Delhi District Court
Sh. Naresh Kalia vs Sh. Vinod Kalia on 31 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-05, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No. : CS DJ 6193/2016
CNR No. : DLST01-000459-2015
Suit registered on : 12.02.2016
Arguments concluded on : 20.3.2023
Pronouncement on : 31.03.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Naresh Kalia,
S/o Late Puran Chand Kalia
R/O 603, Mahalaxmi, Aparetments
Sector 43, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
..................Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kalia
S/o Late Puran Chand Kalia
R/o 901/10C, Ward No. 8
Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030
2. Smt. Shashi Sharma
W/o Sh. Brij Sharma
R/o S-4 Hans Apartments,
C.B.D. Shahdara Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi-110032
3. Smt. Saroj Sharma
S/o Sh. Vijay Sharma
R/o 901/10C Ward No. 8
CS DJ 6193/16
Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc
Page no.120
Chander Jit Singh
ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
Mehrauli, New Delhi
4. Smt. Uma Sharma
W/o Sh. Deepak Sharma
R/o 901/10C Ward No. 8
Mehrauli, New Delhi
5. LRs of Late Ramesh Kalia
a) Sh. Amandeep Kalia
S/o Late Ramesh Kalia
R/o 901/10 (A+B) Ward No. 8
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
b) Smt. Rama Sharma
W/o Sh. Chander Mohan Sharma
R/o 901/10 (A+B) Ward No. 8
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
c) Smt. Renu Sharma
W/o Sh. Sanjeev Sharma
R/o House No. B-8/9, Apna
Enclave, Railway Road,
Gurgaon-122001
d) Mrs. Ritu Dogra
W/o Sh. Pawan Dogra
R/o House No. 267, Second Floor,
Sector 37,
Faridabad-121003. ..............Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition. Declaration, permanent injunction and possession of his share in the suit property as detailed in plaint.
PLAINT IN BRIEF CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.220 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
2. In brief, case of plaintiff is that plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are member of same family. That defendant No.1 to 4 and plaintiff are brothers and sisters whereas defendant No.5(a) to 5(d) are son and daughters of late Ramesh Kalia who was also real brother of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 4.
2.1 That late Puran Chand Kalia, father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4 purchased property No. 901/10A ward No. 8 Meharauli (hereinafter referred as suit property) family. That Late Puran Chand Kalia intestate died on 13.4.2015. That in respect of suit property plaintiff had put lock in his portion consisting of one room and kitchen at first floor and one shop at ground floor. On 2.7.2013, plaintiff visited premises after receiving information from defendant No. 5(a) regarding breaking of above said locks. Police complaint was lodged by plaintiff against defendant No.1 but no action was taken. Thus, after death of their father defendant No.1 is in possession of suit property except portion shown in green colour in site plan.
2.2 That after death of their father, defendant No.1 started to negotiate with local builder to sell entire suit property. On 17.4.2015, on objection of plaintiff regarding act of defendant No.1 to sell the property, Defendant no.1 threatened plaintiff to face dire consequences. However, with the intervention of family members and relatives, plaintiff and defendant No.1 had orally argued on three counts. First, that defendant No.1 used suit property bearing No.901/10C Ward No.8 Mehrauli, New Delhi CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.320 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi for the purpose of residence only till none of the legal heirs has no objection to it. Secondly, that any of the legal heirs be called upon rest of the legal heirs for partition aforesaid property by metes and bounds and defendant No.1 Will delivered the vacated possession of respective share. Thirdly, that defendant No.1 will not deal with the suit property in any one manner except for use of same as residence.
2.3 That on 21.4.2015 plaintiff again came to know that defendant No.1 is trying to grab suit property by manipulating and forging documents. The suit property was given to defendant No.1 for residential purpose and all the parties to the suit has equal share in the property. Accordingly, legal notice was sent to defendant No.1 calling him to partition the suit property. However, defendant No.1 did not cede to this demand. Hence, this suit is filed seeking partition of suit property in equal share; declaration of plaintiff being owner of 1/6 share of suit property; directions to defendant for handing over peaceful and vacant possession; and permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant restraining them from raising illegal construction and removing hindrance/obstruction for enjoyment share of plaintiff in suit property.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
3. Upon notice, defendant entered appearance and had filed written statements. As per written statement of defendant No.1, it is stated that plaintiff was misinformed and was not CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.420 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi disclosing true facts. It was admitted that property in question was purchased by Late Sh. Puran Chand Kalia. That by virtue of Will which is duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar VA Hauz khas, New Delhi and by virtue of Will, Suit property stands bequeathed to defendant No.1 who is in possession of suit property as well. That by virtue of said Will, defendant No.1 has exclusive right, title and interest in the suit property. That during his life time as well, late Sh. Puran Chand Kalia had deposed in Court of the then Ld. ADJ Court Saket. That suit is bad in law and should be dismissed. That on account of bad company and indulgence in unlawful activities coupled with disrespectful, abusive, and disgraceful attitude, conduct and behaviour of plaintiff towards his parents and towards his siblings, plaintiff was debarred from being part of the family by Late Sh. Puran Chand Kalia. That plaintiff refused to be present on sad occasion of cremation of their mother and had also refused to be present in the marriage of other brothers and sisters. Plaintiff also refused to be present at cremation of Late SH. Puran Chand Kalia as well at Pagri Ceremony of Puran Chand Kalia. That Defendant No.1 carried out all those responsibilities. That No Choutha ceremony after death of their father, as claimed by plaintiff, has taken place rather on 23.4.2015 Pagri Ceremony was performed and not on 17.4.2015 as claimed by plaintiff. Other contentions raised in the suit were denied.
3.1. On behalf of defendant No.2, written statement was filed wherein it is stated that suit is not property valued nor CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.520 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi court fee has been affixed. That plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit. Fact of purchase of suit property by Late Sh. P.C Kalia was admitted. Defendant No.2 has expressed no personal knowledge of genuineness of Will in question. Avernments of exclusive possession of one legal heir was contended as wrong and denied. The contention of plaintiff of having reached any agreement between plaintiff an defendant No.1. Was also denied and it was stated that no such oral agreement was entered into between legal heirs of P.S. Kalia. It is stated that all the legal heirs have the equal share in the suit property.
3.2 On behalf of defendant No.3, it is pleaded that defendant No.3 also seeks partition of suit property and that conduct of defendant No.1 is malafide.
3.3 Written statement of defendant No.4 is also on same lines stating that property was purchased by Late P.C. Kalia but no legal heir has exclusive right and it should be equally divided among all the parties. That P.C. Kalia has continued financial assistance to defendant No.4 from time to time.
REPLICATION
4. Replication to written statements of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was filed by plaintiff wherein it is stated that defendant No.1 had never informed about existence of will till CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.620 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi the filing of suit and it is submitted that will is forged and fabricated.
ISSUES FRAMED Vide order dated 28.5.202112, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition qua suit property bearing No. 901/10C, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, Delhi ad-measuring 134.5 sq. yds in equal shares of 1/6th as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is not in possession of suit property as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is not in possession of suit property as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether defendant No.1 had absolute right, interest, title in the suit property on the basis of Will duly registered on 10.3.2014 and executed by late Sh. Puran Chand Kalia? OPD1
5. Relief EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF
5. To prove his case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. No other witness was examined.
CS DJ 6193/16Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.720 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
6. PW-1 was duly cross examined by defendant No.1 and on behalf of defendant No.2 to 5 he was not cross examined despite extending opportunity for same. During cross examination, it is stated that PW-1 Late Sh. P.C. Kalia was educated person and retired from senior position from Govt. of India. It is also stated that Sh. P.C. Kalia was not mentally fit at the time of his demise. No other witness was examined by plaintiff.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
7. Defendant No.1 has examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidentiary affidavit in his examination in chief and relied upon following documents i.e :-
1. Copy sale deed dated 03.10.1983 is Ex. DW1/1.
2. Certified copy of Will dated 10.3.2014 as Ex. DW1/2.
3. Copy of the Will as returned to his father by registration authority dated 10.3.2014 as Ex. DW1/3.
7.1 DW-1 was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he was put question that on 2.7.2013, he had given shop on rent to one person namely Rajan Sharma which was denied by DW-1. DW-1 has also asked if he can tell as to who had drafted/typed the Will and DW1 stated that he does not know about this.CS DJ 6193/16
Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.820 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
8. Ms. Neelam was examined as DW-2 who has tendered her evidnetiary affidavit in her examination in chief stating that she has witnessed execution of Will by Late Sh. Puran Chand Kalia and registration of Will was made in her presence.
8.1. She (DW-2) was cross examined in detail wherein she has stated that she was working as Deed Writer. That she only knew that P.C Kalia was owner of place where he resided. That she had not read the contents of Will and was told by Late Sh. P. C. Kalia to get the same presented to Registrar. She also stated that her husband is friends with defendant No.1. She also stated that she does not know as to who has drafted the will and had seen the Will first time at the time of registration. She admitted that at point Z, it is not her signatures. She also stated that Mr. P. C. Kalia was the first person to sign the Will and both the witnesses had signed the Will after Late Sh. P.C. Kalia but cannot say as to out of both witnesses who had signed first. She denied the suggestion that Mr. P.C. Kalia has not signed the Will in her presence. She also stated that out of the Wills she got registered, she had witnessed only a few. She was also put a question that you were called as a witness being a deed writer and having required your help for registration. DW-2 had replied and stated that P.C. Kalia had come to her and told that he will have to register his will and get it witnessed also.
CS DJ 6193/16Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.920 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
9. Mr. B.S. Saluja was examined as DW-3. He is the second witness of Will in question and his affidavit is on the similar lines of affidavit of DW-2 and stated that he had witnessed of execution and registration of Will.
9.1 He (DW-3) was duly cross examined wherein he stated that he had purchased a plot with defendant No.1 but that was in the year 1990. That he does not have any monetary transaction with defendant No.1. He also stated that he did not discuss the contents of Will with any one. Sh. P.C. Kalia had requested him in person that he (late P.C. Kalia) wanted him (DW-3) to witness the Will. To the question if Sh. P.C Kalia was hard of hearing, he has stated that it is not correct and further stated that Sh. P.C. Kalia was very active who was giving voluntary service in school nearby and also at Shamsaan Ghat, Meharauli, New Delhi. He also stated that Will was signed within the premises of Registrar's office but outside the actual office space. He has also stated that he did not read the Will before signing it. He also stated that he does not know who drafted the Will. He has also stated that Sh. P.C. Kalia had put his signature on every page of Will. He was put a specific question that is it correct that Will in question was made by Vinod Kalia to which DW-3 replied that he has seen the Will in the hands of Sh. P.C. Kalia.
CS DJ 6193/16Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1020 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
10. Affidavit of Uma Sharma was submitted on behalf of defendant No.4 but she was never examined. No other evidence is adduced by any other defendant.
ARGUMENTS:-
11. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the record.
12. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that it is an admitted case of property being owned by Late Sh. P.C. Kalia who is father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4 and is grand father of 5a to 5d. It is submitted that Will produced by defendant No.1 is forged and fabricated. It is submitted that plaintiff could not prove the Will. It is submitted that defendant NO.1 had taken the signatures of P.C. Kalia on blank paper who was not in a fit mental state and has forged this Will. It is submitted that it is a case where owner had died intestate and property should be partitioned equally between all the parties to suit.
13. It is argued on behalf of defendant No.1 that the property has been bequeathed to him by virtue of Will which has been duly proved. It is submitted by Defendant No.1 that as per law at least one of the attesting witnesses should be examined to prove the document but in this case both the executing witnesses have been examined and they had withstood ire of cross examination. It is submitted that plea of plaintiff of Will being false and fabricated and could not be proved by him whereas CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1120 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi defendant No.1 has proved his case to hilt. It is submitted that suit be dismissed.
14. On behalf of other defendants, it is submitted that all the legal heirs should have equal share in suit property and defendant No.1 could not Will relied upon by him.
DISCUSSION:-
15. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the record.
ISSUE NO. 1 & 4.
16. Issue No.1 and 4 are taken together as findings of one will have bearing on finding of the other. The essence of issue No.1 and issue No.4 is whether Late Sh. P.C Kalia died intestate or had bequeathed property to defendant No.1 by way of Will duly registered on 10.3.2014. Since, onus of proving issue No.1 is upon plaintiff and issue no.4 upon defendant No.1, separate findings on both issues will be given.
16.1 Section 6 of Indian Hindu Succession Act provides that whenever a Hindu dies after commencement of the said, is interest in property shall devolve by survivorship. For application of this provision, person should die intestate. The word intestate has not been defined as such and it implies where a person dies without living a will containing instructions as to how and / or CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1220 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi who should be given his property. In the present matter, defendant No.1, one of the legal heir, has pleaded existence of Will. Therefore, first of all this aspect is need to be looked into for the reason that if there is a Will in existence and is duly proved by defendant No.1 as per law, property shall devolve as provided in the Will otherwise it shall devolve in terms of Hindu Succession Act.
16.2 Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act provides the manner in which documents which are required to be attested may be proved. Section 68 provides that a document which is required by law to be attested shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of its execution, if there is an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of court and capable of giving evidence. There is a proviso appended to this provision wherein in respect of registered document, attesting witnesses are not required to be examined. However, to this proviso, there is another proviso/ exception that it shall not be applicable to a Will. Therefore, to prove a Will at least one attesting witness is required to be examined even if, Will is registered. In the present case, as well the Will on which defendant places reliance is stated to be registered but, as noted above, in case of registered Will as well, defendant no.1 is required to prove the same as per provisions concern.
CS DJ 6193/16Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1320 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
17. Coming to the facts of this case, defendant No.1 has examined both the attesting witnesses to prove Will in question. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act provides that the Will shall be executed according to rules provided therein.
(i) That testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(ii) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing, as a Will.
(iii) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person, and each of the witnesses shall sign the the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
17.1 Thus, to prove Will, conjoint reading of section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act is to be made. The former stipulates conditions and the manner in which Will is to be executed and later prescribes as to how the CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1420 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi Will shall be proved. In simple words, following three requirements should be proved in order to prove that the Will is in accordance with law:
(i) That the Will was signed by testator or by some other person in his presence and by his direction with the intention to give effect to writing as a Will.
(ii) The Will should be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom had seen the testator sign the Will.
(iii) That each of the witlessness shall sign the Will in presence of testator.
17.2 In the present matter, both the attesting witlessness of Will in question have been produced by defendant no.1 and were duly examined as well as cross-examined. In their cross- examination both DW-1 and DW-2 have specially stated that the Will has been signed by late Sh. P.C. Kalia in their presence. Each page is stated to be signed by late Sh. Puran Chand Sharma. DW-2 was asked if there are no signatures at point Z and the answer was in affirmative. Otherwise as well since the document has been proved by witnesses the contents of document including omission can be looked into. It is correct that there are no signatures of late Sh. Puran Chand Kalia at Point Z. However, the only fact that having not sign one page will not negate the whole document specially when the document contains the signature of late Sh. Puran Chand at other places. A suggestion put to DW-2 CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1520 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi that when Will was brought for signatures of DW-3, the signatures of late Sh. P.C. Kalia were already on the paper. It implies that on behalf of plaintiff, signatures of late Sh. P.C. Kalia on Will in question have been admitted. Another suggestion was put to witness that late Sh. P.C. Kalia was forced to sign the blank pages. It is coupled with the fact that not even a suggestion has been put in cross-examination to the effect that signature on Will in question are not of Sh. P.C. Kalia. Therefore, in view of the positive assertion of witnesses that late Sh. P.C. Kalia sign the will in question in their presence alongwith absence of any material on behalf of defendant to show otherwise including a specific denial that the Will in question did not bear the signature of late Sh. P.C. Kalia, the fact that Will in question was signed by late Sh. P.C. Kalia stand proved by defendant no.1.
17.3 Further both the witnesses have categorically stated that they themselves have seen late Sh. P.C. Kalia had signed the Will in question. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined on this aspect but repeatedly even while answering the suggestion that they had not seen late Sh. P.C. Kalia sign the will on and it was already signed when presented for signature of witnesses, witnesses not only denied the suggestion but have also reiterated the fact of having seen late Sh. P.C. Kalia sign the will in question. Both the witnesses have also stated that they have appended their signatures subsequent to the Will being signed by late Sh. P.C. Kalia. DW-2 was asked the sequence of signature of witnesses to which she stated that she did not remember the CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1620 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi sequence. Although DW-2 could not tell the sequence of signing but the same is in consequential as it does not matter as to which of two witnesses have signed the Will first and who signed it later. So much so Section 63 of Indian Succession Act does not even required both the witnesses be present at the same time and any particular form of attestation is also not necessary. Hence, this contention is also not such which hold water.
17.4 Plaintiff and other defendants have attempted assail the Will on certain other ground such as that one of the attesting witness is friends with defendant no.1. It is an admitted position in testimony of DW-3 that he is friend with defendant no.1 but at the same time he has also stated and establish while withstanding detailed cross-examination that late Sh. P.C. Kalia was also known to him and he signed the will in question as witness on asking of late Sh. P.C. Kalia. It is not the case of plaintiff or any other defendant DW-3 was not known to late Sh. P.C. Kalia. Therefore, the only fact that one of the attesting witness knows other family member, defendant no.1 in case, is not of much consequence in social milieu, it is a common scenario where a person may know father and one of the son. Hence, on this ground as well, plaintiff or any other defendant could not assail the Will in question. Another point was raised that at page 4 of Ex.DW-1/2 which is copy of registered Will at point M, certain blanks have been filled in hand, whereas rest of the document is typed and it is an indication as well proved that the Will is forged. Other than question being put in cross-examination to CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1720 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi witnesses of defence that as to who has written / filled the blanks, no other material has been placed on record to show that the blanks were filled subsequently by manipulating the documents got signed by late Sh. P.C. Kalia. Therefore, the simplicitor failure of witnesses to disclose as to who filled the blank does not make it forged.
17.5 Further, plaintiff have question the mental capacity of late Sh. P.C. Kalia at the time of execution of Will in question. Section 59 of Indian Succession Act provides that a person of sound mind can disposed of his property by Will. Therefore, the condition of testator being of sound mind is sine qua non for the Will to be valid. However, it is the duty of the person to prove the fact who asserts it. First of all, plaintiff has not taken this plea that late Sh. P.C. Kalia was not of sound mind at the time of execution of Will in question. Otherwise as well, plaintiff or nay other defendant has not asked any question which could specifically bring out as to how there was mental incapacity of late Sh. P.C. Kalia which will render the Will in question void. Defence witnesses have been asked late Sh. P.C. Kalia was hard of hearing. Regarding this one of the witness had expressed her ignorance in respect of the same whereas DW-3 has denied it. Even if it is assumed that late Sh. P.C. Kalia hard of hearing, this fact will not make any person being of unsound mind. To be unsound mind in legal parlance, the incapacity should be such that the person concerned is unable to understand the effects of his act or omission thereof. In the present matter except the CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1820 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi suggestion by plaintiff and other defendants while cross-examine the witnesses of defence no other material has been placed on record to substantiate this contention.
17.6 The above discussion shows that defendant no.1 has proved the existence and validity of Will in question. Therefore, it is held that late Sh. P.C. Kalia did not intestate and his property will devolved as per his Will which is Ex.DW1/2 and Ex. DW1/3. Therefore, it is further held that defendant no.1 has discharged his onus casted upon him in respect of proving his exclusive right, interest, title in the suit property on the basis of Will dated 10.03.2014. Plaintiff has failed to discharge onus put upon him. Other defendants have also contested the validity of Will but did not lead any evidence to prove or discredit the witnesses . Therefore, Issue No. 1 and issue No. 4 are decided in favour of defendant No.1 and against all other parties to the suit.
ISSUE NO. 2 & 318. Issue No. 2 and 3 are consequential aspect which were dependent on finding if or not property shall devolve by way of Will or as intestate. As the property is held to devolve by virtue of Will which makes defendant No.1 exclusive owner of suit property, both these issues are also decided in favour of defendant No.1 and against all others.
RELIEF CS DJ 6193/16 Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.1920 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and therefore, the suit filed by plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court.
Dated. 31.03.2023 CHANDER JIT SINGH ADJ-05, SOUTH SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI/23.03.2023 This judgment contains 20 pages. Each page has been checked and signed by me.
CS DJ 6193/16Naresh Kalia Vs Vinod Kalia etc Page no.2020 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi