Delhi District Court
Smt. Pramila Bajaj vs The Chairman & Managing Director on 30 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG: CIVIL JUDGE:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURT: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No: 739/2011
Unique case ID No: 02405C0296052011
IN THE MATTER OF
Smt. Pramila Bajaj
S/o Sh. K. L.(Krishan Lal) Bajaj
R/o Flat no.3464, Sector D, PktIII,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi110070.
through her S.P.A
... Plaintiff
Versus
The Chairman & Managing Director
Indraprastha Gas Ltd.,
Plot No.4, Community Centre,
IGL Bhawan, Sector 9,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi110022. ... Defendant
Date of filing : 12.10.2011
Date of Institution : 12.10.2011
Date of pronouncing judgment : 30.01.2016
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Civil Suit No.739/2011
Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL
Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I will dispose of the present suit filed by plaintiff for mandatory injunction against the defendant/the Chairman & Managing Director, Indraprastha Gas Ltd. (IGL) seeking a direction to the defendant to lay PNG lines in the block of plaintiff in such a manner so as to facilitate the plaintiff to carry out repairs to the existing facilities without any hindrance and installation of lift in the block and to secure safety from any untoward incident from the gas lines.
2. Initially, the present suit was filed by Smt. Pramila Bajaj and Sh. Asheesh Bajaj on 12.10.2011 through their attorney Sh. K.L. Bajaj and the defendant was served with summons of the suit on 24.10.2011, however, the defendant did not file his written statement to the suit of plaintiff and accordingly, the right of the defendant to file written statement was closed by learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 30.11.2011. Subsequently, two separate applications under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 2 of 25 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC were filed on behalf of defendant on 19.05.2012. The application of defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was dismissed by learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 09.11.2012 and another application of defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed by this court vide order dated 08.04.2015. One application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2015. Another application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 16 CPC seeking direction to the defendant to produce authenticated copies of statutory and safety clearances obtained by defendant before providing gas connection to the plaintiff was filed on behalf of plaintiff during pendency of the present suit and the same was allowed by this court vide order dated 08.04.2015. The documents directed by the court were accordingly placed on record by counsel for defendant on Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 3 of 25 04.06.2015. Subsequently, when the matter was fixed for PE, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking deletion of name of plaintiff no.2 from the array of parties and the same was allowed by this court vide order dated 20.01.2016. Thereafter, Sh. K. L. Bajaj, attorney of the sole plaintiff Smt. Pramila Bajaj has examined himself as sole witness in support of the case of plaintiff as PW1 and has tendered his affidavit EX. PW1/A in evidence along with following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/1Original SPA dated 10.10.2011 executed by plaintiff in favour of Sh. K. L. Bajaj;
(ii) Ex. PW1/2 Certified copy of GPA executed by Sh. Asheesh Bajaj, the erstwhile plaintiff no.2 in favour of SH. K. L.Bajaj;
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 Legal notice dated 06.11.2009 served by plaintiff upon defendant through counsel;
(iv) Ex. PW1/4 Original postal receipt regarding dispatch of legal notice;
(v) Ex. PW1/5 Original photograph showing the alleged overlapping of pipeline with the existing facilities.
3. PW1 was duly cross examined by learned counsel for defendant and was discharged. No other witness was examined Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 4 of 25 on behalf of plaintiff in support of her case and accordingly, on a separate statement of attorney of plaintiff, PE was closed vide order dated 20.01.2016 and since the defense of the defendant had already been struck off, matter was adjourned for final arguments to 25.01.2016. On 25.01.2016, attorney of the plaintiff sought time to place on record fresh power of attorney duly signed by plaintiff in his favour. Same was placed on record by attorney of plaintiff on 28.01.2016 and thereafter final arguments were also heard on behalf of the parties on the same date.
4. It is submitted by the attorney of plaintiff that he has been able to prove on record that the PNG supply line has been laid down by the defendant in gross violation of Standard 226 of August, 2007 issued by O.I.S.D., Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the same was laid in such a manner which may be a safety hazard for the plaintiff and can result in any untoward incident of fire in the house of plaintiff as well as in the flats of Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 5 of 25 neighbourers. Besides, according to him, due to the overlapping of PNG gas supply line with the existing common facilities of drinking water, sewerage and exit pipelines for rain water the plaintiff will not be able to get the common facilities repaired without incurring huge cost which could have been avoided in case the defendant would have laid down the said gas pipeline in a manner so as not to obstruct/block/overlap the existing facilities. Thus, according to him, plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction prayed for by her.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant that the present suit of the plaintiff is based on imagination and future contingencies, which had actually not taken place. In fact, according to him, it was admitted by PW1 during his cross examination that the plaintiff has not faced any problem due to overlapping of PNG pipe line with the common facilities till date. Besides, it was admitted by him that no accident has taken place in the locality due to overlapping of Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 6 of 25 PNG pipeline with the common facilities till today, despite the fact that the PNG pipe lines were laid down in the aforesaid locality in the year 2009. Besides, according to him, the suit has not been filed by the plaintiff through duly authorized representative inasmuch as a bare perusal of power of attorney Ex. PW1/1 shows that the attorney was not specifically authorized by the plaintiff to file the present suit against the present defendant. According to him, even the new power of attorney placed on record by Sh. K. L. Bajaj on 28.01.2016 cannot have the effect of curing the inherent defect in the original SPA inasmuch as Sh. K. L. Bajaj was not authorized by plaintiff to file the present suit against the present defendant as on the date of filing of the suit. Besides, according to him, the plaintiff has failed to point out any statutory rule/regulation, which has not been complied with by the defendant while laying the PNG pipeline in the locality of plaintiff. According to him, the defendant has placed on record several documents in Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 7 of 25 compliance of order dated 08.04.2015 passed by this court, which goes on to show that the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board has appointed third party independent inspectors for safety inspection of the pipe line laid down by the defendant and according to him, the said third party inspectors have already issued a certificate dated 21.11.2014 certifying that the City Gas Distribution System of IGL in NCR region was found complying with the requirements of statutory laws and IMS regulations, 2013 of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. Thus, according to him, all the apprehensions regarding the alleged safety hindrance on account of overlapping of gas pipeline with other common facilities is a figment of imagination of plaintiff and the same is not sufficient for giving rise to any cause of action for filing of present suit by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction against the defendant. He further submits that the plaintiff has failed to examined herself in support of her case and as such an adverse Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 8 of 25 inference needs to be raised against the plaintiff, in view of the settled legal position that though the plaintiff can file a suit through attorney but the attorney cannot depose in the place of his principal. Counsel for the defendant has thus, prayed for dismissal of the present suit with exemplary cost.
6. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record.
7. A bare perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff is claiming herself to be the owner of Flat No.3464, Sector D, PocketII, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi110070 having been provided with the PNG connection by the defendant company through PNG pipeline which, according to her, blocks, obstructs and overlaps the existing common facilities of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff had objected to the laying of the pipe line in the aforesaid manner at the time of installation of the same, however, the defendant has failed to pay any heed to the same. Aggrieved by the above conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 9 of 25 served a legal notice dated 07.11.2009 upon the defendant. However, since the defendant has failed to comply with the demands raised in the aforesaid legal notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant pleading interalia that the PNG line laid down by the defendant will create hindrance in installation of lift in the flat/block of plaintiff and the same may also prove to be a safety hazard.
8. In the light of submissions made on behalf of parties, in my considered opinion, the following issues arise for determination by this court: ISSUES
1. Whether the present suit has not been properly instituted by the plaintiff through duly authorized representative?
2.Whether the suit of plaintiff is without any cause of action?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, prayed for by her?
9. My issuewise findings on the aforesaid issues in the light of Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 10 of 25 submissions made on behalf of the parties and on the basis of material available on record are as follows: ISSUE no.1 "Whether the present suit has not been properly instituted by the plaintiff through duly authorized representative?"
10. It is submitted by counsel for defendant that the present suit has been filed by Sh. K. L. Bajaj purportedly as an attorney of Smt. Pramila Bajaj and he has relied upon the Special Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/1 in support of his plea that he has been duly authorized by Smt. Pramila Bajaj to file the present suit on her behalf against the defendant. It is submitted by him that a bare perusal of Special Power of Attorney shows that there is no specific power given by plaintiff to Sh. K. L. Bajaj to file the present suit against the present defendant i.e.IGL. The aforesaid fact, according to him, has also been admitted by plaintiff during his cross examination dated 20.01.2016. Thus, according to him, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the present suit has Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 11 of 25 been filed by plaintiff through duly authorized representative. According to him, the aforesaid defect could not have been cured by placing on record amended SPA dated 25.01.2016 inasmuch as, according to him, Sh.K. L. Bajaj should have been authorized by the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant, as on the date of filing of the suit and any subsequent authorization in this regard will not have the effect of curing of inherent defect in institution of the present suit. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. General Manager, Indian Security Press & Anr. 2000 (56) DRJ (Suppl.) 764 in support of his aforesaid submissions that the plaint has not been signed, verified and presented by duly authorized person and as such the same is liable to be dismissed by the court.
11. On the other hand, it is submitted by attorney of plaintiff that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the defendant has no Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 12 of 25 application to the facts of present case and he was duly authorized by the plaintiff to sign and verify the present plaint and to institute the present suit on her behalf by way of power of attorney Ex. PW1/1. Besides, according to him, it is settled legal position that a Principal can always to ratify the acts performed by his agent without authority at any subsequent stage and since, according to him, all the acts performed by attorney Sh. K. L. Bajaj on behalf of plaintiff in the present suit including the institution of the present suit by him on behalf of plaintiff have been ratified by plaintiff by way of fresh power of attorney dated 25.01.2016, the suit is not liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground.
12. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record.
13. I do not find any force in the submissions made on behalf of defendant that the plaint has not been signed and verified by duly authorized person on behalf of plaintiff, since the SPA Ex. Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 13 of 25 PW1/1 does not empower him specifically to file the present suit against the present defendant. In my considered opinion, merely because the name of defendant has not been specifically mentioned in the SPA Ex. PW1/1, it does not mean that Sh. K. L.Bajaj was not authorized by the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant on her behalf. In fact by virtue of power of attorney EX. PW1/1 Sh. K. L. Bajaj was duly authorized to file the present suit for mandatory injunction against anyone including the present defendant. Even otherwise, the acts of Sh. K. L. Bajaj in signing the plaint have been duly ratified by the plaintiff by way of fresh power of attorney dated 25.01.2016 as was the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3. The judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. (supra), in my considered opinion does not support the contentions of counsel for defendant inasmuch as the facts of the aforesaid case were Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 14 of 25 entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the suit was filed by Director of a company who had failed to prove his authority by summoning memorandum of association, articles of association and minutes book of the petitioner company and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that though the plaint was signed and verified properly but the suit was not instituted by a duly authorized person on behalf of plaintiff since, according to the Hon'ble Judge deciding the aforesaid case, unless a power to institute the suit is specifically conferred on a particular director, he has no authority to institute the suit on behalf of any company. In the case in hand , the attorney has already proved his power to institute suit on behalf of plaintiff by proving the power of attorney Ex. PW1/1 and subsequent attorney dated 25.01.2016.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions in my considered opinion, the suit has been properly instituted by Sh. K. L. Bajaj as an Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 15 of 25 attorney of plaintiff.
IISSUE NO.2 & 3 Whether the suit of plaintiff is without any cause of action?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, prayed for by her?
15. It is submitted by counsel for defendant that present suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction is without any cause of action and is based on imagination and future contingencies which have actually not taken place. According to him, PW1 has admitted during his cross examination that plaintiff had not faced any problem due to alleged overlapping of PNG pipe line with other common facilities till today. Besides, according to him, the plaintiff has failed to prove that there is any safety hazard occasioned by the aforesaid overlapping of gas pipe line with the sewerage, drinking water and rain water pipe line. The plaintiff has failed to examine herself in support of her case. Nor has she examined any independent expert witness to Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 16 of 25 prove the aforesaid plea. According to him, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant and thus, according to him the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
16. On the other hand, it is submitted by attorney of plaintiff that since the defendant had laid the PNG pipe line in breach of its obligation in terms of OISD Standard 226 of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and has thereby compromised the safety of plaintiff and the other residents of the locality, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for by him.
17. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706 in support of his submissions that the suit of plaintiff is without any cause of action whereas the defendant has relied upon the following Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 17 of 25 judgments in support of his submissions that he is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction since the relief of mandatory injunction can be granted by the court not only on proof of actual invasion of right of plaintiff but also on proof of threatened invasion of such right of plaintiff.
(i)Maghu Mian vs. Kishun Ram & Ors. AIR 1954 Patna 477
(ii)Fazal Haq vs. Fazal Haq AIR 1928 Allahabad 201
(iii) C. Kunhammad vs. C.H. Ahamad Haji, AIR 2001 Kerala 10
(iv)Ouseph and Anr. vs. Devassy AIR 2001 Kerala 104
18. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of parties and have also perused the record. There cannot be any dispute about the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment relied upon by counsel for defendant that if the plaint does not disclose a clear right to sue, the same should be rejected by the Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there should be statement of material facts in Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 18 of 25 the plaint which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to judgment of the court. In the case in hand, the plaintiff has based his claim for the decree of permanent injunction on two grounds; one is that gas pipe line laid down by defendant in DDA flats in SectorD, PocketIII, Vasant Kunj, will hinder the installation of lift in the flat and secondly, that the same may prove to be a safety hazard.
19.The plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence in support of her case except by way of testimony of PW1 who has merely re affirmed the aforesaid statement on oath without any corroborating evidence. He has failed to prove on record that the installation of lift in block of plaintiff in Sector D Pocket III, Vasant Kunj, has been initiated at any point of time and installation work was hindered because of the gas pipe line in question, Besides, he has failed to place on record any evidence in the form of expert opinion that the laying of gas pipe line by the defendant in block of plaintiff can prove to be a safety Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 19 of 25 hazard. He has failed to point out any statutory obligation on the part of defendant which has not been complied with by the defendant in laying down the gas pipe line in question. Though he has relied upon Clause 5.4.1 (a) of OISD Standard 226 of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,Government of India to allege that the PNG pipeline route should avoid area congested with other underground utilities like power, water, telephone etc., however, a bare perusal of the aforesaid guidelines shows that the same are for underground laying of PNG pipelines while in the case in hand, the plaintiff is aggrieved by laying of pipelines over the ground. Besides, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the aforesaid guidelines have any statutory force/backing or that the same cast a mandatory obligation on the defendant to lay the PNG pipeline in the manner envisaged in the said guidelines. Use of word 'should avoid' in the aforesaid guidelines, in my considered opinion, suggest that the guidelines are expecting the PNG distribution company to Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 20 of 25 achieve the standard set forth in the aforesaid guidelines as far as possible.
20. On the other hand, the defendant has placed on record the guidelines notified by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in exercise of powers under Section 61 of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Act, 2006 wherein there is a provision of appointment of third party inspectors for inspection of the pipeline laid down by the defendant. Defendant has further placed on record a certificate dated 21.11.2014 certifying that the IGL has complied with the requirements of statutory laws and IMS Regulations,2013 of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board for City Gas Distribution in Delhi and NCR regions.
21. Provision for grant of mandatory injunction is contained in Section 39 of Specific Relief Act, which states that the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of and also to compel the performance of requisite Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 21 of 25 acts, when to prevent the breach of obligation it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing. The term 'obligation' has been defined in Section 2 Clause (a) of the Act which includes 'every duty enforceable by law'. It has already also been observed hereinabove that the plaintiff has failed to prove any legal duty on the part of the defendant not to lay the gas pipelines in a manner that the same do not overlap the existing facilities. No doubt in the judgments relied upon by the plaintiff it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court that a mandatory injunction can be issued even when there is no actual invasion of right of plaintiff but also in cases where there is a threat of invasion of any right, however, it has further been held in the same judgment that in order to obtain an injunction on the ground of threat of invasion of any right, the plaintiff must show that the violation of right will be an inevitable result and it will not be sufficient for him to say that the violation of his right may be Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 22 of 25 the result of act of defendant. In the case in hand, a bare perusal of the plaint as well as affidavit of PW1 shows that only averment made in the plaint as well as in the affidavit is that the PNG pipeline laid down by the defendant in the block of plaintiff may prove to be a safety hazard. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to show a clear right to sue in her favour and against the defendant inasmuch as in the absence of proof of invasion or threatened invasion of right of plaintiff or in the absence of proof of breach of any legal duty by defendant in laying down the PNG pipeline in question, the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action. Even otherwise, while passing an order of mandatory injunction, the court should bear in mind that the party praying for such an injunction is free from blame and promptly applies for relief and says that by the threatened wrong his property would be so injured that an action for damages would be no adequate redress. In the case in hand, as per the averments made in the plaint, the gas pipeline in Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 23 of 25 question was laid down by the defendant in the block of plaintiff during 04.10.2009 to 06.11.2009 and a notice under Section 80 CPC was served by the attorney of plaintiff upon the defendant on 07.11.2009, however, the plaintiff has failed to approach the court with promptness inasmuch as the present suit was filed by the plaintiff only on 12.10.2012. Even the plea of plaintiff regarding the extra cost which the plaintiff may have to bear in repair of the common facilities on account of overlapping of PNG pipeline laid down by defendant, in my considered opinion, will not entitle the plaintiff to a decree of mandatory injunction inasmuch as the plaintiff can always seek compensation to recover the aforesaid cost, if any, incurred by the plaintiff due to the acts of defendant in laying down the PNG guidelines in the manner that the same overlaps existing common facilities in the area.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, the present suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction is Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 24 of 25 without any cause of action and as such plaintiff is not entitled to decree of mandatory injunction prayed for by him. Suit of plaintiff for mandatory injunction is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open court on this 30th day of January, 2016 This judgment consists of twentyfive signed pages.
(Arun Kumar Garg) Civil Judge(SW)/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/30.01.2016 (an) Civil Suit No.739/2011 Smt. Pramila Bajaj & Anr. Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, IGL Judgment dated 30.01.2016 Page no. 25 of 25