Delhi District Court
Smt. Durgawati vs State Nct Of Delhi on 26 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGEII: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
PC No. 54/09
1. Smt. Durgawati
W/o Late Sh. Ram Nath
2. Ms. Rinki @ Archana
D/o Late Sh. Ram Nath
3. Ms. Vandana
D/o Late Sh. Ram Nath
All Residents of :
K117, Shakurpur,
J.J. Colony, New Delhi. .....Petitioners
Versus
1. State NCT Of Delhi
2. Smt. Man Bhavti
W/o Late Sh. Ram Nath
3. Sh. Ram Ujagir
S/o Late Sh. Ram Nath
4. Sh. Ram Millan
S/o Late Sh. Ram Nath
All Residents of:
K117, Shakurpur
J.J. Colony, New Delhi. .....Respondents
PC No. 54/09 Page 1 of 33
Date of Institution : 08.12.2009
Date on which the case
was reserved for order : 25.08.2011
Date of Decision : 26.08.2011
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this petition moved by the petitioners.
2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 276 of Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 24.01.2005 executed by Late Sh. Ram Nath. It is stated that deceased Sh. Ram Nath expired on 21.02.2009 at Delhi and during his life time, deceased Sh. Ram Nath had acquired and possessed the immovable property bearing no. K117, Shakurpur, J.J. Colony, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the said property). It is further stated that during his life time, deceased PC No. 54/09 Page 2 of 33 Sh. Ram Nath had executed the Will dated 24.01.2005 in favour of the petitioners in respect of his immovable property in the presence of two attesting witnesses namely Sh. Hakim Singh and Rahees. It has been further submitted that petitioner no. 1 (wife) and petitioner no. 2 and 3 (daughters) are the only legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Ram Nath.
3. It is further stated that the petitioner after the death of Sh.
Ram Nath has became the absolute owner of the said property and the petitioners have every right to deal with the said property bequeathed by the deceased Sh. Ram Nath, in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners have become the absolute owner of the above said property. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking probate in respect of the Will.
4. The respondents filed objections, interalia, contending PC No. 54/09 Page 3 of 33 therein that the petitioners has not disclosed the fact that petitioner is held to be not a legally wedded wife of Late Sh. Ram Nath in suit bearing no. 322/06 decided by the Ld. Trial Court. It has been further contended that the present petition is barred by the relevant provisions of law as the Will in question dated 24.01.2005 has been held to be forged one by the Ld. Trial Court and this finding has been affirmed by the appellate court. It has been further stated that the testator was not in a fit state of mind and the Will has not been executed and attested as per law. It has been further stated that the present Will is forged and fabricated. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 2 is held to be the legally wedded wife of Late Sh. Ram Nath, the testator by the Ld. Trial Court as such it is pleaded that the present petition deserves dismissal.
5. Petitioner filed replication whereby denying each and PC No. 54/09 Page 4 of 33 every contention raised by the respondents and averments of the petition are reiterated.
6. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: i. Whether the Will dated 24.01.2005 executed by the deceased as profounded by the petitioner is the last Will and testament of deceased Sh. Ram Nath and that it has been executed by him in sound disposing mind and that it is a valid Will? (OPP) ii. Whether the Will dated 24.01.2005 is forged and fabricated document? OPR iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for claim the relief? OPP On 04.08.2011, additional issues were also framed i.e.
a) Whether present petition is barred by limitation? OPR
b) Whether present petition is barred by principle of issue PC No. 54/09 Page 5 of 33 estoppel? OPR
7. Thereafter petitioner led evidence and himself appeared as PW1 and tender her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A. To prove the case PW1 relied upon the following documents in her evidence affidavit i.e. copy of ration card as Ex. PW1/1, copy of voter Icard as Ex. PW1/2, copy of identity card of Archana of Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School No. 1 as Ex. PW1/3, copy of mark sheet of Vandana as Ex. PW1/4, copy of I card of Vandana as Ex PW1/5, copy of result card of Vandana as Ex. PW1/6, copy of certificate issued by Sewa Bharti in favour of Rinki daughter of Late Sh. Ram Nath as Ex. PW1/7, copy of photographs of petitioner no. 1, Late Sh. Ram Nath and children are exhibited as Ex. PW1/8, Ex. PW1/9 & Ex. PW1/10 respectively, copy of GPA as Ex. PW1/11, copy of agreement as Ex. PW1/12, affidavit as Ex. PW1/13, registration form2 as PC No. 54/09 Page 6 of 33 Ex. PW1/14, receipt as Ex. PW1/15, document in form of agreement to sell and purchase in respect of the suit property executed by Chaturu in favour of Late Sh. Ram Nath as Ex. PW1/16, GPA dated 06.02.1984 executed by Sh. Tek Bahadur in favour of Sh. Chaturu in respect of the suit property as Ex. PW1/17, agreement dated 06.02.1984 as Ex. PW1/18, affidavit dated 06.02.1984 as Ex. PW1/19, receipt as Ex. PW1/20, possession slip dated 05.0.1976 as Ex. PW1/21, DESU receipt as Ex. PW1/22, death certificate of Sh. Ram Nath as Ex.PW1/23 and Will dated 24.01.2005 as Ex. PW1/24. Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/23 as mentioned in evidence affidavit of PW1 are marked as Mark A to Mark U.
8. PW2, Sh. Hakim Singh, is one of the attesting witness of the Will dated 24.01.2005 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. PW2/A and relied upon the bill issued by NDPL at his PC No. 54/09 Page 7 of 33 residential address as Ex.PW2/B. It has been stated in Ex. PW2/A that PW2 signed the Will dated 24.01.2005 at point X and deceased Sh. Ram Nath signed the above said Will at point A. Thereafter, PE was closed.
9. Respondents led evidence and Smt. Man Bhavati appeared as RW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. RW1/A. No other evidence was lead by the respondents. Thereafter, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents closed his evidence.
10. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record.
My issue wise findings are as under: Issue No. 1 and 2:
11. It is a settled law that Will has to be proved by the propounder. Regarding the proof of Will, Supreme Court in the PC No. 54/09 Page 8 of 33 case of "H. Venkatachala Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 443" has observed in para No. 18 which may be useful to reproduce herein: "It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to except proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the useful test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters."
12. In the case of "Sashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529" the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the question of mode of onus of proof of Will, laid down following principles: "The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the PC No. 54/09 Page 9 of 33 case of a Will by Section 63, Indian Succession Act. The onus or proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by laws is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the Will as genuine. Where the caveator, alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances gave rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the Will, PC No. 54/09 Page 10 of 33 which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the court would grant probate, even if the Will might be unnatural and might cut of wholly or in part near relations."
13. The circumstances which would be regarded as suspicious, cannot be precisely defined or exhaustively enumerated. The principles long established by the wisdom of the Judges of the Highest Courts are of value for general guidance, for ultimately, whether a Will has been really executed by the testator in a sound and disposing mind is purely a question of fact which will have to be decided in each case on the circumstances disclosed and on the nature and quality of evidence adduced.
14. Ld. counsel for the objectors/respondents has enumerated the following circumstances to be suspicious: PC No. 54/09 Page 11 of 33 i. The testator was bed ridden at the time of the execution of Will in question and not in a sound state of mind and physically in capable to execute the Will.
ii. The Will has not been proved as per law as the same is not executed and attested as per the provision of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Indian Evidence Act. iii. The near relatives/LRs have been totally excluded from the inheritance and no reason has been assigned for such exclusion.
15. Before dealing with the aforesaid suspicious circumstances pointed out by the Ld. Counsels for the objectors/respondents, I would briefly discuss the evidence which the petitioner has led to prove the Will. Petitioner/PW1 had deposed that earlier she was got married with Sh. Ram Het and having two children namely, Sanjay and Ranjana. She has PC No. 54/09 Page 12 of 33 further deposed that she has not taken any divorce from her earlier husband Sh. Ram Het and Sh. Ram Nath got affection for him and she started living with him. She has further deposed that the testator Sh. Ram Nath was already married and name of his wife is Man Bhavati and two sons namely, Ram Milan and Ram Ujagar. This witness has further admitted that Late Sh. Ram Nath, testator was seriously ill and bed ridden at least 23 months before his death as he was a sugar patient. She has also admitted that respondent, Smt. Man Bhavati has filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 322/06 on 30.04.2009 against her.
PW2, Sh. Hakim Singh, has stated that when he put his signature on the Will Ex. PW1/24 which has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. PW1/6, petitioner as well as her two daughters were present. This witness has also admitted that Sh. Ram Nath was bed ridden when this Will in question was singed. This PC No. 54/09 Page 13 of 33 witness has further admitted that he does not know nothing about any attesting witness and he further admitted that Sh. Rahees, the another attesting witness was not present when he appended his signature on the Will and Rahees had signed the Will later on. This witness has further stated that Sh. Ram Nath had disclosed that he had two properties one in his native village and second in Delhi and he want to give the property in native village to his first wife Man Bhavati and property in question in Delhi to Durgawati. RW1 has stated that she is residing in the property in question. This witness has further stated that title documents of the property in question have been snatched by the petitioner.
16. Now I would like to deal with so called suspicious circumstances one by one. First suspicion circumstance as raised by the Ld. counsel for the respondent is that the deceased Sh. Ram Nath, testator was not physically and mentally fit to PC No. 54/09 Page 14 of 33 execute the Will as he was sugar patient and bed ridden. It has been contended by the counsel for the respondent that Sh. Ram Nath, testator was in subconscious state of mind when the Will in question has been executed by him it and the same appears to be forged and fabricated. Ld. counsel for the respondent has stated that PW1 and attesting witness Sh. Hakim Singh have admitted in categoric term that testator Sh. Ram Nath was bed ridden at the time of execution of Will. On the basis of admission of the petitioner as well as of the another attesting witness Sh. Hakim Singh, respondent has proved on record the testator was not in physically fit state of mind to understand the contents of Will and execution thereof. Therefore, this suspicion of the respondent is hereby up held.
17. Now coming to the next contention raised by the Ld. counsel for the respondent that the present Will has not been PC No. 54/09 Page 15 of 33 proved as per law as the same is not executed and attested as per the provision of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Indian Evidence Act. In this regard, evidence of Sh. Hakim Singh, the attesting witness to the Will is very much relevant and this witness, PW2 has admitted that at the time of execution of Will Smt. Durgawati and her two daughters along with one person were present and no other person present at the time of execution of Will by Late Sh. Ram Nath, the testator. This witness has further deposed that no other person had signed the Will in his presence except him and the testator. Whereas as per the mandate of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act the Will is to be proved by at least one of the attesting witness and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act provides that testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will in the presence of two witnesses and each of the witness shall sign the Will in the presence of the PC No. 54/09 Page 16 of 33 testator and the witnesses. But in the present case, PW2 has admitted that no other person except him and testator had signed the Will in his presence. This witness has further admitted that second attesting witness was not present when he put his signature on the Will, so the Will in question has not been proved to be duly executed and attested as per law.
18. Now coming to the next contention raised by the Ld. counsel for the respondent that legal representative has been totally excluded from the inheritance without assigning any reason for such exclusion. In this regard I found support from the judgment "K.L. Malhotra Vs. Sudershan Kumari & Anr. 149 (2008) Delhi Law Times 783" wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the courts have repeatedly held that disproportionate nature of a bequest is not a suspicious circumstances for the reason the whole idea behind the PC No. 54/09 Page 17 of 33 execution of a Will is to alter the natural line of succession. A court of probate does not make a Will of its own. The court is not the testator. Its function is to see if the Will propounded by the propounder was duly made and executed by a capable testator. In order to do that it the court of probate has to sit in the arm chair of the testator, it has also to sit there with the mind of testator keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances and context of the testator's family and other environment very much in the forefront in its deliberations.
19. It is settled law that circumstances depriving natural guardian from the property in the Will should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind the execution of Will is to interfere in the normal line of succession and so the natural heir is debarred fully and in some cases partly. Further in "Savitri & Others Vs. Karthyani Amma & Others AIR 2008 PC No. 54/09 Page 18 of 33 Supreme Court 300, Para 19" it has been observed that deprivation of due share to the natural heirs itself is not a factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will. For the said purpose the background of facts should also be taken into consideration.
20. In the present case attesting witness, PW2 has deposed that the testator had disclosed to him that he has given the property situated at his native village to his first wife Smt. Man Bahavati and property in Delhi to the petitioner. But there is no such mention regarding first wife of the testator and no such division of properties has been detailed in the said Will. So there was no reason for the testator to exclude his real wife and children from inheritance in favour of petitioners. Otherwise also, the petitioners have failed to prove on record that marriage PC No. 54/09 Page 19 of 33 between the deceased Ram Nath and petitioner no. 1 was legal as it has been observed by the Ld. Trial Court in the civil suit bearing no. 322/06 that marriage of deceased Sh. Ram Nath with the plaintiff no. 1 (therein) and respondent no. 2 (herein) was subsisting till the death of Sh. Ram Nath. So this objection is also up held. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that petitioners have failed to prove that Will dated 24.01.2005 is free from suspicion and has been duly attested, executed and proved as per law. So these issue no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
Additional Issue No. 1:
21. The onus to prove this issue was on the respondents, otherwise, it is a legal issue whether the present petition is barred by Article 137 of Schedule I of Limitation Act. Ld. counsel for the respondent has contended that the present Will which is the PC No. 54/09 Page 20 of 33 subject matter of present petition was well with the knowledge of petitioner in the year 2006 when the petitioner (herein)/defendant (therein) filed the written statement propounding the Will in question in the Civil Suit bearing no. 322/06. Therefore, right to seek probate of Will in question accrued in favour of the petitioner at the time when the petitioner filed the written statement in the above said suit. Therefore, the present petition is thus pleaded to be hopelessly barred by limitation.
22. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that provision of Article 137 of Schedule I of Limitation Act are not applicable to the probate proceedings and even if, it is presumed for the sake of arguments that Article 137 of the Act is applicable to the probate proceedings, in that case also, the petitioner (herein)/defendant (therein) filed the written statement in the suit bearing no. 322/06 on 17.07.2006 and the present petition has PC No. 54/09 Page 21 of 33 been filed on 03.12.2009 so there is delay of about 4 months in filing of present probate petition which can be condone by the court by exercising its inherent power.
23. So far as the controversy involved in the present case, whether the present petition is barred by limitation or not is concerned, admittedly the petitioner had filed the written statement in the above said title suit bearing no. 322/06 in July 2006 and present petition has been filed in December 2009. It is also settled principle of law that Article 137 of Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 is also mutatis mutandis applicable to the probate proceedings and said period of three years is to be computed from the date the right to sue accrues in favour of the legatee which surely commences at least from the date on which the legatee to a Will could be ascribed with the knowledge that the Will is likely to be disputed by the other heirs of the testator. PC No. 54/09 Page 22 of 33 The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that the provision of article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable to probate petition or letter of administration is not in consonance with the law propounded by the Ld. Apex Court in Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, IV(2009) SLT 72, in which judgment after relying on the judgment of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivendram Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, 1976 (4) SCC 634, it has been observed that in para no.8 that:
"though the nature of the petition has been rightly discussed by the High Court, it was not correct in observing that the application for grant of probate or letters of administration is not covered by the Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Same is not correct in view of what has been stated in the Karela State Electricity Board's Case (supra)".
Even Delhi High Court in the case reported as Pratap Singh and Another Vs. State and Another, 173 (2010) DLT PC No. 54/09 Page 23 of 33 132 DB has held as under:
"The period of three years would surely commence at least from the date on which the legatee to a Will could be justifiable ascribed with the knowledge that the Will on which his claim is founded is likely to be disputed by other persons, especially the natural heirs of the testator."
24. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, petition is filed in December 2009 whereas admittedly the present Will had been propounded by the petitioner in July 2006, so even if, petitioner is imputed with knowledge of the existence of the present Will which was disputed by the respondent in the above said suit, the date on which written statement was filed by the petitioners (herein)/defendants (therein) in the said suit filed by the respondent can be termed as the date of accrual of the cause of action in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, as per the admission of petitioner, the prescribed period of three years PC No. 54/09 Page 24 of 33 provide under article 137 of schedule I of the limitation Act had expired in the year July 2009 whereas present petition has been filed in December 2009, so the present petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and this issue is decided in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
Additional Issue No. 2:
25. The onus to prove this issue was on the respondents.
Admittedly, the Will in question was propounded by the petitioners in the suit filed by the respondents (herein)/plaintiffs (therein) bearing no. 322/06 titled as Man Bhavati Vs. Durgawati wherein the Ld. Trial Court has held that the petitioner has failed to prove the due execution and valid attestation of the said Will dated 24.01.2005. Although no issue was framed regarding the validity of Will but there is finding recorded by the Ld. Trial Court and that finding has been up held by the Ld. Appellate Court. PC No. 54/09 Page 25 of 33 This factual position has not been controverted by the petitioner otherwise, petitioner has admitted the factual matrix. But the contention of the counsel for the respondent that, even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that present petition is not barred by the principle of resjudicata/constructive resjudicata, it is, at least, barred by the principle of issue estoppel, is having force in law.
26. There is distinction between cause of action issue estoppel and Resjudicata. Resjudicata debars the court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine of issue estoppel is invoked against a party. It an issue is decided against a party, the party would be estopped from raising the same in the latter proceeding. The doctrine of resjudicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz. estoppel by accord. PC No. 54/09 Page 26 of 33 However, the doctrine of "issue estoppel" as also "cause of action estoppel" may both be attracted. A cause of action estoppel arises where in two different proceedings identical issues are raised, in which event, the latter proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedings. In such an event the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided save and except allegations of fraud and collusion.
27. The Ld. Apex Court in case Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar (2005)1 SCC 787, has observed as under:
In a case of this nature,however, the doctrine of "issue estoppel"
as also "cause of action estoppel" may arise. In Thoday Lord Diplock held: (All ER p. 352 BD) 'cause of action estoppel', is that which prevents a party to an action from asserting or denying, as against the other party, PC No. 54/09 Page 27 of 33 the existence of a particular cause of action, the nonexistence or existence of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties. If the cause of action was determined to exist i.e., judgment was given on it, it is said to be merged in the judgment.......... If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam."
28. The Hon'ble Supreme court in judgment "Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade & Anr. (1999) 5 SCC 590" in para no. 26 has also observed as under: "It is settled law that principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the PC No. 54/09 Page 28 of 33 determination may even be demonstrated wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They can not litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel'. These two terms are of common law origin. Again once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the CPC contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice."
PC No. 54/09 Page 29 of 33
29. For the applicability of cause of action estoppel we would like to first deal upon the meaning of word 'cause of action'. Cause of action mean which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right of judgment of court. In the other words, it is a bundle of facts which gives a plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly be accrue. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. In the present case admittedly no issue was framed regarding Will which is the subject matter of the present petition, in the Civil Suit 322/06 filed by the respondent. But there is finding recorded by the Ld. Court holding the present Will as forged and fabricated in the said civil suit bearing no. 322/06. So cause of action as detailed PC No. 54/09 Page 30 of 33 in the present petition is will dated 24.01.2005, on the basis of which probate has been sought by the petitioner, which is held to be forged and fabricated so there is findings recorded by the civil court, in the above said civil suit, regarding the present Will on the basis of which petitioners have averred that they are having a cause of action in their favour. Therefore the cause of action/issue which has been propounded by way of present petition, a finding on this cause of action has already been recorded by the civil court in a previous suit between the parties. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the present petition is barred by the principle of cause of action /issue estoppel.
Relief:
30. From the above discussion and in view of my issue wise findings, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove PC No. 54/09 Page 31 of 33 the Will in question and otherwise also, the present petition is barred by the principle of cause of action/issue estoppel as well as hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, present petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA) On this 26.08.2011 ADJII : ROHINI : DELHI PC No. 54/09 Page 32 of 33 PC No. 54/09 26.08.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for the parties.
Vide separate judgment, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
(VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA) ADJII(NW):ROHINI:DELHI.
26.08.2011 PC No. 54/09 Page 33 of 33