Delhi District Court
Mahender Singh vs Virender Kumar on 27 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAHIL KHURMI, CIVIL JUDGE-01,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No:-DLCT03-006516-2023
CS SCJ No.2212/2023
Sh. Mahender Singh
S/o Sh. Surat Singh,
R/o House No.532, Milan Vihar,
Near Pushta, Jagatpur,
Delhi-110084.
Mobile No:-9718965790 .....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Virender Kumar
Station House Officer (SHO),
Police Station - Wazirabad
Delhi. ... Defendant
Date of institution : 17.11.2023
Date on which reserved for judgment : 02.03.2024
Date of decision : 27.03.2024
Decision : Dismissed
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction against the
defendant.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the present suit as Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Khurmi Date:
2024.03.27 Page 1 of 1616:08:04 +0530 averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the land measuring 857.98 sq yds forming part of Khasra No.142/9/1, situated in the area of village Burari, abadi known as Milan Vihar, behind Mohalla Clinic, Delhi-110084 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") and the same has been shown in Red colour in the site plan.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property has been occupied by the plaintiff in the year 2000 and the plaintiff raised a temporary structure thereupon and is running a Gaushala under the name of Shree Krishan Gaushala at the suit property where the plaintiff take care of injured, ill and frail cows by getting them medical treated and protects the said Cows and that the plaintiff has affixed a gate at the suit property for the said purpose.
4. It is further stated that from the beginning, the plaintiff is in uninterrupted possession of the suit property and the plaintiff has been using the suit property as a Gaushala and has been enjoying the actual and physical possession of the suit property without any intervention from any corner whatsoever.
5. It is further stated that on 10.11.2023, the defendant visited the suit property along with some police officials and the defendant asked the plaintiff that some political people, who are known to the defendant, are interested in occupying the suit property and that the plaintiff should vacate the suit property so that the said political persons known to the defendant could occupy the land and do their business and if the plaintiff does not vacate the suit property then he shall be dispossessed from the suit property Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Khurmi Date:
CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar 2024.03.27 Page 2 of 1616:08:10 +0530 by using any means, to which the plaintiff flatly refused to vacate the suit property and thereafter the defendant left the suit property with the threat that the defendant shall continue to cause interference in the peaceful use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and further the defendant shall implicate the plaintiff in false criminal cases in order to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property.
6. It is further stated that on 15.11.2023, the defendant along with other police officials again came to the suit property and threatened the plaintiff by saying that the defendant will not allow any person to do anything on the suit property and the defendant will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and the defendant will put some other people in the possession of the same and further threatened the plaintiff that if plaintiff tries to report the matter to the higher police officials then false cases would be registered against the plaintiff and his family members. It is further stated that defendant has got no legal right to extend such threats to the plaintiff and the defendant is misusing his powers and acting beyond his duties. It is further stated that the said acts of the defendant are not in accordance with the discharge of his duties and the said criminal intimidation to the plaintiff is also not under the colour of duty or in excess of such duty of authority and the acts of the defendant do not find any protection under any law, much less under Delhi Police Act. Hence the present suit.
7. The summons of the suit were issued to the defendant which were received back duly served on 11.12.2023 and thereafter on 18.12.2023 Sh. Sawai Singh, Sub Inspector PS Wazirabad appeared on behalf of defendant Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Khurmi Date:
2024.03.27 Page 3 of 1616:08:19 +0530 and filed report/reply on behalf of the SHO wherein it is stated that complainant Sanjeev Kumar Jha (MLA Burari, Delhi) had filed a written complaint vide No. E-38012/MLA02/23/74 dated 10.11.2023 at the PS Wazirabad, therein he leveled allegations of unauthorised encroachment is being done at Khasra No.149/9/2 on Gram Sabha Land in Milan Vihar by some land grabbers and the said land grabbers are doing the illegal encroachment in the night and they are also planning to sell the above said land to common people in the shape of plots. The said complaint was marked to SI Sawai Singh. It was further stated that during inquiry SI Sawai Singh along with beat staff visited the said suit property and asked the plaintiff to show the documents regarding the suit property but he could not provide any documents regarding the same. It was further stated that on local enquiry, it came to know that the said land is adjoined to Mohalla Clinic but the plaintiff is trying to occupy the same. It is further stated that plaintiff had assured to join the enquiry but he has neither joined the enquiry nor has provided any documents of the questioned land. It is further stated that the enquiry into the matter is under process. Thereafter, none had appeared on behalf of SHO Wazirabad and therefore a court notice was issued to the defendant, which was received back duly served on 11.01.2024, however, despite service of said court notice, no WS was filed on behalf of defendant. Therefore, right to file written statement on behalf of defendant was closed vide order dated 22.01.2024 and the defendant was proceeded exparte.
EX-PARTE EVIDENCE:
8. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence was led on behalf of plaintiff and the following witnesses have been examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:08:36 CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar +0530 Page 4 of 16
(i) Plaintiff has been examined as PW-1. PW-1 tendered evidence by way of evidence Ex.PW1/1 wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW-1 relied on the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 : Site Plan. Ex.PW1/2(colly) : Five photographs.
(ii) Sh. Pradeep Kasana has been examined as PW-2. PW-2 tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A.
(iii) Sh. Ravinder Singh has been examined as PW-3. PW-3 tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A.
(iv) Sh. Pranshu Verma, Draughtsman has been examined as PW-4. PW-4 deposed that he accompanied the plaintiff Mahender Singh to the suit property on 15.11.2023 in the evening around 4'O clock for the preparation of site plan of the suit property. He deposed that he inspected the suit property and the construction existing thereupon and he also took the measurement of the suit property. That he prepared the site plan which is already Ex.PW1/1 and the said site plan shows the measurements and construction pertaining to the suit property. He further admitted his signature at point A on the site plan. He further deposed that the site plan is true and correct according to the site.
(v) Thereafter, vide separately recorded statement of counsel for plaintiff ex-parte PE was closed. The matter was then listed for ex-parte final arguments.
9. Ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff were heard. Case file perused.
10. As per the plaint, the cause of action arose on 10.11.2023 when the Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Khurmi Date:
2024.03.27 Page 5 of 16 16:08:43 +0530 defendant visited the suit property and extended threats to the plaintiff. Therefore, the present suit being filed on 17.11.2023 has been filed within the period of limitation.
11. It is averred in the plaint that parties to the suit reside and work for their gains at Delhi and the suit property is also situated at Burari, Delhi and as such this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:
12. Before deciding and analyzing the issues in the present case, it is profitable to discuss the settled law that even in the cases where the defendant is proceeded against ex-parte, the plaintiff still has to prove his case by leading necessary and cogent evidence. In the case where defendant is proceeded against ex parte, it does not mean that the defendant admits the assertions made against him by the plaintiff in the plaint. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbax Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, it was observed that:-
"The initial burden of proof would be upon the plaintiff in view of section 101 of the Evidence Act ..... In terms of the said provision the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it..... In terms of section 102 of the Evidence Act, the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would dis-entitle the plaintiff to the same".
13. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya V/s Anil Pajwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508, while considering the provisions of Order IX, Rule 6 and Order VIII, Rule 10 of the CPC, it was observed that even if the suit proceeds ex-parte Digitally signed by CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date: Page 6 of 16 Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:08:50 +0530 under Order IX, Rule 6 of the CPC, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of its case cannot be dispensed with.
14. In Maya Devi V/s Lalta Prasad,(2015) 5 SCC 588, it was held that, "The failure to file a Written Statement, thereby bringing Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC into operation, or the factum of Defendant having been set ex parte, does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree. Both under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and on the invocation of Order IX of the CPC, the Court is nevertheless duty- bound to diligently ensure that the plaint stands proved and the prayers therein are worthy of being granted."
15. In the matter of Meenakshisundaram Textiles V/s Valliammal Textiles, 2011 (3) CTC 168, it was held that, even an ex-parte judgment should contain reasons. It was held that, "The Civil Procedure Code does not say that the Court is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is absent." It is further held, "In view of the above, in the event the defendant is set ex parte, the Court should be extra careful in such case and it should consider the pleadings and evidence and arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree."
16. In the present case, there are two main issues which needs to be considered and delved into by this Court which are: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed by him? (2) Whether the present suit be dismissed for not giving mandatory notice Under Section 80(1) CPC?
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed by him?
17. Firstly, I shall discuss the nature of reliefs sought by the plaintiff in Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Date:
Khurmi 2024.03.27 Page 7 of 1616:08:57 +0530 the present suit i.e., Relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and from interfering in peaceful use, occupation and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed himself to be owner of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. In A. Subramanian & anr. Vs R. Pannerselvam decided by 3 judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court on February 08, 2021, it was held that even a trespasser in settled possession has a right to be protected against dispossession without due process of law. It was held that:
21. The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction.
22. We may also refer to judgment of this Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander and others, AIR 1968 SC 1165, where three-Judge Bench of this Court presided by Hidayatullah, J. has reiterated the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner. The principle enumerated in judgment of Judicial Committee in Parry v. Clissold, (1907) AC 73, was noticed in paragraph 17 to the following effect:
"(17) In our judgment this involves an incorrect approach to our problem. To express our meaning we may begin by reading 1907 AC 73, to discover if the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner has in any way been departed from. 1907 AC 73 reaffirmed the principle by stating quite clearly: "It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever Digitally signed by CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date: Page 8 of 16 Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:09:06 +0530 extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title."
(emphasis laid)
18. The plaintiff has averred himself to be in settled possession of the suit property since 2000. PW-2 and PW-3 who are independent witnesses have also deposed in favour of the plaintiff regarding his settled possession. The plaintiff has also filed photographs of his gaushala Ex. PW-1/2 to show that he is in possession of suit property. It is not disputed by anybody, especially by the defendant that plaintiff is not in possession of suit property. Considering the settled law that a person who is in settled possession ought not to be dispossessed without due course of law, the plaintiff need not be dispossessed from the suit property without following the due process of law. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought by him "on merits".
19. However, another important aspect, which needs to be delved into in the present suit is regarding the maintainability of present suit as per Section 80(1) CPC. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the act of the defendant SHO in threatening and criminally intimidating the plaintiff from dispossessing the plaintiff is not under the Color of his Duty and is in excess of his duty. In crux, it is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the act of defendant SHO was not in discharge of his duty and therefore, therefore there is no need to comply with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC or Section 140 of Delhi Police Act.
20. Firstly, I shall be discussing the relevant provision of Section 80 CPC, which is as follows:
Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:09:14 +0530 CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Page 9 of 16 "Section 80 - NOTICE -
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of State of Jammu & Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of
(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government except where it relates to a Railway a secretary to that Government
(b) in case of a suit against the Central Government, where it relates to Railway, the General Manager of that Railway;
(bb) in case of a suit against the Government of State of Jammu & Kashmir the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorized by that officer on this behalf;
(c) in case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the District; and in case of a public officer delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description, and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice
(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1) and (b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated." Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:09:25 CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar +0530 Page 10 of 16
21. In the present case, it is uncontroverted and undisputed by the plaintiff that the defendant is a "public officer" within the meaning of Section 2 (17) and Section 80 of the CPC.
OBJECT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80 CPC:
22. The object of the notice contemplated by Sec. 80 CPC is to give to the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised without litigation. The legislative intention behind that section is that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigation and the Government and the public Officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations. The purpose of law is advancement of justice. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of A.P. vs. G.V. Suryanarayana, AIR 1965 SC 11 that, "The object of the notice under Section 80 CPC is to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified to make amends or settle the claim out of Court. The section is imperative and must undoubtedly be strictly construed: failure to serve a notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit."
23. In U.R. Agarwal vs Brahm Singh And Ors AIR1976 ALL 243, it was held that:
1. The plaintiff applicant filed this revision against an order dated 31-5-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Lucknow dismissing the plaintiff's application for interim injunction. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, stated today before me that the revision against that order was not maintainable and that the revision Digitally signed by CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:Page 11 of 16
Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:09:33 +0530 petition may be treated as a F. A. F. O. I have consequently treated this revision petition as a F. A. F. O
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant at length and have also gone through the impugned order. The appellant seems to have challenged the official act of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 who are public officers. The State Government was not impleaded in the suit on the ground that no formal agreement was executed in terms of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution. The fact, however, remains that the opposite parties have been impleaded in the suit in their official capacity impugning their act purporting to have been done by them in that capacity.
3. That being so, it was necessary for the plaintiff-
appellant to have given a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code before instituting the suit against the opposite parties. The learned Civil Judge has refused to grant interim injunction on the ground that no notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code having been given, the suit itself was defective. In my view, the learned Civil Judge was correct in holding so. I find no merits in this appeal. It is accordingly rejected under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.
(Emphasis laid)
24. In famous case of Juhi Chawla and Ors. Vs Science and Engineering Research Board and Ors, CS(OS) 262/2021, Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the contention of the plaintiff that Section 80(1) CPC notice is an empty formality. It was further held that:
16. The notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Government is mandatory before institution of the suit against the Government. The object of the notice under Section 80(1) is to give an Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:09:40 +0530 CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Page 12 of 16 opportunity to the Government to reconsider the matter and to make amends and settle the claim out of Court. Section 80 was enacted for the advancement of justice for securing public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation.
17. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu, AIR 1965 SC 11, the Supreme Court observed that the object of the notice under Section 80(1) is to give an opportunity to the Government to reconsider the matter and to make amends and settle the claim out of Court. The Supreme Court further observed that Section 80(1) is imperative and must be strictly complied with. The Supreme Court further observed that failure to serve a notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"11. The object of the notice under Section 80 is to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified to make amends or settle the claim out of Court. The section is imperative and must undoubtedly be strictly construed: failure to serve a notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit. But the notice must be reasonably construed. Every venial error or defect cannot be permitted to be treated as a peg to hang a defence to defeat a just claim. In each case in considering whether the imperative provisions of the statute are complied with, the Court must face the following questions:
(1) whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so to enable the authorities to identify the person serving the notice;
(2) whether the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims are set out with sufficient particularity; (3) whether the notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the section; and Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Khurmi Date:
2024.03.27 CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar 16:09:48 Page 13 of 16 +0530 (4) whether the suit is instituted after the expiration of two months next after notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left.
In construing the notice the Court cannot ignore the object of the Legislature to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position. If on a reasonable reading but not so as to make undue assumptions the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or errors may be ignored." (Emphasis Supplied)
18. In State of A.P. v. Pioneer Builders, A.P., (2006) 12 SCC 119, the Supreme Court held that service of notice under Section 80 is a condition precedent for the institution of a suit against the Government. The Supreme Court further observed that the object of Section 80 is the advancement of justice for securing public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation.
19. In State of Kerala v. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 178, the Supreme Court observed that a suit filed without compliance of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be regularized by simply filing an application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
20. The plaintiffs' contention that Section 80(1) notice is an empty formality is contrary to the well settled law and is hereby rejected.
21. This Court is of the view that the notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary in the present case. The application is therefore, dismissed.
(Emphasis supplied)
25. In Raghav Chadha vs Rajya Sabha Secretariat FAO 264/2023 and CM APPL. Nos. 52896/2023, 52898/2023 decided on 17.10.2023, it was Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:
CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Khurmi 2024.03.27 Page 14 of 1616:09:59 +0530 held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
An analysis of the provision shows that section 80 CPC is in two parts: Section 80(1) and Section 80(2). Upon a dissection of the parts, it is seen, that section 80(1) bars the institution of a suit against the "Government" or a "public officer" (in respect of an act purporting to have been done by the public officer in his official capacity); and requires that before a suit is instituted against a Government or a public officer, a 02-month prior notice in-writing must be delivered to such Government or public officer. The notice must state the cause of action alongwith the name, description and place of the residence of the plaintiff alongwith the relief claimed. Furthermore, the plaint filed must contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
26. Thus, it is a settled law that before a suit is instituted against the Govt. or public officer, for act done by the public officer in his official capacity it is mandatory to serve a notice as contemplated under Section 80(1) CPC. It is averred on behalf of plaintiff that the act of defendant SHO in threatening and criminally intimidating the plaintiff is not done in discharge of his official capacity, thus present suit is not hit by Section 80(1) CPC.
27. It is apposite to mention here that the plaintiff has not lead any cogent and clinching evidence to prove that any such alleged act of threatening or criminally intimidating the plaintiff to dispossess the plaintiff was done by the defendant. Mere bald assertions sans substantive proof is unworthy of credence. No independent witness was examined by the plaintiff to prove the same. The present case has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant SHO in his official capacity which is very much clear from the memorandum of parties placed on record. The defendant has filed written complaint vide No. E-38012/MLA02/23/74 dated 10.11.2023 at the PS Digitally signed by CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:
Page 15 of 16Khurmi 2024.03.27 16:10:17 +0530 Wazirabad filed by complainant Sanjeev Kumar Jha (MLA Burari, Delhi), a copy of which was, inter alia, marked to Governor of Delhi, Chief Minister of Delhi, Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Thus, it transpires that the visit(s) made by defendant/on behalf of defendant was only done by him in discharge of his official capacity to follow-up/investigate upon the written complaint of MLA, Burari.
28. Thus, I hold that the act of defendant, if any, in making investigation and visiting the plaintiff's gaushala upon complaint of the concerned MLA, Burari was done in discharge of his official capacity and moreover, the plaintiff has impleaded the defendant SHO in his official capacity as also mentioned in memo of parties and therefore, it was mandatory for the plaintiff to serve notice u/s 80(1) CPC. Failure to comply the same makes the present suit bad in law and deserves dismissal.
RELIEF:-
29. Considering the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is dismissed.
30. No order as to cost.
31. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
32. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Khurmi 2024.03.27
16:10:26
+0530
Announced in the open (SAHIL KHURMI)
court on 27.03.2024. Civil Judge-1, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS SCJ No.2212/2023 Mahender Singh vs. Virender Kumar Page 16 of 16