Delhi District Court
Smt Jasminder Saigal vs The State Trading Corporation on 29 June, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. HASAN ANZAR, ADJ-06
WEST DISTRICT,TIS HAZARI COURTS
RCA No.61050/16
Capt. K C Saigal (now deceased)
Through Legal Representatives
1.Smt Jasminder Saigal
W/o Late Kailash Chander Saigal
2. Mr Arjun Saigal
S/o Late Kailash Chander Saigal
3. Ms. Akash Bhandari
W/o Deshbir Bhandari
D/o Late Kailash Chander Saigal
All R/o 67, Eastern Avenue, Sainik
Farms, New Delhi ..........Appellants
Versus
The State Trading Corporation
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan,
Tolstoy Marg,
New Delhi-110001
..........Respondent
Date of Institution: 03.01.2012
Reserved on : 18.02.2020
Date of Judgment : 29.06.2020
Appearances : Mr Ashok Chhabra, Ld. Counsel for
Appellant
Mr Gurpreet Singh, Ld. Counsel for Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 1 /22 dated 17.11.2011 passed by Ld. Civil Judge in M-75/02/1998 in CS No. 73/97 in case titled as Captain K C Saigal vs State Trading Corporation whereby Ld Civil Judge dismissed the suit for recovery of money filed by appellant/plaintiff.
2. Parties shall be referred by their status as appearing before Ld. Court.
3. It is the case of plaintiff that he is carrying on the business of ship broker as proprietor of M/s Inter Ocean Shipping Company. It is further pleaded that Chief Controller of Chartering, Ministry of Surface Transport, Chartering Wing, Govt of India floated an enquiry on behalf of State Trading Corporation for movement of newsprint from China to India. Plaintiff located the suitable vessel and offered the said cargo. It is also stated that pursuant to the negotiation, terms of agreement were finalised as per the fixture notes in between the owner of vessel and State Trading Corporation.
4. As per fixture note, plaintiff would be entitled for commission of 1.25% of the total freight and commission shall be deducted from the gross freight and same shall be paid to the plaintiff.
5. Pursuant to an agreement, vessel "Dignity" was RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 2 /22 chartered by defendant to lift newsprint from China to India and invoices were raised by ship owner and the plaintiff as broker. It is also averred that U/S $573812(which is 95 percent of value of freight) was paid to the Ship Owner/Ikhlas by defendant through their bankers. However, plaintiff was not paid 1.25% brokerage commission of US US$7650.85(equivalent amount in Indian Currency is Rs 2,30,443) and instead defendant paid an amount of Rs 57655.84/- vide cheque dated 16.03.1992 drawn on State Bank of India. Defendant failed to make to make balance amount of Rs 172787.46/- Demands were made plaintiff to make the balance payments on different dates. Legal notice sent by plaintiff remained unresponsive.
6. It is also pleaded that it was not the responsibility/obligation of plaintiff to ensure the payment, if any, payable by Ship Owner to defendant. Plaintiff had provided all necessary help and assistance by making efforts for release of the dues of defendant from Ship Owner. It is further averred that plaintiff had received the message from ship owner, that matter was settled between defendant and Ship Owner. Furthermore ship owner has flatly refused to make any payment to defendant. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs 172287/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. i.e. total amount of Rs 22719.46/- and also claimed future interest.
RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 3 /227. Short case of defendant is that there is no privity of contract in between the parties. It is stated that the fixture note was drawn in between the ship owner and defendant in which plaintiff has acted as an agent of ship owner. It is also stated that vide letter dated 28.06.1991 and 11.07.1991 the ship vessel was changed from "MV Shakir" to "M V Dignity". M V Dignity was 1974 built vessel and attracted an extra insurance cover. It is also stated that payment towards extra insurance premium was the responsibility of Ship Owner. It is also stated that plaintiff had entered into an agreement that defendant on behalf of ship owner whereby vessel "Dignity" was chartered by defendant and newsprint was shifted from China to India. Plaintiff acted as an agent of the ship owner, raised an invoice dated 13.08.1991 in respect of 95% of the agreed freight and defendant paid the amount of US $ 573812.71 as raised in said invoice, which was 95% of freight amount to the ship owner.
8. Due to change in Ship, extra premium of US $52980 was incurred by Defendant and after making adjustment with 5 % value of gross freight i.e. US $30603, outstanding balance of Rs 141714.56 was recovered from 1.25% commission i.e. Rs 199370. It is also averred that an amount of Rs 57655.84/- was paid by defendant to plaintiff after making all adjustment Remaining allegations in respect of illegal adjustment were RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 4 /22 denied. Plea is also taken in written statement that if any amount towards the commission is payable, it is required to be paid by ship owner to the plaintiff, not by defendant. Defendant prayed for the dismissal of suit.
9. Replication filed by plaintiff is reiteration of stand taken in the plaint.
10. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Civil Judge, vide order dated 11.01.2000:-
Issue No.1:- Does the plaintiff have any locus standi to file the suit?
Issue No.2:- Is there any privity of contract between the parties?
Issue No.3:- Is the plaintiff entitled to recovery the amount from defendant?
Issue No.4:- Relief
11. After evaluating rival versions, Ld Civil Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by noting that there was no privity of contract in between the parties due to which the plaintiff has RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 5 /22 no locus standi to file the present suit against defendant. It was also held by Ld. Civil Judge since plaintiff was only acting as an agent of ship owner and therefore he could not sue the third party i.e. defendant. Ld. Civil Judge also held that if some amount was deducted by defendant from freight and same was paid to plaintiff then it would not give any rise to existence of any agreement in between parties by which plaintiff can sue to recover any amount from defendant. It was also held by Ld. Civil Judge that payment of some amount to plaintiff by defendant was only the mode of payment and if the mode of payment is not adhered, it would not give any right to plaintiff to file the present suit against defendant.
12. Ld Counsel for Appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by Ld Trial court is erroneous and appeal filed by plaintiff is liable to be allowed. It is also contended that Ld Trial Court did not adjudicate all issues and disposed of the present suit only on the ground that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. It is also contended that since money could not have been paid to the appellant in US dollars and payment was to be made to broker in India on account of the owner same would amount to novation of contract and once there is a novation of contract, suit filed by the plaintiff would be maintainable. It is also contended that since Ex DW1/3 was referred by Ld. Trial Court and was marked in evidence but no RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 6 /22 issue with regard to Ex DW1/3 was framed and therefore, mere marking of the document as Ex DW1/3, would not prove document Ex DW-1/3 It is contented that once there is an evidence to the effect that amount is being deducted from freight paid and the earlier payment were being made to the appellant and thus it can be said that appellant/ plaintiff did have the locus standi to file the present suit. It is also contended on behalf of appellant reference to order passed under section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 by respondent cannot be taken into consideration. It is also argued that Ex P-3 clearly records that brokerage of 1.25% is payable to the plaintiff and therefore suit filed by plaintiff/appellant is maintainable.
13. Ld. counsel for respondent/ defendant has supported the impugned judgment and decree and contended that fixture notes/Addendum was signed by plaintiff as an agent of ship owner of M/s Ikhlas and once plaintiff has signed as an agent of the ship owner, plaintiff cannot file the suit in his individual capacity since there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant. It is also contended that Section 213 to 225 Contract Act would make it clear that it is the duty of the principal to clear the dues of agent for all acts done by him and third party could not be asked to clear the dues of an agent. As per Section 230 of Contract Act, an agent cannot personally RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 7 /22 enforce the contract entered by it on behalf of principal.
14. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for Respondent/Defendant that written contract i.e. fixture note's and agreement supersede customs and usages and attention was invited to Ground B and C of Appeal wherein ground raised on behalf of plaintiff/appellant is that suit as per practice have varied the payment.
15. I have considered the submission made by Ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. I have considered the Written Submissions filed by both the parties.
16. Before delving into the rival contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to take note of admitted case of both parties and dealings of the parties to have better understanding of the matter. As per Fixture note and offer vide (Ex P-2 and Ex P-3), 5% of freight is to be retained by defendant and 1.25% brokerage is payable to plaintiff.
Total value of Freight US $612066
Less - S $7650
1. 1.25% brokerage
commission @$612066
2. Freight Charges
-US $30603
RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 8 /22
withheld @ 5% on total
freight
Balance due payable to = US $ 573812
Ship Owner
Adjustment as per Defendant's claim
Extra Marine Insurance Claim US $ 52980.85
Amount remitted by Ship US $ 17560.65
Owner to Defendant
Net payable qua Insurance US $ 35420.25
Claim to Defendant
Adjustment with 5% Freight US $ 30603
Charges as lying with
defendant
Remaining balance on account US $ 4817.20
of insurance claim payable to
defendant by ship owner.
Amount paid to plaintiff after US $ 7650- US $4817=$2833
adjusting 1.25% brokerage
commission (US $ 7650) lying
with defendant after making
all adjustment
Perusal of above calculation would explain that total value of Freight was US $612066 and out of which 5% could be retained by defendant and 1.25 percent is to be paid as brokerage charge to plaintiff. Due to change in ship from MV Shakir to MV Dignity, extra premium of US Dollar $52980 was to be paid by ship owner to defendant. However, ship owner remitted an amount US Dollar $17560. Defendant made RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 9 /22 initial adjustment with 5% Freight Charges i.e. US$ 30603, leaving a balance of US $ 4817 and same was adjusted against 1.25 percent brokerage(plaintiff) of $7650, leaving a balance of US$ 2833 equivalent to Indian Rupees 57655.84 and same was paid to defendant. Plaintiff's case that he is entitled for the full 1.25 percent brokerage charge i.e. US$7650 from defendant without any deduction.
17. One of the contention on behalf of Counsel for appellant is that in the written statement, defendant admitted that there was novation of contract as payment/commission could not be paid be to appellant/plaintiff in dollars and it was paid to broker in account of the owner in Indian Currency..
18. In order to appreciate the contention that there was novation of contract in view of the payment made by defendant to the plaintiff, it would be useful to refer Section 62 of Contract Act, 1870, which provides that "If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed."
Submission of Ld Counsel for Appellant is liable to be rejected for the reason that there was the contract in between ship owner and defendant as per which the payment is to be made to the ship owner who is not located in India and also in terms of fixture note the remaining commission is to be paid to the RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 10 /22 plaintiff. It is also matter of record that both the plaintiff and defendant are located in India and therefore the payment was to be made by defendant in India only in Indian Currency i.e. being equivalent to one currency and hence mere payment of money by defendant to plaintiff on behalf of the Ship owner as per Fixture Note and same would not mean that there is any novation of contract in between defendant and ship owner. Illustrations appended with Section 62 of Indian Contract Act, 1870 would further indicate that there is no change in the nature of contract which was entered in between ship Owner and Defendant neither there was any alteration nor rescission or substitution of contract in the present case. Hence, contention of appellant that there was novation of contract which would give locus to plaintiff to institute the present suit is rejected.
19. Second contention raised on behalf of appellant/ defendant is to the effect that in shipping contract there is normal business practice that ship owner deals with broker and broker is paid the commission by the Indian Company. Perusal of ground/contention advanced on behalf of appellant was strongly refuted by counsel for respondent on the ground that no such customs and practices was pleaded in the plaint. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for respondent/defendant that written agreement always supersedes the custom and usages, if any.
RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 11 /2220. Upon considering the submission made by both the parties it is apparent from the reading of the plaint that no such custom and usages was pleaded in the plaint and no witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff/ appellant to the effect that there was any practice or customs which speaks of the payment of money by Indian Company to the broker, if ship owner fails to make payment to defendant. Therefore, claim of the plaintiff/appellant is to be based on the written agreement/fixture notes and other documents executed in between the parties.
21. Perusal of the record would reveal that the terms and conditions in respect by which the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the amount would be based on the interpretation of agreement that fixture note alongwith CONLINE BOOKING NOTE dated 07.06.1991(Ex DW-1/1: also part of Ex PW-1/D1 &Ex P-3), Addendum No.1 dated 25.06.2001(Ex P-4) and Addendum Dated 11.07.1991(not exhibited but relied by both the parties). It is also relevant to note that the said conline Booking note was signed and executed in between plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent, in which plaintiff/appellant signed on behalf of Ship Owner M/s Ikhlas Shipping Company as an agent.
RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 12 /2222. Based on Ex PW-1/D-1 is signed by both plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff had signed Ex PW-1/D-1 is admitted (Booking Note) on behalf of Ship Owner. In clause 13 of booking note, there is specific reference to rider clauses 1to17 which are part and parcel booking note and rider clause is titled as "Rider to Online Booking Note "Shakir" Dated 7-6-1991". Relevant Rider Clause for the purpose of determination the present case are as follows;
1. Extra Insurance, if any, due to vessels's age, flag or class to be for owner's account.
7. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
12. 1.25 percent commission payable to Inter Ocean Shipping Company, New Delhi.
23. Addendum Dated 25.6.1991(Ex P-4) was signed by plaintiff on behalf of Ship Owner and it further records that Vessel MV Shakir has been changed to M V Dignity built 1974. One of the clauses existing in Addendum No.1 dated 25.6.1991 is that " All other terms, conditions and exceptions of the "Shakir" Booking Note Date 7.6.1991 to remain unaltered.
24. Reading of Fixture Note and other conditions enumerated therein would indicate that plaintiff would be entitled for the commission @ 1.25%. However, entitlement of RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 13 /22 plaintiff to take commission of 1.25 % cannot be read in isolation without taking into consideration of Booking Note, Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2. It is a matter of record that vessel " MV Shakir" was changed to "M V Dignity" due to which the extra premium of Rs 1379852/- ( US $52980) was to be paid by the owner of ship to defendant whereas the owner of the ship actually remitted the sum of US $ 17560 /- to defendant. Addendum no.1 clearly stipulates conditions as stipulated in Booking Note shall remain unaltered. Clause 1 of Booking Note dated 07.061991 clearly laid down that in the event of the change of ship etc the extra premium has to be paid and borne by the ship owner. Once it is admitted that addendum was signed by plaintiff as an agent of the ship owner. Hence, defendant will always be entitled to deduct the outstanding amount from the balance available to it in the event of shortfall. Therefore, plaintiff/appellant would not be entitled to seek recovery of Rs 171,000 towards the balance amount from defendant.
25. Chapter X of Indian Contract, 1872 deals with "Agency. Section 213 of 230 Indian Contract Act deals with conduct of Agency by an agent with the principal or with third party under the head of "Effect of agency on contracts with the third person" is dealt. Section 226 of Contract Act provides that contracts entered through an agent and obligations will have RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 14 /22 the same legal consequences, as if the same had been entered by the principal. Section 227 and 228 of Contract Act binds the principal for the act of an agent to the extent for which he has been given authority provided that act done beyond authority is severable. Section 229 of Indian Contract Act provides that any notice given to agent or information during the course of business transacted by him for the principal, as between the principal and third parties, shall have the same consequences, as if it had been given or obtained by the principal. Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, further provides that an agent cannot personally enforce the contracts entered by him on behalf of his principal.
26. There is substantial merit in the submission of Counsel for Respondent/Defendant that agreement/booking note prepared in between plaintiff and defendant would show that plaintiff had entered into an agreement as agent of the ship owner and once the plaintiff has signed the said agreement as an agent of owner of the shipping company there could be no privity of contract in between the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff cannot act in dual capacity by suing in his independent right without impleading owner as party to the case and it has not been explained by plaintiff as to why he did not demand his dues from his principal, instead sought to recover his dues from third party i.e. defendant.
RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 15 /2227. Perusal of cross examination of PW-1 evinces that there are clear and unambiguous admission in respect of relations between plaintiff, defendant and ship owner. PW-1 in his cross examination made further disclosure that plaintiff i.e. Inter Ocean had entered into agreement on behalf of Shipping Owner i.e. and further admitted that payment of Extra Insurance is to be made on account of Owner and it was admitted in the cross examination that Ship Owner is bound to reimburse STC i.e. defendant. More importantly, in his cross examination, PW-1 stated as under ;
" It is correct that our commission was to be paid by Ikhlas vold. said and as per Charter Party Agreement it has to be deducted by STC from the freight while remitting the freights to the owners. Ex PW-1/D2 is the debit note for overage insurance premium paid by STC to the Insurance Company. The same was sent to Ikhlas through us. It is correct that owners did not pay the full amount of extra insurance. Vol. said because it was renegotiated between co-owners and STC and the agreement amount was remitted by the owners. It is wrong to suggest that that STC did not agree for any settlement. It is correct that STC had to pay our commission from the monies of the owners which was in the hands of STC."RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 16 /22
28. Therefore, finding and observation made by Ld. Civil Judge, at page no. 10 of impugned judgment to the effect that the payment of the commission by defendant is only the mode of the payment and merely by making payment to plaintiff would not create any contractual relationship in between plaintiff and defendant is based on admission made on behalf of witness examined on behalf of plaintiff. Hence, no fault could be imputed to such findings as recorded by Ld Civil Judge, Delhi.
29. Exhibit P-2 is another document, in which it is clearly written that plaintiff is making an offer on behalf of Ship owner and Fixture note Ex P-3 makes reference to the fact offer is being made by plaintiff as an agent of Ship Owner.
30. It is contended by Counsel for Appellant/plaintiff that document Ex DW-1/3 was not proved by respondent and therefore same cannot be read in evidence. In support of his submission, Ld Counsel for plaintiff has relied up on (2010)4 SCC 491 and (2003)8 SCC745 in support of his submission.
31. Perusal of judgment of LIC of India & Anr vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010)4 SCC 491 and more specifically in paragraph 25 of cited judgment it was noted that, oral evidence RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 17 /22 was not brought by defendant/appellant and no defence was put to respondent during the cross examination whereas in the present suit Ex DW-1/3 is in complete knowledge of Plaintiff Moreover in paragraph 28 of the cited judgment it was noted that complainant of the case was not examined and there are other circumstances of the case which makes it distinguishable in reference to the present case. It's a settled law that judgment cannot be read in isolation with facts narrated therein. Second Judgment i.e. Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003)8 SCC 745 as cited by appellant/plaintiff is also not applicable reference to the present case, as in the present case, defendant specifically relied upon Ex DW-1/3 in paragraph 6 and 7 of its written statement whereas in the cited judgment as cited on behalf of by appellant/plaintiff would show that plaintiff admitted the rent receipts produced by defendant and there was no opposition to its exhibition, the relied upon judgement instead of supporting the case of plaintiff/appellant supports the case of defendant.
32. In R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P.Temple and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 752, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court as under ;
"The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 18 /22 proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enable the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular."
33. Turning into examination in Chief of DW-1 would indicate that at the time of recordal of Evidence of DW-1 in RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 19 /22 respect of marking of DW-1/3 neither any objection was raised nor any challenge was laid in the cross examination that Ex DW-1/3 is forged and fabricated. Defendant has even laid foundation of Ex DW-1/3 in the written statement and filed the same in list of document at the first available opportunity. Hence, plaintiff cannot be permitted to dispute Ex DW-1/3 as it is too late at the end of day to raise an objection before an appellate Court in view of the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in RVE Gounder (Supra).
34. Challenge on the part of Plaintiff in respect of Ex DW-1/3 is bound to fail for reasons as indicated above and also for the reason that PW-1 in his cross examination had admitted Ex PW/D-3 i.e. Debit Note in respect of over age premium. Plaintiff was the agent of ship owner and it was plaintiff who sent it to Ship Owner. Plaintiff at no stage has disputed Ex DW-1/3 and thus Ex DW-1/3 stands proved. Furthermore, certain documents as filed by plaintiff alongwith list of documents would further indicate that plaintiff was always aware about the payment of extra insurance and even correspondences were exchanged between plaintiff and defendant and plaintiff even had correspondence with ship owner and those documents were never lead in evidence and as such those documents can always be considered while determining the case of plaintiff. In this regard, Ld Counsel for RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 20 /22 Respondent/Defendant has relied upon M/s Rudnap Export vs Eastern Associates AIR 1984 Delhi 20 & Jai Kishan Mehta vs. Ram Prashad Mehta 1996 Rajdhani Law Reporter 77(DB) to the effect that unexhibited documents can be read in evidence against the party which has filed the same. Moreover it is also not the case of defendant that defendant has made wrongful deduction in respect of Extra Insurance claim.
35. It was vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that Ld Trial Court did not decide on the all issues in the present case. The contention is liable to be rejected that while deciding issue no 1 and 2, Ld Civil Judge has decided issue No.3, meaning thereby that there is no privity of contract in between plaintiff and defendant by which the plaintiff could recover any amount from defendant. Meaning thereby that it is only on the basis of positive findings as in issue no 1 and 2, plaintiff would be entitled to recover any amount defendant. Even otherwise on merits, plaintiff would not be able to recover any amount from defendant as it is evident from the record that contract was in between defendant and ship owner which was signed by plaintiff as an agent in which there is liability to pay overage insurance amount and it is after making all adjustment, plaintiff would be entitled to make any claim.
RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 21 /2236. In so far as the contention of counsel for appellant to the effect that order passed under section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 cannot be taken into consideration is concerned, Ld Civil Judge and even this court has given its independent finding on the merits of case and even otherwise such a finding has been given in respect of disposal of application under section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940.
37. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, the appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff is dismissed. Impugned Judgment and decree passed by Ld Trial Court is upheld. Decree sheet be prepared. No order as to costs.
38. Appeal file be consigned to record room as per rules.
39. Copy of judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Ld Trial Court.
Digitally signedAnnounced by way of HASAN by HASAN ANZAR Video Conferencing ANZAR Date: 2020.06.29 14:36:32 +05'30' on 29.06.2020 (Hasan Anzar) Additional District Judge-06/ West District RCA No. 61050/2016 Captain K C Saigal through LRs vs STC Page No. 22 /22