Delhi District Court
Vickey vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 25 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RINKU JAIN, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 2409/2023
CNR No. DLCT03-007318-2023
In the matter of:-
1. Sh. Vicky
S/O Sh. Billu Michal @Noel
R/O- H.No. 505, Gali No. 7, Part 2,
Surender Colony, Jharoda Majra,
Burari, North Delhi,
Delhi- 110084
2. Ms. Gladis
D/O Sh. Billu Michal @Noel
W/O Sh. Amrose Dass
R/O- H.No. 31,
Gali No. 18, Block-A-1,
Sant Nagar, Bengali Colony,
Burari, North Delhi,
Delhi- 110084 ....Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
9th Floor, Civic Centre,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi- 110002
Through its Commissioner
2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI.
12th Floor, Civic Centre,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi- 110002
Through its Addl. Chief Registrar
(B & D)/ Municipal Health Officer
CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 1 OF 17
3. Registrar of Births and Deaths
B-Wing, 3rd Floor, Vikas Bhawan-II,
Upper Bela Road, Near Metcalfe House,
Civil Line, Delhi- 110054
Through its Chief Registrar (Births & Deaths)
4. State Bank of India
Local Head Office
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 110001
Also at:
State Bank of India
Tis Hazari Court Branch,
Delhi- 110054
5. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Seemapuri)
District Shahdara,
DC Office, Nand Nagri, Near Gagan Cinema,
Pocket-1, New Delhi- 110093 ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 21.12.2023
Date of Reserving the Order : 25.07.2025
Date of Decision : 25.07.2025
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiffs herein, seeking a declaration that Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel, father of the plaintiffs, be declared dead and for further relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants no. 1 & 2/MCD to issue death certificate for Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel. Plaintiffs have also prayed for issuance of CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 2 OF 17 directions to the officials concerned to issue surviving member certificate in favour of the plaintiffs.
Pleadings of the plaintiff:-
2. The brief facts of the case relevant to the present adjudication are that the plaintiffs are the children of Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel. It is stated that Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel went missing in the year 2009 from his residence i.e. House No.1809/3, Cemetry, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. A missing complaint vide DD entry No.25A dated 20.07.2009 was lodged with PS Harsh Vihar by Smt. Pyari Michal, the mother of the missing person. Plaintiffs along with their family members made all reasonable efforts to locate the missing person, however, the missing person could not be found. That the whereabouts of Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel are not yet known since his disappearance. An untrace report was filed by PS Harsh Vihar on 04.10.2019 in this regard. In spite of best efforts made, he could not be found out. Hence, the present suit.
Pleadings of the defendants:-
3. Summons of the present suit were issued after which WS was filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 & 2/MCD. It is pertinent to mention that WS had been filed on behalf of defendant No.4 however, vide order dated 15.05.2025 defendant no. 4 was deleted from the array of parties. Defendants no. 3 & 5 were proceeded against ex-parte because of their non-appearance.
4. In the WS filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 & CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 3 OF 17 2/MCD, it is stated that MCD registers death and issues the death certificate only in cases when death actually occurs. The date and time of the death of a missing person has to be determined by a competent court and without the same, no death certificate can be issued. The suit was stated to be not maintainable for the want of statutory notice u/s 477/478 of the DMC Act, 1957.
Issues:-
5. Vide order dated 25.10.2024, the followings issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of the DMC Act for want of statutory notice? OPD-1
4. Relief.
Evidence of the plaintiff:-
6. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff no. 1 as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibits/Marks
1. Copy of death death certificate of De-exhibited from
late Smt. Pyari Maycal. Ex.PW1/1 and is now
Mark C
CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 4 OF 17
2. Copy of death certificate of late Ex.PW1/2 (OSR)
Sh. Goodviin Noel.
3. Copy of death certificate of late De-exhibited from
Smt. Sunita. Ex.PW1/3 and is now
Mark D
4. Certificate u/s 63 (4) (C) of BNS Ex.PW1/4
5. Copy of FIR No. 429/2001 PS De-exhibited from
Kashmere Gate Ex.PW1/5 and is now
Mark E
6. Missing complaint of Sh. Billu De-exhibited from Michal @ Noel DD No.25A dated Ex.PW1/6 and is now 20.07.2009 Mark F
7. Untrace report of Sh. Billu Michal Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) @ Noel dated 04.10.2019 PS Harsh Vihar
8. Copy of fix deposit for Rs.40,000/- Ex.PW1/8 (OSR)
9. Copy of fix deposit for Rs.80,000/- Ex.PW1/9 (OSR)
10. RTI application dated 14.12.2020 Ex.PW1/10 (OSR)
11. Copy of reply dated 31.12.2020 to Ex.PW1/11 (OSR) the RTI application
12. Copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW1/12 (colly.) 20.05.2022 (OSR)
13. Copy of reply dated 26.05.2022 to Ex.PW1/13 (colly.) the legal notice (OSR)
14. Copy of letter dated 24.06.2022 Ex.PW1/14 (OSR) sent by me to SBI
15. Copy of statutory notice dated Ex.PW1/15 (OSR) 30.11.2022
16. Copy of postal receipts Ex.PW1/16 (colly.) (OSR)
17. Copy of reply dated 13.12.2022 to Ex.PW1/17 (OSR) legal notice
18. Copy of my Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/18 (OSR)
19. Copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff Ex.PW1/19 (OSR) No.2/Ms. Gladis
20. Copy of PAN Card of plaintiff Ex.PW1/20 (OSR) No.2/Ms. Gladis
21. Copy of election card of Sh. Billu Ex.PW1/21 (OSR) Michal @ Noel
22. Copy of application dated Mark A CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 5 OF 17 06.10.2001 for compensation u/s 152 of MV Act 23 Copy of letter dated 30.12.2002 Mark B sent by Insurance Company to Sh.
Billu Michal @ Noel for referring the case to Lok Adala, Patiala House Courts PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 & 2/MCD. Thereafter, PE was closed.
7. Defendants no. 1 & 2/MCD chose not to lead any DE. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Decision with reasons:-
8. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and I have perused the judicial record. The issue- wise finding is as follows:-
Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed in the plaint? OPP Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP
9. Issues no.1 and 2 are taken up together as they involve common discussion. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. The jurisdiction of a civil court to grant declaratory relief flows from section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:
CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 6 OF 17 " 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.--
Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Explanation.--A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
Strictly speaking, the relief as to declaration of civil death does not fall withing the purview of section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, since generally neither it relates to the legal character or right as to property of the person seeking such declaration nor can the civic authorities be said to be interested to deny such character or right. Moreover, such declaration is generally sought without seeking any further relief. However, it is no more res integra that section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not exhaustive of all kinds of declaratory reliefs and that a declaratory suit can still be maintained which may not fall within its purview. In Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Konduru Seshu Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436, It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"The legal position is also well-established that the worshipper of a Hindu temple is entitled, in certain circumstances, to bring a suit for declaration that the alienation of the temple properties by the de jure Shebait is invalid and not binding upon the temple. if a Shebait has improperly alienated trust property a suit can be CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 7 OF 17 brought by any person interested for a declaration that such alienation is not binding upon the deity but no decree for recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless the plaintiff in the suit has the present right to the possession. Worshippers of temples are in the position of cestuui que trustent or beneficiaries in a spiritual sense (See Vidhyapurna Thirthaswami v. Vidhyanidhi Thirthanswami). Since the worshippers do. not exercise the deity's power of suing to protect its own interests, they are not entitled to recover possession of the property improperly alienated by the Shebait, but they can be granted a declaratory decree that the alienation is not binding on the deity (See for example, Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturiranga Ayyangar(4) and Chidambaranatha Thambiran v. Nallasiva Mudaliar). It has also been decided by the Judicial Committee in Abdur Rahim v. Mahomed Barkat Ali that a suit for a declaration that property belongs to a wakf can be maintained by Mahomedans interested in the wakf without the sanction of the Advocate-General, and a declaration can be given in such a suit that the plaintiff is not bound by the compromise decree relating to wakf properties. In our opinion, s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section. It follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act."
10. It was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that declaratory reliefs falling outside Specific Relief Act may fall under the general provisions of Civil Procedure Code, like section 9 or Order VII Rule 7 CPC. This was reiterated in General Films Exchange Ltd. v. H.H. Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo, AIR 1975 SC 1810, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court:
" In Sheoparsan Singh & Ors. case (supra), what was really held by the Privy Council was that a grant of probate under the Probate and Administration Act (V of CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 8 OF 17 1881), which operated as a judgment in rem, could not be collaterally assailed by a suit for a declaration brought by reversioners seeking to question the will. Sir Lawrence Jenkins who had, incidentally, decided Deokali Koer's case (supra) too said (at p. 97):
"It is not suggested that in this litigation the testamentary jurisdiction is, or can be, invoked, and yet there can be no doubt that this suit is an attempt to evade or annul the adjudication in the testamentary suit, and nothing more."
We think that the decision in this case also does not assist the appellant much.
In Bai Shri Vaktuba's case (supra), the Bombay High Court held that a Talukdar plaintiff could bring a suit for a declaration and an injunction to restrain the defendant from claiming that he was the plaintiff's son. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon the following passage from it (at p. 650):
"It has long been established that the general power vested in the Courts in India under the Civil Procedure Code to entertain all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is barred by any enactment for the time being in force, does not carry with it the general power of making declarations except in so far as such power is expressly conferred by statute."
Kishori Lal's case (supra) was cited to show that declaratory decrees falling outside Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act are not permissible because Section 42 Specific Relief Act is exhaustive on this subject. This view must be held to have been rejected by this Court when it declared in Veruareddi Rmaranghava Reddy & Ors. v. Konduru Seshu Reddy & ors (1) (at p. 277) "In our opinion, S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section It follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 9 OF 17 binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of S.. 42 of the Specific Relief Act".
The result is that Section 42 merely gives statutory recognition to a well-recognised type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of Courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 42."
11. Therefore, section 34 of Specific Relief Act cannot be not held to be the sole repository of the cases in which declaratory decrees may be made and the Courts have the power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section, and such declarations can be granted even though no consequential relief is capable of being granted.
12. Further, there are judicial precedents to hold that a suit for declaration of civil death of a person unheard of for more than seven years is maintainable. In Swati & Others Vs. Abhay & Others, MANU/MH/0334/2016, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held such a suit to be maintainable. The relevant observation are as under:
" 7. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court as above, I am of the firm opinion that the Civil Court acting under Section 9, has inherent powers in its plenary jurisdiction de hors with reference to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act to grant relief qua Section 108 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the reason that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was required to be called in aid does not appear to be sound."
13. In Alka Sharma v. Union of India & Others, MANU/UP/0209/2020, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of civil death of her husband. The Trial Court as well CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 10 OF 17 as the first appellate Court had dismissed the suit. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, while passing decree in second appeal, held as under :
"16. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no hesitation in my mind to hold that the courts below have failed to act judiciously and in accordance with the provisions of law and have unnecessarily entered into those grey areas which are not subject matter of any dispute and in regard to which no dispute was raised depicting limited extent of their judicial knowledge and capability to appreciate and deal with the facts of the case. Since, Union of India was a party, it was represented through out, and it was not the case of the Union that any objection was filed by any of the relatives of Sri Govind Prasad Sharma so to the claim put-forth by the applicant or to the effect that she was not entitled to the residence allotted to Sri Govind Prasad Sharma in her official capacity, there was sufficient plethora of evidence to the effect that the presumption should have been drawn as to the civil death of Sri Govind Prasad Sharma as twin requirements of law as laid down in Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act about declaration of a civil death were fulfilled. There is no requirement of final report from the police to draw a presumption under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. As far as final report is concerned, Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with report of police officer on completion of investigation. Section 173(2) does not prescribed any time limit for completion of investigation and further Section 173(8) only provides for further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Further, the law prescribes that in case the Magistrate is inclined to accept the final report and decides to drop the charges against the accused, then only notice to the complainant is necessary. In case, cognizance is taken by the Magistrate on a report submitted by the police under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C., then no notice is required to be served on the complainant. In case of Pramod Behl vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 Crl. L. J NOC 362 (Jhar), though it has been held that where the police after investigation files final report, copy of final report would be given to the informant and opportunity of hearing shall also be given to him.
CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 11 OF 17
17. In the light of the above discussion, the courts below committed serious error in law, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellant and which is corrected now.
18. In view of the aforesaid, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in negative and it is held that submission of the final report by the police is not mandatory inasmuch as police investigation is in the domain of criminal law and that is neither influenced by the plaintiff claiming such declaration nor is within the authority and control of the plaintiff seeking such declaration. Once the factum of lodging a report and not hearing about that person for seven years or more is proved and admitted by the defendant employer of the husband in regard to whom declaration is being sought, is sufficient to hold that requirement of Section 108 of the Evidence Act has been fulfilled. It has been arbitrarily held by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) that the plaintiff was oblige to seek any other declaration in regard to claim of service benefits in addition to the declaration of civil death.
14. In Vijaya Shrikant Revale v. Shirish Shrikant Revale & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 1898, It was held by that a civil court has the power to grant declaratory relief of civil death. It was observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court as under :
"10. It is true that only Civil Court has power to give suresh relief of declaration in such matters. The inquiry under section 372 of the Act is limited. However, the Court which conducts the inquiry under Section 372 of the Act is a civil Court and therefore the said Court is competent to decide the issue of declaration of death of Shrikant Vishnupant Revale."
15. Lastly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. Anuradha, AIR 2004 SC 2070, held as under:
" On the basis of the above said authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which were sum up in the following words. The law as to presumption of death remains the same whether in Common Law of England or in the statutory CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 12 OF 17 provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the scheme of Evidence Act, though Sections 107 and 108 are drafted as two Sections, in effect, Section 108 is an exception to the rule enacted in Section 107. The human life shown to be in existence, at a given point of time which according to Section 107 ought to be a point within 30 years calculated backwards from the date when the question arises, is presumed to continue to be living. The rule is subject to a proviso or exception as contained in Section 108. If the persons, who would have naturally and in the ordinary course of human affairs heard of the person in question, have not so heard of him for seven years the presumption raised under Section 107 ceases to operate. Section 107 has the effect of shifting the burden of proving that the person is dead on him who affirms the fact. Section 108 subject to its applicability being attracted, has the effect of shifting the burden of proof back on the on the sa.18.16 one who asserts the fact of that person being alive. The presumption raised under Section 108 is a limited presumption confined only to presuming the factum of death of the person who's life or death is in issue. Though it will be presumed that the person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. There is no presumption as to the facts and circumstances under which the person may have died. The presumption as to death by reference to Section 108 would arise only on lapse of seven years and would not by applying any logic or reasoning be permitted to be raised on expiry of 6 years and 364 days or at any time short of it. An occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a Court, Tribunal or before an authority who is called upon to decide as to whether a person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum and in any legal proceedings the occasion for raising the presumption does not arise."
16. The grant of decree of declaration of civil death of a person is founded on the presumption envisaged in Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is pari materia to Section 111 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyma, 2023. The said CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 13 OF 17 provision propounds that if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted upon the person who affirms it. The presumption raised under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is pari materia to Section 111 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyma, 2023 is a limited presumption confined only to presuming the factum of death of the person whose life or death is in issue. Though, it will be presumed that the person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. In Narbada v. Ram Dayal, AIR 1968 Raj. 48, it was held that under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is pari materia to Section 111 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyma, 2023, presumption about the death of a person is to be drawn when the dispute is brought to the Court and death can be presumed on the date on which the suit was filed and it cannot be given a further retrospective effect.
17. It is averred in the plaint that Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel has been missing since the year 2009. The same is evident from the copy of DD entry No.25A dated 20.07.2009 Mark F and untrace report dated 04.10.2019 Ex.PW1/7 (OSR). Neither the police officials nor the relatives of Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel have been able to gather any clue about his whereabouts since the year 2009 which is evident from the record. There is nothing on record to discredit the version of the plaintiff, whose testimony remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. The plaintiff has proved his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/18 (OSR) as well as the aadhar card of plaintiff no. 2 Ex. PW1/19 (OSR) to show their CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 14 OF 17 relationship with Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel and the same has not be disputed. Plaintiffs have also proved the copy of proof of election I-card of Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel Ex.PW1/21 (OSR) to prove the address of the missing person. In the natural course of events, it can be reasonably expected that the children of a person would hear from their father. In these circumstances, a presumption as to the civil death of Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel is liable to be raised. The defendants have not been able to rebut the presumption.
18. Accordingly, plaintiffs have been successful in proving the issue No.1 in their favour and they are held entitled to a declaration that Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel be declared as presumed dead. The declaration of civil death of Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel shall be effective from the date of filing of the suit in the light of judgment of Narbada v. Ram Dayal (supra).
19. As far as the prayer for issuance of death certificate is concerned, nothing has been brought on record by defendants No. 1 & 2/MCD that death certificate cannot be granted without specific date of death being mentioned in such cases where a declaration of civil death has been sought from the court. Thus, issue No.2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
20. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs have also prayed for issuance of mandatory injunction for directing the officials concerned to issue the Surviving Member Certificate in their favour. However, the Surviving Member Certificate can be CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 15 OF 17 issued only after the issuance of death certificate. In the case in hand the death certificate has not yet been issued. Therefore, the relief regarding issuance of Surviving Member Certificate cannot be granted, the same being premature.
Issue No.3 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of the DMC Act for want of statutory notice? OPD-1
21. Burden to prove this issue was on the defendant No. 1/MCD. It is the objection of defendant No. 1/MCD that the present suit is barred under sections 477/478 of DMC Act for want of statutory notice. The objection is not legally tenable. The basic object of sections 477/478 of DMC Act is to prevent matters from coming to Court and once the matter has reached the court and is contested, the suit ought not be dismissed on technical grounds. In this regard, reliance can be had to the judgment of Col. A. B. Singh (through LRs) v. Shri Chunnilal Sawhney and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4289. Therefore, once defendant No. 1 & 2/MCD have contested the present suit, it cannot be dismissed by recourse to section 477 and 478 of DMC Act. Accordingly, this issue is decided against defendants No. 1 & 2 and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Relief
22. In view of my aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel is declared as CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 16 OF 17 dead from the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 20.12.2023. Defendants No. 1 & 2/MCD shall issue death certificate in respect of Sh. Billu Michal @ Noel and his date of death shall be taken to be the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 20.12.2023.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
RINKU by RINKU JAIN
On this 25th Day of July, 2025 JAIN
Date:
2025.07.25
16:13:13
+0530
(RINKU JAIN)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS SCJ NO. 2409/2023 VICKY AND ANR. VS. MCD AND ORS. PAGE NO. 17 OF 17