Delhi District Court
Ashutosh Ahluwalia vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel on 12 December, 2011
Suit No.364/2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE : ADJ1 : SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DLEHI
Suit No.364/2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ashutosh Ahluwalia
s/o Prof. Ram Prakash
r/o 212 Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi 110025. .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel
s/o Shri Peter Samuel
49C Vijay Mandal Enclave
Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi 110017
Also at
7 Community Centre, Mezzanine Floor
East of Kailash,
New Delhi 110065
2. Shri Amar Cheema
S/o Capt. P. S. Cheema
R/o M8 Sector25
Jalvayu Vihar, Noida
UP. 201301
Also at
7 Community Centre, Mezzanine Floor
East of Kailash,
New Delhi 110065 .......Defendants
Date of Institution 25.03.2011
Date Reserved for orders: 05.12.2011
Date of Decision: 12.12.2011
Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 1of 15
Suit No.364/2011
JUDGMENT:
1 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of money on account of arrears of rent/charges for use and occupation, future charges and mesne profits/damages with respect to half portion of Mezzanine Floor of 7 Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as suit premises).
2 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for ejectment and recovery of money & possession of suit property.
3 Facts stated briefly are:
The plaintiff had given the suit property on lease to defendants for 58 months from 01.08.2007 to defendants at a starting monthly rent of Rs.
55,000/ and after periodic increases, the same rising to Rs.80,526/ as per mutually terms recorded in the registered Lease Deed dated 20.08.2007 for commercial use by them and the company promoted by them.
4 As per mutually accepted terms, the defendants had issued post dated cheques on account of due monthly rent after deducting TDS at the then prescribed rate for the lease period. There was stipulation in the lease deed that the defendants shall pay agreed monthly rent free from all deductions by 5th of every month and in failure to pay the same by the said date, the defendant shall pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on month to month basis. From May 2010 onwards, the said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and this fact was brought into the notice of defendant No.1. The defendants also did not pay their share of Service Tax from July 2009 onwards. The statutory rate of TDS was reduced by the government and for the month of February 2010 excess TDS deducted by the defendant no.1 of Rs. 4659/ was also not paid.
Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 2of 15 Suit No.364/2011 On the assurance of the defendants, the plaintiff again presented the aforesaid cheques but the cheques were again dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. On October 12, 2010, defendant no. 1 took all the unencashed cheques alongwith their return memos and issued fresh 28 cheques after taking into account revised TDS and due payable service tax.
5 Plaintiff presented the then due 12 cheques and those cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Plaintiff served a notice dated 19.01.2011 about dishonouring of cheques and requested the defendants to pay the due amount within 15 days of receipt of the said notice. Defendants neither paid the money nor replied the notice.
6 Subsequently the post dated cheque on account of rent for February 2011 also got dishonoured as signatures of defendant no.1 differed. Another notice dated 1.2.2011 was sent by plaintiff to defendant regarding dishonouring of cheque and requested the defendants to pay the due amount within 15 days of receipt of the said notice. Defendants neither paid the money nor replied the notice.
7 Plaintiff thereafter sent a legal notice dated 15.01.2011 terminating the aforesaid lease deed and for vacation of the suit premises by 31.1.2011 or by any other date when notice for vacation expired according to them. The defendants were also informed vide the said notice that incase of non vacating of the suit premises by the said date, they would be liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 4000/ per day which is the present market rent of the like premises. Said notice was duly served on defendants 1 and 2 by hand on 15.01.2011 and through registered post on defendant no.1 while notice sent to defendant no.1 through regd. post was returned unserved as he was not available at his residence. They neither replied nor vacated the suit premises. Hence the present suit has been filed Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 3of 15 Suit No.364/2011 for seeking possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum from 15.10.2010 to 31.01.2011 i.e. till the date of termination of tenancy. Plaintiff has also prayed for damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants w.e.f. 1st February 2011 to the date of handing over of peaceful possession of the suit premises by the defendants @ Rs. 4000/ per day.
8 The plaintiff instituted another separate suit for expeditious recovery of amounts of dishonoured cheques and related dues from May 2010 to Feb. 2011falling under the ambit of O. 37 C.P.C. The same is pending for disposal as suit no.97/2011 in the Court of Shri J.P.S. Malik A.D.J., South Delhi. The amount claimed in the said suit 97/2011 has been excluded from the money dues claimed under the present suit. The plaintiff also filed complaints nos. 3550/2011 and 4842/2011 under S. 138 of N.I. Act and are pending for disposal in the Court of Ms Charu Gupta M.M. (south), Delhi.
9 Along with the suit the plaintiff filed an application dated 23.3.2011 U/O. 15A R/W S. 151 C.P.C. praying for directing to the defendants to pay rent at the admitted rate from March 2011 till the date they continue to occupy the suit premises. Defendants appeared and filed their WS on 2nd June , 2011 and also reply to application U/O. 15A C.P.C. They took objections through their applications first filed under S. 10 C.P.C. for stay of the suit proceedings and then U/O. 7 R. 11 R/W. S. 151 C.P.C. for misjoinder of parties. The said applications were replied by the plaintiff and were dismissed for being devoid of merits. The plaintiff also filed on 2.8.2011 his replication in reply to WS of the defendants justifying the correctness of claim as contained in the suit plaint. The defendants did not file any documents nor produced any oral evidence. Defendants also raised an objection that the tenancy was in favour of the company promoted by them Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 4of 15 Suit No.364/2011 under the title Elite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and cash was paid to the plaintiff in lieu of the bounced cheques and the plaintiff did not give receipts for cash payment.
10 The objection with respect to the tenancy being in favour of the company promoted by defendants under the title Elite Infracon Pvt. Ltd was decided against the defendants vide a detailed order dated 18.08.2011 and the same has achieved finality as the defendants neither filed review petition nor appeal against the said order.
11 Defendants submitted before the court that they were ready to pay the rent from March, 2011 as per the terms of the Lease Deed till the suit property was in their possession. Vide order dated 15.7.2911, defendants were directed to give demand draft to plaintiff from March, 2011 according to the terms of the lease agreement by the 7th of each month till further order. The defendants did not pay the amount. On 9.8.2011 the defendants were directed to pay by 18.8.2011 jointly or severally all the uptodate dues through bank draft including interest as per lease deed and in case of any delay in payment of rent, they were held to be liable in addition to pay Rs.500/ for each day of delay for each month starting next month. No payment was made by the defendants.
12 On 19.8.2011, this court directed the defendants to pay rent & interest as per lease deed and penalty of Rs. 500/ per day of delay for each pending month of rent draft and to handover the peaceful vacant possession of suit premises to the plaintiff by 19th Sept. 2011. A decree of possession was ordered to be drawn accordingly.
13 Thereafter only money dues of the plaintiff remained to be decided. The defendants neither paid nor vacated the premises in question by 19.9.2011. The defendants, however, filed RFA No. 486/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 5of 15 Suit No.364/2011 of Delhi wherein defendants promised to vacate the suit premises and pay money decree by end of December 2011. Subject to filing of required undertaking, the operation of decree of possession was stayed.
14 In the appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. the defendants are stated to have not sought waiver of penalty and cost imposed by this court. They only sought extension of time for payment of all dues until December 2011.
15 After decree of ejectment on 19.08.2011, no issue in the point of possession survived for determination by this court. Therefore on the basis of pleadings of plaintiff and defendants the following 4 issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of money dues of Rs. 1,51,219.21p, as explained in plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages for use and occupation, if yes, for what period ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount, if yes, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
4. Relief.
The onus of proof on all the issues was on plaintiff.
16 The Ld. counsel for defendants filed an application for framing additional issues relating to whether plaintiff received cash against cheques amount till February 2011 and Elite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. was in possession of suit property. On examination this court saw no merits as the proposed issues were irrelevant to the present suit claim and hence dismissed the application.
17 The plaintiff filed his examination in chief by way of evidence and presented himself for crossexamination. He also produced one more witness PW 2/1 owner of 1st floor in the same premises to prove the market rent of like Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 6of 15 Suit No.364/2011 premises. After framing the issues, 6 more hearings were fixed but the defendants did not crossexamine plaintiff's witnesses and stopped appearing in the matter and were proceeded exparte on 26.11.2011.
18 The application dated 81111 U/O. 6 R. 4 R/W. S. 151 C.P.C. of the plaintiff to direct defendants to indicate their permanent addresses remained unanswered by the defendants and this court does not have on record the permanent addresses of both the defendants. The plaintiff filed his Written Submissions.
19 The plaintiff in support of his claim filed 31 documents. The case of plaintiff can briefly be portrayed as under:
i) The Ex. PW 1/1 is the Regd. Lease Deed for 58 months from 1st August 2007.
The Lease Deed was registered on 20.8.2007 and as per mutually agreed terms with the defendants it was for commercial use by them and the company promoted by them as stated in the Clause 4 of the Lease Deed. As per Lease Deed, Ex. PW 1/1, the monthly rent for relevant period was Rs. 73,205 up to 30.6.2011 and thereafter Rs. 80,526/ plus statutory Service Tax at the applicable rate now of 10.3% thus totaling to Rs. 80,745/= p.m. up to 30.6.2011 and thereafter at Rs. 88,820/ to be paid through post dated cheques payable on 5th of commencement of each month and on failure to pay on time, the defendants, as per Clause 5.3 of the lease deed, are liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum.
The said Lease Deed also provided for regular payment of electric and water consumption charges (Clause 5.5) in addition to rent. Upon default in any term of the lease, the plaintiff had the right to terminate Lease (Clause 5.15). For due performance of the terms of lease the defendant had deposited a refundable interest free security of Rs. 1,65,000/= (Clause 5.17).
ii) The Ex. PW 1/2 is site plan showing partitions, work stations & cabins.
iii) The Ex. PW 1/3 is the letter dated 12.10.2010 issuing fresh post dated Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 7of 15 Suit No.364/2011 cheques in place of old ones due to revision in Service Tax & others provisions of law.
iv) Subsequently from May 2010 onwards the cheques issued by defendants were dishonored due to 'insufficiency of funds'. Ex. PW 1/4 to Ex.PW 1/15 and Ex. PW 1/18 are certified copies of bounced cheques and memos. of bank indicating reason for dishonouring of cheques as 'insufficiency of funds', for rent and related dues from May 2010 to Feb. 2011.
v) The Ex. PW 1/16 to Ex. PW 1/17; and Ex. PW 1/19 to Ex. PW 1/20 are legal notices sent for intimation of bouncing of said cheques and postal receipts as a proof of due service of notices on the defendants.
vi) The Ex. PW 1/21 is the legal notice dated 15.1.2011for terminating the lease for nonpayment of rent and other dues and seeking vacation of the premises by mid night of 31.1.2011. It was also stated in the notice dated 15.1.2011 that on failure to vacate the premises the plaintiff shall claim occupation charges @ Rs. 4000/ per day and interest @ 18% per annum on unpaid amount.
vii) Ex. PW 1/22 is the postal receipts of the legal notice dated 15.1.2011.
viii)Ex.PW1/23 to Ex. PW 1/24 are the certified copies of recorded statements of the defendant in the court of Ms. Charu Gupta MM, Delhi during the proceedings in complaints under N.I. Act filed by the plaintiff for bouncing of cheques.
ix) Ex. PW 1/25 is a certified copy of complaint by the defendant against plaintiff before SHO of Amar Colony Police Station, New Delhi as obtained from the court of Ms Vijeta Singh, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi where the defendants had filed a suit against the plaintiff for 'Permanent Injunction against Eviction'.
x) The Ex. PW 1/26 is a copy of rental dues then payable upto the date of letter sent to the defendant by the plaintiff.
xi) Ex. PW 1/28 to Ex. PW 1/29 are the copies of complaints filed by plaintiff before concerned Income Tax Authority for failure of defendants to deposit in govt. account the tax deducted at source and for nonissue of TDS certificates. In addition, the plaintiff filed a copy of WS and Replication of defendants Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 8of 15 Suit No.364/2011 instituted in other legal proceedings and marked these as documents PW 1/A and PW 1/B.
xii) The plaintiff relied upon a Lease Deed of 1st Floor in the suit building Ex. PW 2/1 to market rate of like premises.
20 The plaintiff has instituted another separate suit for expeditious recovery of amounts of dishonoured cheques and related dues from May 2010 to Feb. 2011falling under the ambit of O. 37 C.P.C. The same is pending for disposal as suit no.97/2011 in the Court of Shri J.P.S. Malik, Ld. ADJ, Saket Courts. The amount claimed in the suit 97/2011 has been excluded from the money dues claimed under the present suit.
21 The plaintiff also filed complaints nos. 3550/2011 and 4842/2011 under S. 138 of N.I. Act and are pending for disposal in the Court of Ms Charu Gupta Ld.M.M. (south), Delhi.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS:
Issue no. 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of money dues of Rs. 1,51,219.21p, as explained in plaint ? OPP
22 The plaintiff gave a detailed breakup of the claim in para 12 of the plaint. In reply to the corresponding paras, the defendants in their WS said that the amount has been paid in cash. This is only a bald statement. The defendants have not filed any proof of payment of rent in cash. The defendants neither issued any notice to plaintiff for return of cheques after the alleged cash payment nor sent any notice to their bank for stop payment of cheques. After dishonoring of cheques, the plaintiff sent duly served notices dated 19.1.11 and 11.2.2011 through regd. A/D post to the defendants but they did not reply.
23 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kalu Ram v/s Sita Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 9of 15 Suit No.364/2011 Ram, 1980 RLR Note 44 held if the pleadings made in the duly served notice are not denied or repudiated, these are presumed to be correct and true. The defendant no. 1 on 12.10.2010 (Exb. PW1/3) exchanged old post dated cheques with the new ones for remaining period of lease due to changes in rate of Service Tax Rates and other provisions. The rent arrears fell due from May, 2010 i.e. 6 months before the date of exchanging new cheques. It is beyond common human prudence to believe that the new cheques at least for the period May, 2010 to October 2010 were replaced with the new ones despite the alleged payment of rent in cash. It is incomprehensible how the defendant continued to make cash payments to plaintiff in lieu of already issued cheques without asking for any receipt or return of cheques back for which the alleged cash payment was made. The pleadings of the defendants regarding payment cash for dishonoured cheques are accordingly untrustworthy, imaginary and an afterthought.
24 Since the filing of suit, the defendant is stated to have paid water consumption charges of Rs. 500/ but has, however, not paid his water consumption charges from May 2011 to end of December, 2011 at the enhanced rate of Delhi Jal Board of Rs. 850/pm. The plaintiff has also brought on record that the defendants have not paid electricity consumption arrears of Rs.23,544/ as on 14.10.11. The BSES has disconnected the electric supply on account of non payment of bills. After the aforesaid adjustments of deduction and additions, the total claim is stated to have become Rs. 1,64,319. 21 ps apart from their consumption dues from 15.10.2011 onwards and restoration of electricity charges. This claim of Rs. 1,64,319.21 includes damages for unauthorized occupation of Rs. 39,329/for the month of Feb. 2011 over and above the amount of dishonoured cheques which was claimed in suit U/O. 37 C.P.C. on the basis of claimed rate of damages @ Rs. 4000/ per day by the plaintiff.
25 In view of the above discussion, I decide the issue no.1 with Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 10of 15 Suit No.364/2011 aforesaid modifications of Rs. 1,64,43121ps plus electricity & water dues upto date of vacation in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages for use and occupation, if yes, for what period? OPP 26 The plaintiff claims damages at the rate of Rs. 4000/ per day i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/ p.m. which is 49% more than the committed rate.
27 The plaintiff vide his duly served notice dated 1512011 to the defendants had informed that on their failure to vacate the premises on the date of expiry of the termination notice ,they shall be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 4000/ per day. The plaintiff supported his claim of mesne profit @ Rs. 1,20,000/ per month on the basis of registered Lease Deed of 1st floor of the suit building Ex. PW2/1 executed by his father with effect from 24.4.2010 The plaintiff in his written submissions submitted that the premises of first floor has a super area of 1520 sq. ft. and was having an open hall without any partitions, electric & other fittings and its access is above one floor over the suit premises. Whereas mezzanine floor under occupation of defendants has an area of 760 sq. ft. and is furnished to the extent of having partitions, work stations. Cabins, storage shelves, glass door, all with electric and sanitary fittings. Based on evidence of PW 2/1, each lower floor in the building fetches a 25% higher rent than the floor above.
28 The defendants denied the claim of mesne profit as mentioned in para 11 of the plaint on the ground they are authorized tenant and market rent is the same as agreed rent after periodic increases to viz. Rs. 80,526/= p.m. excluding Service Tax. No documents of any like premises showing the prevailing market rent of the premises was filed by the defendants. Hence the defendants failed to prove their plea that market rent is the same as rent in lease deed after periodic increments.
Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 11of 15 Suit No.364/2011 29 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bakshi Sachdev (Dead) by L.R.S. v/s Concord (I), 1993 RLR 563, had held that the mesne profits or damages for use and occupation after termination of tenancy can be substantially more than the agreement. The plaintiff has drawn attention of the court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad v/s Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735), wherein it was observed that:
"Once it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendant. It follows that from the date of the decree granting the relief of ejectment to the plaintiff, the defendant who remains in possession of the property despite the decree, must pay mesne profits or damages for use and occupation of the said property until it is delivered to the plaintiff. A decree for ejectment in such a case must be accompanied by direction for payment of the future mesne profits or damages."
30 In the instant case, the plaintiff terminated the lease with effect from mid night of 31.12.2011for nonpayment of rent and the same has been upheld by this Court. The defendants are unauthorized occupants thereafter.
31 On the quantum of mesne profits, the plaintiff has relied on the cases of Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v/s Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. & Anr. 1999, 2 SCC 325; Mrs. (Dr.) P.S. Bedi v/s The Project and Equipment Corp Of India Ltd., 1994(2) RCJ 500. (Del.); Anderson Wright & Co. v/s Amar Nath & Ors:
2005(1)RCJ 98 (S.C); M/s. Atma Ram Props (P) Ltd. V/s Federal Motors (P) Ltd: 2005(1) AD (SC) 219; Nina International (P) Ltd. V/s Saraswati International Syndicate Ltd.: 78(1999) DLT524 (S.C.); and Anusuyaben Kantilal Bhatt V/s Rashiklal Manilal Shah & Anr.: 1997(2) RCJ 138 (S.C.). In relation to the case laws cited, the plaintiff has prayed for a modest increase of about 49% by way of damages.
Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 12of 15 Suit No.364/2011
32 In view of the aforesaid observations, the claim of the plaintiff for mesne profit @ Rs. 4000/= per day plus the statutory Service Tax at current rate of 10.3% is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP 33 As per covenant 5.3 of Lease Deed, the defendant tenant had agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on month to month basis for delayed payment. This Court has already upheld the right of the plaintiff to claim interest as per the Regd. Lease Deed vide orders dated 9.8.2011 and 19.8.2011. The plaintiff based his claim on the basis of case laws of Kuldip Kumar Suri v/s Delhi Development Authority & Ors., AIR 1995 Delhi 82; and Nizamuddin v/s Shakoor Ahmed, 2007 (1) ARC 113.
34 This court is of firm view that plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount. However, this court is not inclined to grant interest at such an exorbitant rate and is of the firm view that pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum will serve the ends of justice.
Issue 4): Relief 35 In view of my above findings on the issues, the plaintiff's suit is decreed in his favour and against the defendants, as follows:
(i) Suit is decreed for an amount of Rs. 1,64,31921ps plus electric consumption dues as per electric bill of BSES from 15.10.2011 till the day of vacation and water consumption charges @ Rs. 850/ p.m. after Dec. 2011 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(ii) Mesne profit/damages @ Rs. 4000/ per from 1st March 2011 till date of vacation plus Service Tax @ 10.3% is awarded in favour of Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 13of 15 Suit No.364/2011 the plaintiff and against the defendant
(iii) Pendentilite and future interest @ 12% per annum from due date of money till date of realization also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
(iv) This Court inflicted on defendants a total cost of Rs. 3000 Rs.
2000/= vide order dated 18.8.2011 while dismissing application U/O. 7 R. 11 C.P.C. for rejection of suit plaint and Rs. 1000/= vide order dated 19.9.2011 for not showing up to cross examine the plaintiff and the same has not been paid. The plaintiff is now entitled to claim the same.
(v) Penalty for delay in payment for ten months of rent from March 2011 to Dec. 2011 or any other date of vacation and payment of occupation charges for each month at the rate of Rs. 500/= per day as inflicted by the court vide orders dated 9.8.2011 and 19.8.2011 till date of payment is also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
vi) It is abundantly clear to this Court that the defendants have left no stone unturned in harassing the plaintiff and avoiding payment of rental and other dues. The defendants till date have not paid electricity and water consumption dues and cost imposed. The defendant no.2 did not make his appearance in this court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been emphasizing that precedence needs to be set for wrong doers not to take advantage of their wrongs and prevent the misuse of the process of law to deny one what rightfully belongs to the one. To strengthen the pillars and foundation of the legal system this court has no hesitation to inflict an exemplary cost of Rs. 20,000/= in favour of the plaintiff over and above the aforesaid decretal amount plus the interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when money fell due till the date of realization.
Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 14of 15 Suit No.364/2011 36 In addition the cost of suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants payable jointly or severally. The suit is accordingly decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants subject to filing of deficit court fees by the plaintiff, if any on the amount decreed.
37 Decree sheet be drawn after deposit of deficit court fee, if any. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced & dictated in the open court (DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE) on 12.12.2011 ADJ1(SOUTH) All Pages signed Ashutosh Ahluwalia Vs Shri Joseph Samuel @ Raj Samuel & Ors. Page 15of 15