Delhi District Court
Sh. Rameshwar Dass vs Sh. Hukam Chand on 28 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. R. L. MEENA ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
RCA No. : 09/14
Unique Case ID No. 02405C0284452013
1. Sh. Rameshwar Dass
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pat
2. Sh. Mange Ram
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pat
3. Sh. Ganga Ram
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pat
4. Sh. Abhey Ram
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pat
5. Sh. Bhup Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pat
All R/o Village Tajpur Khurd,
P.O Chhawla, New Delhi71. ..... Appellants
(Through Sh. D.S. Patial, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Sh. Hukam Chand
RC No.9/14 Page No. : 1/27
S/o Late Sh. Kehar Singh
2. Sh. Mool Chand (now expired)
S/o Sh. Hukam Chand
3. Sh. Hari Ram
S/o Sh. Hukam Chand
4. Sh. Meer Singh
S/o Sh. Harey Ram
5. Sh. Krishan
S/o Late Sh. Mool Chand
All R/o Village Tajpur Khurd,
P.O Chhawla, New Delhi71. ... Respondents
(Through Sh. T.R. Kashyap, Advocate)
Date of institution of Appeal : 24.09.2013
Date of arguments of Appeal : 12.02.2015
Date of judgment : 28.02.2015
Appeal under Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 CPC,
1908, as amended upto date, against the impugned judgment
and decree dated 31.08.2013 passed by Ms. Richa
Manchanda, Civil Judge, (Central3), Tis Hazari Courts,
RC No.9/14 Page No. : 2/27
Delhi in Suit No. 131/2009 titled as Rameshwar Dass & Ors.
Vs. Hukam Chand & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in civil suit no. 131/2009 titled as "Rameshwar Dass & Ors Vs. Hukam Chand & Ors"
pending before the trial court and is aggrieved by the judgment/decree dated 31.08.2013 passed by Ms. Richa Manchanda, Civil Judge (Central03), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties in the judgment are being referred to as per their respective status before the Learned trial court.
3. Before adverting to the grounds of the appeal taken in the matter, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the facts as born out from the record. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with a prayer that defendants be restrained from dispossessing/ interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs from property bearing khasra no. 66(010) having constructed two rooms, tin shed RC No.9/14 Page No. : 3/27 and boundary wall, situated in the revenue estate of village Tejpur Khurd, New Delhi(hereinafter referred as suit property). It is the case of plaintiffs that father of plaintiffs late Sh. Rampat was the real brother of defendant nos. 2 and 3 and they have inherited all the movable and immovable properties from their ancestors. It is further case of plaintiffs that consolidation proceeding took place in the year 1972. Accordingly, land was alloted to plaintiffs and defendants which is shown in copy of Istemal Aarja. It is further case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff's father Late Sh. Rampat and defendant No. 2 and 3 also mutually divided their agriculture land as a result of which suit property came into share of plaintiff's father besides other land. It is further case of plaintiffs that their father Late Sh. Rampat constructed hall room over there for storing fodder/bhusa etc. and also made tin shed, enclosed with the boundary wall as shown in red colour in site plan. It is further case of plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit property during the lifetime of their father. It is further case of plaintiffs that defendant no.1 is RC No.9/14 Page No. : 4/27 having house adjacent to the suit premise and threatened plaintiffs to vacate the suit premises alleging that plaintiffs are in unlawful possession of the suit premises. It is further case of plaintiffs that defendant no.1 did also attempt to stop plaintiff no.1 from parking his tractor in the suit premises and also demolished his wall separating the plot of plaintiffs from defendants. It is prayed by the plaintiffs to pass a decree in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants with this effect that defendants be restrained from dispossessing/ interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs from suit property without due process of law, in the interest of justice.
4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement interalia taking preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable in view of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act as plaintiffs have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy under the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as DLRA). It is further contended that plaintiffs have no right over the suit property as the property in question is exclusively owned and possessed by the defendants over the last 45 years. It is further RC No.9/14 Page No. : 5/27 contended that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit premises and they have no locus standi to file the present suit as partition had already taken place during the lifetime of father of plaintiffs. It is further contended by defendant no.1 that he is in possession of the suit property much prior to consolidation proceedings and had constructed a pucca wall in the year 1958. It is further contended that he had also built two pucca barracks adjoining the house of father of plaintiffs. It is further contended that plaintiffs have also concealed the fact that vide order dated 01.10.1970 passed by Revenue Assistant, defendant no.1 has been declared bhumidar of Khasra no. 66 against the father of the plaintiffs and said order has not been challenged by the father of plaintiffs so far, therefore, same is binding upon the parties. It is further stated that defendant no.1 has also filed site plan which shows correct description of the suit property. It is further stated that plaintiffs want to take undue advantage of small discrepancy in the revenue record despite knowing the fact that the area in question belongs to defendant no.1 in Khasra no.66 as recorded in the field book RC No.9/14 Page No. : 6/27 throughout was 018 biswa but inadvertently the same was recorded as 08 biswa in the Khatoni. It is further stated that a rectification in the revenue record was done by the Tehsildar vide his order dated 08.06.2005. It is prayed that in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
5. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 have also filed their written statement but they have admitted the claim of plaintiffs.
6. After pleading of both the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court which are as under:
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable as plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property nor they are recorded Bhumidar? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections raised in the written statement?
OPD (4) Whether the suit has become infructuous in view of the RC No.9/14 Page No. : 7/27 pendency of the proceedings under Section 26 of the Land Revenue Act? OPD (5) Whether the defendants have committed any contempt by violating the order dated 24.06.2005, if so, its effects? OPP (6) Relief.
7. Plaintiffs, in order to discharge the onus of issues put upon them, examined following witnesses which are as under:
(i)Mange Ram, plaintiff no.2 examined himself as PW1 and relied upon documents i.e. original istemal Ex.PW1/1, Site plan Ex.PW1/2, copy of report from record room Ex.PW1/3, copy of the application Ex.PW1/4 and copy of the Khatoni peymaish Ex PW 1/5.
(ii) Narender Kumar, Record Keeper from Revenue Department, Tis Hazari Court was examined as PW2 for examination of the certified copy of the order of case no. 418/RA dated 01.10.1970 relied upon by defendant no.1 but same could not be produced during the trial of the case.
(iii)Surender Gaur was examined as PW3 for proving the RC No.9/14 Page No. : 8/27 possession of plaintiffs over the suit property.
(iv) Chhater Pal, Kanungo from Record Room (Tehsil) Hauz Khas, Mehrauli was examined as PW4 who deposed that order of case no. 418/RA dated 01.10.1970 is not available with department.
(v) HC Dharamvir was examined as PW5 for proving of PCR call i.e. document Ex. PW5/1.
(vi) Lady Constable Kaushyala and HC Satish were examined as PW6 and PW7 for proving DD entries.
8. Defendant no.1, in order to constitute his defence, examined himself as DW3 and he also relied upon documents i.e. site plan of suit property Ex.DW3/1 and certified copy of declaration of Bhoomidari as Ex.DW3/2. Son of the defendant no.1 namely Mool Chand also appeared as DW4 and relied upon documents i.e. SPA of defendant no.1 Ex. DW4/1, Fard dated 22.04.1973 in respect of khasra number 66 Ex. DW4/2, landholder passbook Ex. DW4/3, khatoni paymaish Ex. DW4/4, khatoni Ex. DW4/5, certified copy of the order of Deputy Commissioner(West) Ex. DW4/6.
RC No.9/14 Page No. : 9/27
9. Defendant No. 1 has also examined other witnesses namely L.B. Verma, Patwari (DW1), Saurav Saxena, Engineer posted at BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, Moolchand(DW2), Jai Narain (DW5) Dayanand (DW6), Narender Kumar Revenue Record Room (consolidation)(DW7).
10.Learned Trial Court after considering the entire material on record decided issue no.1, 3 & 4 on merit, interalia holding that plaintiffs are actually seeking the relief of declaration to the effect that they be declared Bhoomidar because only if they get the status of Bhoomidar recognized, would they be entitled to the relief of injunction. It is further observed by Learned Trial Court that since the proceedings are already pending before Revenue court, therefore, plaintiff cannot seek remedy before this Court alternatively. It is further observed that Section 185 and 190 of the DLRA bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It is further observed that Section 83 of Delhi Land Revenue Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases where there is any dispute with respect to the preparation of RC No.9/14 Page No. : 10/27 annual register. Learned Trial Court, in support of aforesaid reasonings, has also relied upon following citations 'Kamla Prasad and Ors. Vs Sh Krishna Kant Pathak and Ors (ii) (2007) SLT477.
11. Learned Trial Court after considering the entire material on record decided issue no.2 on merit, interalia holding that since plaintiffs have already filed proceedings before the Revenue Court with respect to the suit property and the same is still pending. It is further observed by Learned Trial Court that since it has been observed in issue no.1, 3 & 4 with this effect that suit is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction therefore, issue no.2 is also decided against the plaintiff.
12. It is further observed by the Learned Trial Court while dealing issue no.5 regarding violating of stay order dated 24.06.2005 that since there is inherit lack of jurisdiction in civil Court to decide the case therefore, all the interim order passed are void abinitio therefore no contempt is made out.
13. The impugned judgment has been questioned by the learned counsel of plaintiff on the following grounds : RC No.9/14 Page No. : 11/27
i) Learned Trial Court has failed to pass finding on all issues on merit, which issues have been disposed of simply by stating that since the Civil court has no jurisdiction, the issues are accordingly decided against the appellant as such the impugned judgment and a decree is liable to be set aside.
ii) Learned trial court has failed to appreciate the law laid down in respect of violation of stay order. Counsel for plaintiff, in support of his arguments, has also relied upon the following citations:
(a) 1980 RLR 49
(b) AIR (2009) Rajasthan - 147
(c) 165 (2009) DLT - 520(DB)
(d) AIR (1985) MP - 141
(e) 1995 (6) SCC 50
iii) Learned trial court has also failed to appreciate that the proceedings U/s 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 are in respect of correction of record of rights, which has nothing to do with the suit for permanent injunction based on RC No.9/14 Page No. : 12/27 possession, as such, it can not be held that the suit was in fact for declaration of bhumidhari rights. It is further stated that applicants are already bhumidhar of suit property, therefore, there is no need of seeking further declaration as presumed by Learned Trial Court.
iv) Learned Trial court has also erred in holding that Section 83 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court, without taking into consideration that the present suit is based on the possession of the suit property with the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent no.1 to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly, as such, the impugned judgment is bad in law.
v) Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the difference between the proceedings initiated by the appellant U/s 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and the ingredients of the suit for permanent injunction based on possession, as such the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and quashed.
vi) Learned Trial Court has wrongly held that the Learned RC No.9/14 Page No. : 13/27 Trial Court has no power to restore status quo ante, if the interim order of the maintaining status quo has been violated. Since it has been settled law that once interim order is passed then it has to be obeyed in all respect till further order of the court, as such judgment decree bad in law.
vii) Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence led by the appellants, while deciding the issue no.1,3 & 4, otherwise the issues could have been decided against defendant no.1, as such the finding of the Learned Trial Court is bad in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed.
viii) Learned Trial Court has wrongly held that the suit is barred U/s 185 and 190 of DLRA without taking into consideration the settled law before reaching to such a conclusion. Only the civil court has jurisdiction to pass the relief of permanent injunction based on possession, as such the judgment and the decree is liable to be set aside and quashed. Since defendant no.1 and his associates have violated the status quo order, the Learned Trial Court was supposed to pass status quo ante order and to decree the suit in favour of the RC No.9/14 Page No. : 14/27 plaintiff, on merit, by discussing the evidence on record.
14.It is prayed by the plaintiff that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 31.08.2013 be set aside.
15.I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. D.S.Patiyal, Learned counsel for appellant and Sh. T.R.Kashyap, Learned counsel for respondent and perused the trial court record carefully.
16. Before dealing the submissions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the admitted/relevant facts which are as follows:
(i) It is admitted fact that Plaintiffs and defendants are from common ancestors.
(ii) Plaintiff claimed to be owner and in possession of the property in question at the time of filing of the suit on the basis of Kisan Pass Book Ex PW 1/1.
(iii) Defendant no.1 claimed over the suit property vide order dated 01.10.1970 passed by Revenue Assistant in case bearing no. 418/RA/70.
(iv) It is also admitted fact that aforesaid order dated RC No.9/14 Page No. : 15/27 01.10.1970 could not be brought by the defendant in his evidence or in the evidence of any official witness of Revenue Department. More so, there is a report from Record Room, Tis Hazari on document Ex.PW1/4 with this effect that Goshwara register of year 1970 pertaining to the circle Palam and Mehrauli were seen but no case bearing no. 418/RK dated 01.10.1970 was found/registered in Goshwara register.
(v) It is also admitted fact that plaintiffs have approached the Revenue Authority for correction of entries.
17. Now coming on the submissions of both the parties, it is vehemently argued by counsel for plaintiff that plaintiffs and defendant are from common ancestors and they have partitioned their properties as per mutual settlement. It is further argued that plaintiffs and defendant were in possession of land measuring 10 biswa and 8 biswa respectively in Khasra no. 66, at the time of filing of the present suit. It is further stated that plaintiff was having an apprehension of being dispossessed by the defendants from the suit property, therefore, present suit was filed. In view of the respective RC No.9/14 Page No. : 16/27 possession of the parties, a status quo order dated 24.06.2005 was passed by Learned Vacation Judge in the presence of counsel for the defendant but during pendency of the suit, plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants as a result of which plaintiff also filed contempt petition for violating the order dated 24.05.2005 but it was ordered by the Learned Trial Court that since there was inherent lack of jurisdiction of civil court to decide the issue, therefore, all the interim order passed are voidabinitio. Hence, no contempt is made out. It is further argued that since plaintiffs were having apprehension of being dispossessed by the defendant from the suit property therefore, they filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant which was based upon possession, therefore, same is maintainable before civil court. Counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon the following citations i.e.
(a) Tara Chand & anothers vs. Kumari Rajni Jain, 150 (2008) DLT 101.
(b) Rajender Singh Vs. Vijaypal @ Jaipal 148 (2008) DLT 596 SC.
RC No.9/14 Page No. : 17/27
18.On the contra, counsel for defendant submits that Learned Trial Court has correctly held that in view of Section 185 of DLRA, Civil court does not have any jurisdiction. It is further argued that after the consolidation proceeding of land, suit property came in the possession of defendant no.1 and plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property. It is further argued that document i.e Ex.PW1/1 relied upon by plaintiff does not bear the date or year of issuing the aforesaid documents, therefore same cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that defendants are in possession of the suit property for last 3040 years and they are recorded bhumidhar, therefore, they cannot be restrained by any order. Counsel for defendant has placed his reliance upon the following citations.
a)2008 III AD (DELH) 274 - (FATEH S/o SHRI KURE Vs. SHRI HUKMI & ORS.)
b) 2009 X AD (DELHI) 240 - (BARFO DEVI (DECD.) Vs. DDA).
c) II (2007) SLT 477 (SC) (KAMLA PRASAD & ORS. Vs. SRI KRISHAN KANT PATHAK & ORS.) (para 13 of the RC No.9/14 Page No. : 18/27 judgment)
d) ANANTHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCHI REDDY, 2008 (2) RCR (CIVIL) SC:AIR 2008 SC 2033.
e) DAVENDER LAL MEHTA Vs. DHARMENDRA MEHTA 160 (2009)
f) AIR 1995 ALLAHBAD 418 - Headnote A'.
19. In view of aforesaid arguments of both the parties, now it is to be seen by this Court as to whether Learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the issue of jurisdiction of the civil court in view of Section 185 of DLRA or not.
20. Before dealing aforesaid issue, now I come on the finding of learned trial court. Learned trial court observed that plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration in the garb of present suit which is not maintainable in view of Section 185 of the DLRA. Learned trial court, in support of aforesaid findings, has also placed reliance upon law laid down in the following cases titled as:
(i) Ram Karan and others Vs. Jagdeep Rai & sons 79 (1999) DLT 305 Delhi High Court
(ii) Rev Singh Vs. Rishi Pal & Others, Delhi High Court RC No.9/14 Page No. : 19/27 dated 05.05.2011.
21. I have also considered the citations relied upon by learned trial court. At the outset, I observe that law laid down in aforesaid cases do not apply in the present case because in said cases, property was allegedly sold to the defendants by plaintiffs' constituted attorney holder and son respectively and plaintiffs claimed on property being as Bhumidar. It is observed by Hon'ble High Court that since plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration in the form of suit of injunction which is only permissible before the Revenue Court. It is worth to note here that in the present case, property in question has not been sold or transferred by the plaintiffs in favour of defendants. It is claimed by the plaintiffs in the present case that they are owner and in possession of the suit property from the lifetime of their father but now defendant No.1 has threatened for dispossessing to them, therefore present suit has been filed. Plaintiffs also claimed that defendant no.1 has fraudulently got entries of revenue record in his favour and same has been challenged before the authority concerned. Perusal of the RC No.9/14 Page No. : 20/27 record, I find that it is admitted fact that defendant no.1 claimed over the suit property vide proceedings dated 01.07.1970 passed by Revenue Assistant in case bearing no. 418/RA/70 whereby he claimed that he was declared bhomidar of the land measuring 10 biswa of Khasra no.66 (suit property) but that proceeding could not be brought on record and same is still under scrutiny by way of separate proceedings filed by the plaintiffs before Revenue Authority.
22. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, now I deal the question posed in para no.22 of this judgment as to whether Learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of Section 185 of DLRA or suit for permanent injunction can be filed before Civil Court.
23. For answering the aforesaid question, I rely upon the law laid down in case titled Tara Chand & anothers vs. Kumari Rajni Jain, 150 (2008) DLT 101 wherein Hon'ble High Court held that under section 185 of DLRA only such suits are not maintainable before a Civil court remedy whereof is available RC No.9/14 Page No. : 21/27 before a Revenue Court. It is further held that pertaining to the agricultural land, no remedy is available to a party before a revenue authority to seek a relief of injunction. Hon'ble High Court has also referred a case titled as Rajender Singh Vs. Vijaypal @ Jaipal 148 (2008) DLT 596 SC and observed as under:
"in somewhat similar circumstances Their lordships of the Supreme Court held that suit for injunction pertaining to the agriculture land have to decided after trial by Civil court and not before the revenues authority."
24. It is to be noted here that in Rajinder Singh's case (Supra) the same issue of maintainability of suit for permanent injunction and declaration came in view of Section 185 of DLRA before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further relevant to note here that both civil courts including first appellate court (ADJ) held that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of bar imposed U/s 185 of DLRA. In the second appeal, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that in view of the nature of RC No.9/14 Page No. : 22/27 relief claimed in the suit, the jurisdiction of civil court was not hit by Section 185 of the Act. Accordingly, judgment of trial court and first appellate court (ADJ) were set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. When the aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by special leave petition, then, Hon'ble Supreme Court had remanded back the case to the Trial Court with directions to decide all issues on merits including the issue of jurisdiction.
25. In the light of the law laid down in aforesaid cases and in view of the nature of relief claimed in the present suit, it is apparent that civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit of injunction in respect of agricultural land.
26. Now coming on the other reasoning of learned trial court regarding pendency of proceedings under Section 26 of Delhi Land Revenue Act (in short DLRA), it is vehemently argued by counsel for plaintiffs that plaintiffs have moved an application u/s 26 of DLRA regarding institution of inquiry in respect of tempering made in the revenue records which has nothing to do with the possession of the land in question. As I RC No.9/14 Page No. : 23/27 have already observed that defendant no.1 has claimed bhoomidari rights over the suit property by way of order of case no. 418/RA dated 01.10.1970 passed by Revenue Authorities but same could not be produced during the trial of the case. Without making any comment on the aforesaid documents, I am of the considered view that since plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid order before the Revenue Authority which can be termed as an independent action, therefore, present suit for injunction cannot be barred before the civil court.
27. Now coming on the other reasoning of learned trial court regarding Section 83 of Delhi Land Revenue Act, learned trial court observed that Section 83 of said Act bars the jurisdiction of civil court in cases where there is any dispute with respect to the preparation of annual register. Learned trial court has also placed reliance upon citations titled as follows:
(a) Kamla Prasad & Ors. Vs. Shri Krishna Kant Pathak & Ors. II (2007) SLT 477.
28. Bare perusal of aforesaid provision of said Act, I find that RC No.9/14 Page No. : 24/27 aforesaid provision deals the documents prepared by Revenue Department and same cannot be challenged before the civil court. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiffs have not sought relief of declaration of any document however they have already filed separate proceeding u/s 26 of the said Act for correction of entries. With these observations, I find that suit for injunction and proceedings pending u/s 26 of said Act are separate independent proceedings and same can be instituted independently.
29.It is pertinent to mention here that I have also gone through the citations relied upon by the counsel for the defendant but the same do not have direct bearing upon the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, same are not applicable in the present case.
30.In the light of the law laid down in Tara Chand's Case and in view of the nature of relief claimed in the present suit, I am of the considered view that Civil Court has jurisdictions to try the suit for permanent injunction in respect of agriculture land.
31. It is worth to mention here that Learned Trial Court has RC No.9/14 Page No. : 25/27 jointly decided issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant interalia holding that since civil court does not have any jurisdiction in view of Section 185 and 190 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 and in view of Section 83 and 26 of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 therefore, remaining issues cannot be decided for want of jurisdiction. As I have already observed that civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, therefore, trial court is directed to give findings on merit on all issues except the issue of jurisdiction. While deciding the suit, the learned trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this court except issue of jurisdiction.
32. In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 31.08.2013 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Learned Trial Court for the fresh decision in accordance with law. The trial court will proceed with the matter from the stage of final arguments. The appeal is accordingly disposed of by remanding the same to the trial court. Trial court record be sent back along with copy of judgment.
RC No.9/14 Page No. : 26/27
33. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Learned Trial Court on 15.04.2015. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the open (R.L. Meena)
court on 28.02.2015 Add. District Judge02/South West
Dwarka Courts Complex, New Delhi
RC No.9/14 Page No. : 27/27