No. 1116 Village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas.
iv. Private road of 15 Ft. width, 400 Ft. length approx. for access to Property No. ii & iii.
3.2 Out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 16.5 Cr., purchaser could make the payment of Rs. 5.5 Cr. in cash. It was agreed that in the event of default on the part of purchaser, the earnest money / bayana of Rs. 1 Cr. by three cheques and Rs. 10 Lakhs by cash, would be forfeited. In the event of default by the Munish seller, the bayana amount received, would be returned alongwith Bansal Digitally signed by Munish Bansal 9% p.a. simple interest. All the original documents in relation to Date: 2026.03.23 15:29:06 +0530 the abovesaid four properties, were handed over to the representative of the plaintiff company, to carry out and complete CS DJ 5980/16 Page 13 of 37 due diligence thereon. The physical possession of the property at Sl. no.(i) above, was to remain with Defendant till the final completion of the transaction. The due diligence was felt necessary by both parties since both sides were aware that there had been land acquisition notification by the government agencies, difficulties in obtaining NOC and also for three properties at serial nos. ii, iii and iv, defendant was having tie-up arrangements which defendant would give final shape upon receiving clearance of due diligence from the plaintiff's side. A receipt dt.12.07.2010 in Hindi language, setting out basic details of transaction, was prepared in two counterparts both original, one for buyer and one for seller.
3.3 The plaintiff, in a clever and cunning manner, got documentation prepared for reduced value of Rs. 11 crores and also complete sale type papers for one of the four properties, at (i) above, purportedly for obtaining Bank Loan only, while assuring that the difference of actually due amount i.e. 5.5 crores, will be paid by cash generated from the tax free agricultural income of the plaintiff. The cash amount paid in advance, was being later demanded as 'documentation charges". The said separate documentation was prepared only for the purposes of the Bank Loan and never represented the real agreement between the parties.
Munish Bansal Now those other and manipulated documents, are sought to be set Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:29:21 +0530 up as if there was one individual transaction only in relation to the property no. i, while for other three properties, refund is being separately claimed, which was never the agreed position.
CS DJ 5980/16 Page 14 of 373.4 It is denied that the balance sale consideration for the property no. (i), was separately fixed or that it was the figure of Rs.3,80,00,000/-. The actual agreed consideration was Rs. 16,50,00,000/- for all the four properties, as a composite and inseparable transaction, on as is where is basis. The plaintiff is creating a new story on the basis of the unenforceable documentation, which had been got prepared only for the bank purposes, with no consensus ad idem. The only and actual document evidencing the transaction between the parties, is the receipt issued by defendant and was executed in two original counterparts, which was for the amount of Rs. 16,50,00,000/- as a composite and inseparable transaction for all the four properties, on as is where is basis. The other receipt of the same date, as set up by the Plaintiff for the value of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- in relation to allegedly property no.i, as also the so called agreement to sell dated 12.07.2010 and the MOU dated 12.07.2010 are all purely in the nature of unenforceable additional documentations prepared by the plaintiff by cunningly conveying to the defendant that the same are required only for Bank Loan purposes and not intended to be actual transaction and also not to be enforced.
Munish Bansal 3.5 Defendant under the influence of the plaintiff simply signed Digitally signed by Munish on the dotted line, accepting the version of the plaintiff that these Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:29:39 +0530 other documents are meant only for the Bank Loan purposes. The earnest money paid was a single composite amount of Rs 1.10 crores. It appears that plaintiff is misleading on the point of cash CS DJ 5980/16 Page 15 of 37 paid as it would be from tax-free agricultural income and therefore plaintiff is silent on Rs. 10,00,000/- already paid in cash and the balance outstanding being 15.4 crores (out of Rs 16.5 crores). The cash advance amount was being later demanded back as 'documentation charges", which even for final documentation, are Rs 10,000/-.
3.6 There was no agreement to obtain NOC or to execute sale deed in relation to any or all the property separately. There is also the new land law whereunder, acquisition all pending acquisitions, stand lapsed after expiry of five years, if either possession not taken or compensation not withdrawn. In this case, the acquisition clearly lapses. The plaintiff is adopting different, contrary and changing stands, which are also based on unenforceable and cunningly prepared papers on bank loan pretext.
3.7 It was pointed out to the Plaintiff from the most initial stages that the composite transaction for sale for all the four properties, was on as is where is basis and the plaintiff company agreed to take all the four properties on as is where is basis, with its eyes open and being fully aware of the shortcomings of title, as their director was residing in the area, immediately next door to defendant and Munish Bansal was a regular investor in land of the area knowing everything about Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:29:48 +0530 status of land.
3.8 The Plaintiff has never established that the amounts stands CS DJ 5980/16 Page 16 of 37 arranged or available even in the legal notice dated 23.12.2010 relied upon by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also not endorsed its presence alongwith the balance consideration in the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar and even did not buy stamp paper. Rather the Plaintiff sent the legal notice for termination of the transaction in relation to all the four properties. It is denied that defendant either assured, or had occasion to assure the plaintiff Company that defendant will introduce other parties to the plaintiff directly and/or get the sale document executed by other parties directly in favour of the plaintiff Company.
3.9 The plaintiff's director staying next door, sent a photocopy of the legal notice dated 23.12.2010, by hand to defendant at property K No. 1109, Village Satbari and defendant immediately replied back to the defendant pointing out the non-compliance on plaintiff's part. Plaintiff terminated the entire deal for all four properties, as evident from the legal notice. Defendant, gave an immediate reply in hindi dated 25.12.2010 to plaintiff. Since defendant had utilized the amount, and was also claiming forfeiture, discussions went on for several months on plaintiff's claim for refund compensation. Ultimately, plaintiff after long delay filed the false suit for specific performance. Simultaneously Digitally the plaintiff also filed a criminal case for cheating etc, claiming that signed by Munish Munish Bansal Bansal Date:
2026.03.23 there was deception from very beginning, which goes against 15:29:58 +0530 plaintiff. It was also averred that the present Suit is barred by limitation.CS DJ 5980/16 Page 17 of 37
3.10 On the basis of the aforesaid averments, defendant prayed that the suit be dismissed.
REPLICATION:
4. The Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement thereby denying all the contents of the written statement and reiterating and reaffirming the pleadings made in the plaint. Apart from the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff through the said replication has also averred that Sh. Sujit Kanoria is the promoter of the plaintiff company and not a Director and he is not involved in the said deal as alleged by the defendant. It is submitted that the sale- purchase of the property bearing Khasra No.1109 of Village Satbari, New Delhi was a separate deal between the parties from the deal of property bearing Khasra No.461, Village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, property bearing Khasra No. 1116, Village Satbari Tehsil Houz Khas and the private road with 400 feet. It is submitted that the deal for the land bearing Khasra No.1109 was for the sale consideration of Rs.4.5 Crores, the deal for the land bearing Khasra No.461 of Village Maidan Gahri was for sale consideration of Rs.3 Crores and the deal for the land bearing Khasra No.1116 Village Satbari and rasta of the land bearing Khasra no.1113 and 1114 situated in Village Satbari was for the Munish Bansal sale consideration of Rs.3.5 Crores. It is submitted that in the Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:30:07 +0530 deal/transaction between the plaintiff company and the defendant, Sh. Sujit Kanoria was not involved in any manner as alleged by the CS DJ 5980/16 Page 18 of 37 defendant. It is submitted that when Sh. Sujit Kanoria was not involved in the deal in question, then no question arises regarding the alleged knowledge of Sh. Sujit Kanoria. It is submitted that the defendant had failed to give any document related to the right/title in respect of the property in question. It is denied that the plaintiff company was aware that there had been land acquisition notification by the Govt. Agencies, difficulties in obtaining the NOC and also for three properties at serial no. ii, iii and iv, defendant was having tie-up arrangements which defendant would give final shape upon receiving clearance of due diligence from the plaintiff side. It is denied that the alleged receipt dt. 12.07.2010 (in Hindi Language) was prepared in two counter parts in original, one for buyer and one of seller. It is submitted that no such alleged receipt was executed in relation ever to the deal/transaction between the plaintiff company and the defendant and the said alleged receipt is a false and fabricated document. It is denied that documents i.e. MOU etc. were executed for bank loan purposes. No bank issues any loan against the agricultural land.
4.1 It is submitted that the alleged receipt i.e. D-1 relied upon by the defendant is a false and manipulated document, no such Munish document was ever executed between the parties. The deal for the Bansal Digitally signed property of serial no. i for which the agreement to sell dated by Munish Bansal 12.07.2010 was executed and the deal for the property Sl. No. ii, iii Date: 2026.03.23 15:30:17 +0530 and iv for which the MOU dated 12.07.2010 was executed are separate and distinct deal between the parties. There was no cash CS DJ 5980/16 Page 19 of 37 transaction at all and the plaintiff had not paid any alleged amount in cash and all the payments were made through cheques.
4.2 The defendant has not given any reply to the plaintiff and the alleged reply of the defendant (to the legal notice of the plaintiff) is a false and fabricated document. It is denied that the plaintiff has defaulted in arranging the funds or that the plaintiff pretended to be rejecting the deal on the basis of due diligence.
ISSUES
5. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 02.03.2017:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.45,78,779/- from the defendant as prayed for? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so at what rate? OPP
3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
OPD Munish Bansal Digitally signed
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Order by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908? OPD 15:30:29 +0530
5. Relief CS DJ 5980/16 Page 20 of 37 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. Ms. Suman Arora was appointed as a local commissioner for recording of evidence as per order dated 28.08.2018.
6.1 To prove his case, the plaintiff examined his AR Sh. Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-1/A and also relied upon the following document:-
Sr. No. Document Exhibited/ Marked as 1 Copy of Board Resolution dated Mark A 07.02.2011 authorizing Sh. Ashok Jain, Director of the plaintiff firm 2 Copy of Board Resolution dated Mark B 02.01.2015 authorizing Sh. Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria, as AR of the plaintiff 3 Certified copy of Memorandum of Ex. PW-1/1 Understanding dated 12.07.2010 between the defendant and the (Objected to as to plaintiff mode and manner of proof) 4 Certified copy of receipt dated Ex. PW-1/2 12.07.2010 signed by the defendant (Objected to as to mode and manner of proof) 5 Photocopy of the Public Notice by Mark C Digitally signed by Munish way of newspaper insertion in Munish Bansal Bansal Date: 'Times of India' dated 01.12.2010 2026.03.23 15:30:39 +0530 6 Copy of legal notice dated Ex PW-1/3 23.12.2010 got sent by the plaintiff to the defendant (Objected to as to mode and manner of CS DJ 5980/16 Page 21 of 37 proof) 7 Certified copy of proof of dispatch Ex. PW-1/4 of legal notice on 23.12.2010 by way of registered A.D., 8 Photocopy of Bill no.21 dated Mark D 12.07.2010 of M/s. Mine & Young against the plaintiff 9 Photocopy of Bill No.36 dated Mark E 20.11.2010 of M/s Mine & Young against the plaintiff 10 Photocopy of Cheque no.000057 Mark F date not readable issued by the plaintiff in favour of M/s. Mine & Young 11 FIR No.413/2012 PS: Mehrauli Ex. PW-1/D-1 (running into 5 pages) (exhibited during cross-examination) The witness was cross-examined by counsel for the defendant.
6.2 Thereafter, on 24.09.2018, PE was closed.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
7. Defendant got himself examined as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW-1/A and also relied Munish Bansal upon the following documents:
Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:30:48 +0530Sr. No. Document Exhibited as 1 Copy of his Aadhar card Ex. DW-1/B (OSR) 2 Certified copy of receipt dated Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR) CS DJ 5980/16 Page 22 of 37 12.07.2010 executed by the defendant alongwith its English translation (running into three pages) 3 Acknowledgment and reply by Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR) defendant to the legal notice, addressed to Sh. Sujit Kanoria dated 25.12.2010 alongwith its English translation, (running into two pages) He was duly cross-examined by counsel for the plaintiff.
7.1 Thereafter, on 07.12.2018, DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Final arguments were heard as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Despite opportunities, none appeared on behalf of the defendant to address final arguments. This Court has considered the pleadings of the parties alongwith the evidence led by the respective parties. Written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff have also been perused. The issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Munish Issue No.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery Bansal Digitally signed of Rs.45,78,779/- from the defendant as prayed for? OPP by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:30:59 +0530
9. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
CS DJ 5980/16 Page 23 of 379.1 The plaintiff has alleged that defendant approached the plaintiff's authorized representative Sh. Ashok Jain representing that he has certain right, title and interest and has understanding with the owner of properties and was entitled to sell and transfer the properties to the plaintiff and believing the representation of the defendant, plaintiff company entered into a MOU dated 12.07.2010 with the defendant for the purchase of four (4) properties and that total sale consideration for all properties was agreed at Rs.11 Crores out of which earnest money of Rs.1 Crore was paid to the defendant for the said properties.
9.2 It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that property qua Khasra no. 1109 is not the subject matter of the present suit since the said property formed part of completely separate and independent transaction evidenced by a distinct separate agreement and receipt both dated 12.07.2010 wherein plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.70 Lacs through Cheque bearing no.000051 and qua which a separate suit for specific performance bearing no. CS (OS) 1192/2011 has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is further submitted that the present suit is confined to the recovery of Rs.30 Lacs paid under the MOU for the remaining properties (excluding the amount of Rs.70 Lacs from the total Munish earnest money of Rs.1 Crore for all the 4 properties as mentioned Bansal Digitally signed by Munish Bansal in the MOU).
Date: 2026.03.23 15:31:15 +05309.3 Contrary to the aforesaid averments, defendant has averred CS DJ 5980/16 Page 24 of 37 that it was agreed between the parties that all the four properties shall be purchased on as is where basis, as a composite transaction, for Rs.16,50,00,000/- excluding all taxes, dues etc. subject to completion of entire transaction in all respects on or before 31.12.2010. In this regard, the defendant has set-up a receipt dated 12.07.2010 Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR) executed in Hindi language by the defendant on the defendant's insistence as the defendant was well conversant in Hindi only and the said receipt was prepared in two original counterparts, one for buyer and one for seller. Defendant has further averred that the plaintiff is creating a new story on the basis of unenforceable documentation which has been got prepared only for bank purposes for taking bank loan and that the separate documentation never represented the real agreement between the parties.
9.4 Plaintiff has relied upon MOU dated 12.07.2010 Ex. PW-1/1 and receipt dated 12.07.2010 Ex. PW-1/2. Though at the time of evidence, the said documents were objected to by the counsel for the defendant regarding the mode and manner of proof, however, perusal of the written statement shows that the said documents have not been denied by the defendant but the only averments Munish made with regard to the said documents are that the same are in the Bansal Digitally signed nature of unenforceable additional documents prepared by the by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:31:26 +0530 plaintiff conveying that the same are required only for bank loan purpose and not intended to be the actual transaction and also not to be enforced. However, perusal of the evidence led by the CS DJ 5980/16 Page 25 of 37 defendant shows that no proof has been led by the defendant to prove the said averments.
9.5 Even in the cross-examination dated 07.12.2018, the defendant appearing as DW-1 has deposed with regard to the receipt Ex. PW-1/2 as follows:-
"The said receipt was prepared at my farm house at H.No. H-4, Ansal Vila, Satbari."
Thus, execution qua Ex PW-1/2 is admitted by the defendant.
9.6 Even in cross-examination dated 08.10.2018, DW-1 has deposed that "It is correct that there is no Written Contract/ MOU have been having signatures of Sh. Sujit Kanoria or his representative agreeing to a deal of Rs.16.5 Crore in respect of the aforesaid four properties."
From the said testimony, it is clear that defendant has not been able to set-up variation or contradiction to terms and conditions in the MOU Ex. PW-1/1 and receipt Ex. PW-1/2. In the terms of Section Munish 91 read with Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, no evidence on Bansal Digitally signed by Munish Bansal oral agreement is admissible against the documentary evidence.
Date: 2026.03.23 15:31:36 +05309.7 In his defence through written statement, defendant has also set-up a receipt dated 12.07.2010 Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR). The said CS DJ 5980/16 Page 26 of 37 receipt does not bear signatures on behalf of the plaintiff and the said document has been denied by the plaintiff being forged and fabricated. In the cross-examination dated 08.10.2018, DW-1 has deposed as follows:
'It is correct that on the receipt Ex. DW-1/1, there are no signatures of either Mr. Ashok Jain or Mr. Sujit Kanoria. Vol. Mr. Ashok Jain had insisted the abovesaid receipt to be made. It is correct that the date put on the above said receipt is handwritten. It is wrong to suggest that the abvoesaid receipt is fabricated document made in order to circumvent the M.O.U. dated 12.07.2010' Since the said receipt does not contain the signatures of the authorized representatives of the plaintiff company, the same cannot be read in favour of the defendant as against the plaintiff. Though defendant contends that the said receipts were prepared in original counterpart and other copy being given to the buyer i.e. plaintiff, there is not proof of the receipt of the counterpart being given on behalf of the plaintiff.
9.8 Defendant has also relied upon his reply dated 25.12.2010 to Munish the legal notice of the plaintiff, addressed to Sujit Kanoria Ex Bansal DW-1/2. The said reply admittedly has not been sent through Digitally signed by Munish Bansal regular/ standard postal mode to the plaintiff company or its Date: 2026.03.23 15:31:46 +0530 representatives. Though Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR) shows that the same is addressed to Sujit Kanoria but the same has not been received by CS DJ 5980/16 Page 27 of 37 Sh. Sujit Kanoria rather the defendant in cross-examination has deposed that the same is received by one Sh. Shambhu who has put his signature in the presence of Jagdish (brother of the defendant).
Defendant in his cross-examination has admitted that the said Shambhu did not acknowledge the receipt on behalf of Sujit Kanoria and that he did not know there exists a person named Shambhu. Neither Jagdish nor Shambhu has been called as a witness to prove the sanctity of the said reply to the legal notice as well as its receipt. In view thereof, the said document cannot be read in favour of the defendant as against the plaintiff.
9.9 From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges out that the MOU Ex. PW-1/1, receipt Ex. PW-1/2 and legal notice Ex. PW-1/3 have to be looked into for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the earnest money of Rs.30 Lacs. Though as per MOU Ex. PW-1/1, a total earnest money of Rs.1 Crore was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, however, plaintiff has alleged that out of the said earnest money of Rs.1 Crore, Rs.70 Lacs was for property qua Khasra no.1109 for which separate agreement to sell and receipt was entered into. The said receipt Ex. PW-1/2 has been proved by the plaintiff and defendant has not Munish been able to be establish any contradiction to the MOU as well as Bansal Digitally signed the said receipt. Perusal of the receipt shows that it is specifically by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:31:55 +0530 mentioned that Rs. 70 Lacs is received as earnest money qua property bearing khasra no.1109 by cheque no.000051 dated 12.07.2010. It is also not in dispute that total earnest money of CS DJ 5980/16 Page 28 of 37 Rs.1 Crore has been received by the defendant. Thus, plaintiff has been able to prove his pleadings that though as per MOU, earnest money of Rs.1 Crore was paid to the defendant qua all four properties but with entering of separate agreement and with receipt Ex. PW-1/2 issued by defendant qua receipt of Rs.70 Lacs as earnest money for property bearing khasra no.1109, Rs.30 Lacs (total earnest money Rs.1 Crore - (minus) earnest money of Rs.70 Lacs qua property bearing khasra no.1109) was paid qua the other three properties.
9.10 As per MOU, it was also agreed as follows:
J. Due diligence of the The Second Party shall cause a comprehensive Scheduled properties due diligence ("CDD") of the Scheduled Properties and SDPL to satisfy itself of the rights, title and interest, the status of acquisition and requisition, claims, demands, encroachments, liens charges etc. The First Party shall provide the copies of all the documents pertaining to the Scheduled Properties and SDPL in order to enable the Second Party to conduct and conclude CDD.
Subject to Force Majeure CDD shall be completed by Second Party withing 45 (Forty Munish Five) days from the date when copies of all the Bansal documents pertaining to the Scheduled Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Property and SDPL are made available to the Date: 2026.03.23 15:32:06 +0530 Second Party and the confirmation to that effect is given by the Second Party.
K. Satisfactory On the satisfactory conclusion of CDD and its Conclusion of CDD acceptance by the Second Party, the First Party shall cause the execution of the Transaction documents between he respective parties for the sale, transfer and conveyance of the Scheduled Properties as per the modalities and CS DJ 5980/16 Page 29 of 37 the broad terms and conditions as enumerated and / or contained herein.
Every endeavour shall be made by the Second Party to conclude the Transaction as contemplated herein on or before 31.12.2010.
9.11 Perusal of the above terms and conditions of MOU shows that plaintiff was entitled to get comprehensive due diligence (CDD) of the properties done to satisfy itself of the rights, title and interest, the status of acquisition, requisition, claim, demand, encroachments, liens, charges etc. and the said CDD was required to be completed by the plaintiff within 45 days from the date when copies of all documents pertaining to the property are made available to the plaintiff. It was also provided that on satisfactory conclusion of the CDD and its acceptance by the plaintiff, the defendant shall cause the execution of the transaction documents between the parties done and every endeavor shall be made by the plaintiff to conclude all the transaction on or before 31.12.2010.
The plaintiff has stated that copy of the documents pertaining to the properties were not supplied to the plaintiff but the plaintiff got the CDD done wherein the representations of the defendant, that he has Munish Bansal certain right, title and interest and had certain arrangements and Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 understanding with owners of subject properties, were found to be 15:32:17 +0530 false. Against the said averments, defendant has averred that it was the plaintiff who did not have the requisite funds to complete transaction.
CS DJ 5980/16 Page 30 of 379.12 In cross-examination dated 08.10.2018, defendant/ DW-1 has deposed as follows:
"It is correct that on 12.07.2010 I did not have legal ownership and possession/occupation in respect of property bearing Khasra no.461, 1116 and Rasta between Khasra no.1102 and 1103.
It is correct that I had not obtained any consent letters from the owners of properties bearing Khasra no. 461, 1116 and Rasta between Khasra no.1102, 1103 at the time of my entering into and MOU with Mr. Sujit Kanoria. Vol. I had obtained oral sanction from the respective owners.
It is wrong t suggest that I had not obtained any oral sanction from the aforesaid three properties' owners to sell the same.. As on date I do not have any Written Consent from the said properties owners."
The aforesaid testimony of the defendant corroborates the version of the plaintiff that the representations of the defendant that he has certain rights, title and interest and understanding with the owners of the subject properties, were false.
9.13 The MOU Ex. PW-1/1 specifically provided for the Munish Bansal termination of the said MOU and consequences flowing therefrom.
Digitally signedAs per clause 'M' of the said MOU, the plaintiff was given the by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:32:28 +0530 discretion to terminate the MOU if it was not satisfied with the result of CDD with regard to all or either of the constituents CS DJ 5980/16 Page 31 of 37 scheduled properties. The said termination was affected by the plaintiff by means of legal notice dated 23.12.2010 Ex PW-1/3. As per clause 'M' of MOU, in the event of termination of the contract, defendant was obliged forthwith to refund the plaintiff all sums of money paid to the defendant alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of the payment till its realization. As per Section 13 (1)(b) of the Specific Relief, 1963, if a person contracts to sell certain immovable property having no title or only improper title and concurrence of other persons are necessary for validating the title and they are bound to concur at the request of the vendor, the purchaser has right to compel the seller to procure such concurrence. From the aforesaid testimony of the defendant/ DW-1, there is no concurrence procured from the third party with whom defendant represented to be in agreement and understanding. Thus, the right to terminate the MOU has been rightly exercised by the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to refund of Rs.30 Lacs (total earnest money Rs.1 Crore - earnest money of Rs.70 Lacs qua property bearing khasra no.1109) from the defendant.
9.14 Apart from the claim of principal amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-, plaintiff company has also claimed an amount of Rs. 11,84,795/- on account of interest upon the amount of Rs. 30 lacs @ 18% per annum (w.e.f. 12.07.2010 to 21.09.2012). Since the said amount has been claimed on account of interest, the said claim of interest is being taken for adjudication under issue no. 2.
CS DJ 5980/16 Page 32 of 379.15 Plaintiff company has also claimed an amount of Rs. 2,96,687/- on account of due diligence being got done of the properties by M/s Mine and Young Advocates and the said payment being made by the plaintiff company to the M/s Mine and Young Advocates by issuing cheque no. 57 dated 25.11.2020 of the said amount. As per clause 'M' of the MOU Ex. PW1/1, on the exercise of right to terminate the MOU on being not satisfied with the result of CDD, the defendant was liable to bear and pay forthwith costs and expenses of CDD to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thus, the claim is not as per the said clause. Moreover, plaintiff has not proved the documents i.e Mark D, Mark E and Mark F to the prove the bills raised by the M/s Mine and Young Advocates and payments made by plaintiff company thereof. Mere photocopies of the documents have been brought on file and originals of same were not produced. Thus, in view of appropriate proof evidencing the raising of bill by M/s Mine and Young Advocates and its payment thereof, the claim cannot be allowed. In view of said discussion, the said claim is declined. Consequently, no question arises on the claim of awarding interest on the claim of costs and expenses incurred for CDD.
9.16 Though plaintiff's witness PW1 was cross examined Munish by the counsel for the appellant, perusal of the testimony shows Bansal Digitally signed by Munish Bansal that defendant has not been able to show or setup variation or Date: 2026.03.23 15:32:37 +0530 contradiction to the agreed terms and conditions entered in the MOU. It is well settled that no oral evidence is admissible against CS DJ 5980/16 Page 33 of 37 the documentary evidence. Any oral statement made in testimony cannot be read against the agreed and settled terms and conditions of the MOU.
9.17 Thus, plaintiff is held entitled to refund of Rs.30 Lacs only. Issue no.1 stands decided accordingly.
Issue no.2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so at what rate? OPP
10. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
10.1 For the claim of the interest, plaintiff relies upon the clause 'M' of the MOU which provides that plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of money along with interest @18% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization by the plaintiff. Though, in view of discussion on issue no.1, plaintiff has been able to prove the MOU Ex. PW-1/1, however, while granting interest, consideration should be made to Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act which provides that if a contract contains any stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable Munish Bansal compensation not exceeding the penalty stipulated for. The claim of interest @18% is highly excessive and in the light of dwindling Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 15:32:47 +0530 rates of bank interest, this court deems appropriate to award interest @9% per annum on the decreed amount of Rs.30 Lacs CS DJ 5980/16 Page 34 of 37 from the date of the payment till its actual realization. Issue no.2 stands decided accordingly.
Issue no.3 . Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
11. The onus to prove the issue was upon the defendant.
11.1 On the said issue, after perusing the order sheets, it has come to the fore that though the suit was initially filed on 05.10.2012, however, thereafter, the suit was refiled on 17.07.2013 as recorded in the order dated 19.07.2013. It is to be noted that the present suit was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit. Perusal of the record shows that on the plaint, one of the filing stamps bears dated 31.05.2013 also. Though the MOU is of dated 12.07.2010, however, since on discussion on issue no.1, it already stands adjudicated that the said MOU was terminated only on 23.12.2010 by sending legal notice Ex. PW-1/3 to the defendant, the cause to seek refund accrued only on the termination of MOU by sending the legal notice. The limitation governing the same is three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. Munish Bansal The termination of MOU being effective from 23.12.2010 and the Digitally signed by Munish Bansal suit, even if considering its refilling date i.e. 17.07.2013 as the Date: 2026.03.23 original filing date, the present suit is within time. It is further to 15:32:58 +0530 note that no evidence has been led by the defendant on the said issue, though it is well settled that limitation has not been set up as CS DJ 5980/16 Page 35 of 37 defence. In view of the same, the said issue stands decided against the defendant.
Issue no.4 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908? OPD
12. The onus to prove the issue was upon the defendant.
12.1 The said issue has been framed on the basis of averment contained in the plaint to the effect that as regards property qua Khasra no.1109, plaintiff has filed another suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.07.2010 executed between the plaintiff company and the defendant and the said suit bears no. CS (OS) 1192/2011 is pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. As already discussed and deliberated on issue no.1, though the MOU Ex. PW-1/1 contains mention of property bearing Khasra no.1109, however, as far as relief sought in this suit is concerned, the plaintiff has been able to prove that qua property bearing khasra no.1109, there exists a separate agreement with regard to which receipt dated 12.07.2010 Ex. PW-1/2 has been brought on record and proved. The present suit is being filed only seeking relief for the recovery/ refund of principal of Rs.30 Lacs paid towards the other three properties and the other Munish Bansal suit bearing CS (OS) 1192/2011 is based on a separate agreement, Digitally signed by Munish Bansal Date: 2026.03.23 it can be fairly said that cause of actions are different in both the 15:33:08 +0530 suit and therefore, provision of Order II Rule 2 CPC is not applicable. Henceforth, the present issue is decided against the CS DJ 5980/16 Page 36 of 37 defendant.
RELIEF
13. From the discussions, as adumbrated herein-above, plaintiff is entitled to following reliefs:-
(a). Plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of refund of Rs.30 Lacs from the defendant.
(b). Plaintiff is also entitled to interest @9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.30 Lacs calculated from the date of its payment by the plaintiff to the defendant, till its actual realization by the plaintiff.
(c). The costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
14. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by Munish Munish Announced in the Open Court Bansal Bansal Date:
2026.03.23 on Dated: 23rd March, 2023 15:33:26 +0530 (Munish Bansal) District Judge-03, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ 5980/16 Page 37 of 37