Delhi District Court
H.S. Rai vs Paramjeet Singh Oberoi on 20 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, SHAHDARA
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Varun Chandra, DJS
Civil Suit No: 873/18
Sh. H. S. Rai Advocate
E-721, Lawyer's Chamber
Karkardooma Court, Delhi-110032
...Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi
S/o Sh. Gurubachan Singh
R/o A-166, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
...Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.1,57,000/- (RUPEES ONE
LAKH FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONLY) ALONG WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 36% INTEREST PER ANNUM
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.09.2018
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 19.12.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 20.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff had filed this suit against the defendant, seeking recovery of Rs.1,57,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Only) along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 36% interest per annum and cost of this suit.
Digitally
signed by
Civil Suit No.873/18 VARUN
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN CHANDRA
Page No.1 of 35
CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20
17:04:59
+0530
2. The plaintiff had filed the present case against the defendant praying for the following reliefs which are reproduced as under:
"It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
a) pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby direct the defendant to pay Rs.1,57,000/- to the plaintiff.
b) Direct the defendant to pay the pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 36% per annum on the due amount of the plaintiff.
c) Cost of the suit may kindly also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
d) Any other relief deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case may also be awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant."
3. In order to justify the grant of the aforesaid reliefs, the plaintiff has inter-alia pleaded in the plaint of this suit that in the month of September, 2015, the defendant had approached to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to contest his two cases in the Tis Hazari Courts i.e. titled as Paramjeet Singh Oberioi Vs. Sandhay Giri and Another Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Vs. Yukta; that both cases are under Section 138 N.I Act and in both cases, the defendant was complainant; that accordingly, as per request of defendant, the plaintiff had filed his vakalatnama in the said cases duly signed by defendant and started contesting properly both the matters in the court; that the considering amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was fixed between the parties which was Rs.55,000/- for each case Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.2 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20 17:05:11 +0530 of the trial court and it was also settled between the parties that the defendant will pay others charges as all miscellaneous expenses of court i.e. Photostat, typing, certified copies, attesting etc., would be charged excluding from the counsel fees; that after contesting the both cases by the plaintiff, on 10.03.2016, one case of the defendant was decreed in his favour; that the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay the advocacy charges and the defendant replied to the plaintiff that he would pay the whole fees to the plaintiff as soon as possible; that after sometime, the defendant received one notice with regard to one appeal titled as Yukta vs. State & Anrs; that in the month of August, 2016, the defendant had approached the plaintiff for contesting the same appeal; that it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff will contest the said appeal in the fees of Rs.55,000/- and this charges would be excluded from the fees of trial court cases; that it was also settled between the parties that as early as possible, the defendant would pay all dues; that total due amount was of Rs.1,57,000/- for all three cases and the defendant had executed one promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in this regard; that the defendant had only paid an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the plaintiff; that the defendant had settled his all three matters with his opposite party and thereafter, the plaintiff asked his professional fees of Rs.1,57,000/- from the defendant and the defendant had assured the plaintiff to pay all dues on 23.07.2017; that the defendant had not paid the same on 23.07.2017 and made excuses; that a legal notice dated 26.07.2017 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant but the defendant denied to take the said notice; that aggrieved by the actions of the Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.3 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:05:20
+0530
defendant, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,57,000/- against the defendant along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 36% per annum.
4. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendant has contested this suit by filing his written statement. In order to contest this suit, the defendant has inter- alia pleaded in his written statement that at the time of approaching the plaintiff by the defendant and after discussion, it was agreed between them that the defendant would pay Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff as filing charges of both the cases and thereafter, plaintiff would pay Rs.3,200/- each per hearing to the plaintiff on every date of hearing; the defendant already paid all the amount to the plaintiff in cash at every date of hearing in both cases, but the plaintiff never issued any receipt to the defendant, hence the plaintiff is not entitle to get any amount from the defendant; that there was no settlement took place between the plaintiff and the defendant but it was agreed that the defendant would pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff against contesting the said appeal and as per agreed, the defendant paid all the amount to the plaintiff before contesting the appeal; that the defendant neither issued any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff nor signed at any point of time; that there is no cause of action has ever been arose against the defendant in any manner and the plaintiff has concealed the true material and relevant facts and has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands; that accordingly, the present matter is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally
Civil Suit No.873/18 signed by
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN
Page No.4 of 35
VARUN CHANDRA
CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20
17:05:29
+0530
5. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by a Ld. Predecessor Judge, on 29.08.2024:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.1,57,000/- against the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the interest from the defendant @ 36% per annum? OPP
3. Relief."
7. During the trial of this suit, one witness viz., PW1 Sh. Hari Shankar Rai was examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and one witness viz. DW1, Sh. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi was examined in support of the case of the defendant. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are not being discussed, at this stage of this judgment, for the sake of brevity.
8. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard the plaintiff on 19.12.2025 and perused the written arguments furnished on behalf of the defendant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:-
Digitally signed by VARUN CHANDRA Civil Suit No.873/18VARUN Date:
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi CHANDRA 2026.02.20 17:05:40 Page No.5 of 35 +0530
9. Ld Advocate for the plaintiff argued that in two cases of 138 NI act, the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant for contesting and one verdict has come in favour of the defendant by the best efforts of the plaintiff. It is significant to mention here that in the 138 NI case, the complaint (defendant herein), has been compensated by the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and judicial custody against the cheque of Rs.6,00,000/-. Thereafter, the accused named Sandhaya Giri of 138 NI Case filed the appeal against the said order/judgement and after the all proceedings of the appeal at the day of final order, the accused of both case and one appeal, the accused compromised with the complainant (defendant herein) and defendant taken the amount of Rs.11,51,000/- in cash.
10. He argued that after the compromise, the complainant (defendant herein) did not give the remaining fees of Rs.1,57,000/- as settled to plaintiff. It is significant to mention here that Rs.55,000/- each was settled, two cases of 138 NI case and Rs.55,000/- for appeal, according Rs.1,65,00/- was the total fees of plaintiff, and Rs.8,000/- was paid to plaintiff by defendant and according the remained amount of the plaintiff is Rs.1,57,000/-, hence the plaintiff filed the case of recovery of Rs.1,57,000/- against the plaintiff.
11. He argued that the defendant admitted all the facts in his reply/written statement but on the point of fees he denied by giving the submission.
Digitally
signed by
VARUN
VARUN CHANDRA
Civil Suit No.873/18 CHANDRA Date:
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi 2026.02.20
Page No.6 of 35
17:05:49
+0530
12. He argued that in the plaintiff's evidence, all the documents were exhibited by the plaintiff and a photocopy of one promissory note was marked by the plaintiff.
13. He argued that in the cross of the plaintiff, the counsel of the defendant asked the question and given the submission under following :
a) "It is correct that one promissory note was executed by the defendant for the amount of Rs.1,57,000/- after deduction of the payment of Rs.8000/- which has already been paid." Accordingly, it is proved that the promissory note was executed. It is submitted that once the promissory note is admitted, it is also proved that the defendant is liable to pay the counsel fees of Rs.1,57,000 to plaintiff. And the plaintiff also gave the notice U/o 12 (8) to submit the said promissory note in the court but neither the defendant gave the reply nor submit the said document. It is further the said promissory submitted that note/document is admitted by both parties.
b) In the written statement of the reply on merits in para no.-2, the defendant mentioned that it was agreed between them that the defendant will pay Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff as filing charges of both the cases and thereafter, plaintiff will pay Rs.3200/- each per hearing to plaintiff on every date of hearing and plaintiff already paid all the amount to the plaintiff in cash at every date of hearing in both cases, but the plaintiff never issued any receipt to the defendant.
Digitally signed by VARUN Civil Suit No.873/18 VARUN CHANDRA H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 Page No.7 of 35 17:05:58 +0530
14. He argued that that the plaintiff was engaged after replacing the previous counsel, so paying Rs.15,000/- filing charges is false submission and the defendant did not tell the single date of the payment. It is proved that defendant is giving false statement on the record. Accordingly promissory note was accepted and payment was only paid Rs.8,000/- to plaintiff.
15. He argued that denial of legal notice, despite the report of refusal of the courier on record and not given the single date of payment proved that the defendant is giving a false statement.
16. He argued that in the light of abovesaid submissions and circumstances, the suit may be decreed in the favour of the plaintiff.
17. Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the defendant argued that the plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.1,57,000/- allegedly being professional fees, relying primarily on an alleged promissory note dated 16.08.2016 marked as Mark PW1/18. The defendant has categorically denied execution of any such promissory note and has consistently maintained that all agreed fees were paid in cash. The suit is liable to be dismissed for failure to prove the alleged promissory note, non-production of original document, and violation of principles governing advocate-client fee arrangements.
Digitally
signed by
VARUN
VARUN CHANDRA
Civil Suit No.873/18 CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi 17:06:06
Page No.8 of 35
+0530
18. He argued that the plaintiff has failed to produce the original promissory note despite allegedly being in possession of the same. Only a photocopy has been placed on record. Under Sections 61 and 62 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, documents must be proved by primary evidence except where secondary evidence is legally permissible. The plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved any circumstances entitling him to lead secondary evidence. The deliberate withholding of the original document, despite claiming to be in possession of the same, gives rise to a strong adverse inference against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a statutory obligation to produce the original document. This non-production creates a strong presumption that the original, if produced, would have gone against the plaintiff's interest and warrants rejection of the document and dismissal of the suit.
19. He argued the defendant has specifically denied execution of the promissory note in para 4 of the written statement and filed an affidavit of admission and denial categorically denying the execution, correctness of content, existence, issuance and receipt of the promissory laces a heavy burden on the plaintiff to prove execution by clear and convincing evidence. The plaintiff has failed to discharge this burden by: (a) not examining any attesting witness; (b) not calling any handwriting expert; (c) r not sending the document to Forensic Science Laboratory for verification despite categorical denial; and (d) merely relying on a photocopy without proving genuineness.
Digitally
signed by
VARUN
VARUN CHANDRA
Civil Suit No.873/18 CHANDRA Date:
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi 2026.02.20
Page No.9 of 35 17:06:14
+0530
20. He argued that the plaintiff's deliberate avoidance of getting the document examined by an expert when its execution is disputed creates an adverse inference that the document is fabricated. The plaintiff himself admitted in cross-examination:
"Being Advocate, I typed all the contents of the promissory note."
This raises serious questions about genuineness. Why would the plaintiff himself prepare a promissory note which he now relies upon to claim fees? In normal course, either the defendant would have prepared it or it would have been prepared jointly. The circumstances are highly suspicious: (a) plaintiff himself typed it;
(b) no witnesses attested it; (c) not executed on stamp paper; and
(d) original not produced.
21. He argued that during cross-examination of the plaintiff, a significant typographical error occurred creating an admission contrary to the defendant's consistent stand. The cross- examination reads: "It is correct that one promissory note was executed by the defendant for the amount of Rs.1,57,000/-..." This should have read "It is incorrect that no promissory note was executed... " The use of "correct" instead of "incorrect" is manifestly erroneous and contrary to the entire tenor of the defendant's case as pleaded in the written statement and testified during examination as DW-1. This patent typographical error, apparent on the face of record and inconsistent with all other evidence, should be ignored and the correct meaning gathered from context. Reading evidence as a whole makes it abundantly clear the defendant never admitted execution of the promissory note. Digitally signed Civil Suit No.873/18 by VARUN H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN CHANDRA Page No.10 of 35 Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:06:23
+0530
22. He argued that the alleged promissory note was not filed along with the plaint as required under Order VII Rule 14(1) CPC despite being specifically relied upon in para 4 of the plaint. The plaintiff filed this crucial document subsequently, apparently with the replication, without obtaining permission from Court and without filing any application seeking leave to produce additional documents. This is highly irregular and contrary to mandatory provisions of CPC.
23. He argued that Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC provides that a document which ought to be produced but is not produced shall not, without leave of Court, be received in evidence. The plaintiff has neither explained why the document was not filed with the plaint nor sought leave of Court to produce it belatedly. The document appears to have been filed surreptitiously with the replication without any court order. The plaintiff cannot use replication as a vehicle to file additional documents not filed with plaint. This conduct seriously affects both the admissibility and credibility of the document and supports the defendant's case that the document is an afterthought.
24. He argued that during cross-examination, the plaintiff made material admissions which strike at the root of his own case. The plaintiff admitted: "Being an advocate, I typed all the contents of the promissory note." This admission is of crucial significance. The plaintiff himself prepared the document which he now relies upon to claim recovery. No explanation has been offered as to why Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed by VARUN Page No.11 of 35 VARUN CHANDRA Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:06:32
+0530
the alleged debtor would not prepare or at least jointly prepare such a document, or why no independent witness was involved. There is no explanation why this crucial document forming the very basis of the claim was not filed with the plaint This circumstance, when read with the non-production of the original document, renders the alleged promissory note highly suspicious and unsafe to rely upon. This conduct creates strong presumption that the document is not genuine and was fabricated after filing of suit.
25. He argued that the plaintiff further admitted in cross- examination that there was no written fee agreement, and that the alleged fees were settled orally. He also admitted that: "There was no condition to give any fixed amount and as per the convenience of the defendant, the entire payment was to be made before the conclusion of trial." This admission demolishes the plaintiff's claim of a fixed, crystallised liability and clearly shows that there was no definite or enforceable written arrangement regarding fees.
26. He argued that the alleged promissory note bears a witness, but the plaintiff has not examined that witness to prove execution. When a document is denied, the party relying on it must prove execution by examining the attesting witness or proving handwriting. The plaintiff has withheld the witness who could have proved execution, withheld the original, and not sent it for expert examination. When better evidence is available but not Civil Suit No.873/18 Digitally H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi signed by VARUN Page No.12 of 35 VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 17:06:39 +0530 produced, an adverse inference arises that if produced, it would have gone against that party.
27. He argued that the plaintiff has relied upon postal and courier tracking reports to claim service of legal notice. The tracking reports filed to prove service of legal notice contain contradictory and inconsistent endorsements showing the notice was never actually served. The plaintiff exhibited: Ex.PW1/2 (registered AD), Ex.PWI/3 (Speed post), Ex,PW1/4 (Courier acknowledgment), Ex.PW1/5-7 (Track reports). These reveal contradictory endorsements: (a) "item delivery attempted door locked"; (b) "not delivered receiver refuse delivery"; (c) "item delivery attempted address absent"; (d) "item delivery attempted addressee cannot be located"; and (e) "item delivery attempted unclaimed." These contradictory endorsements show postal authorities were unsure about delivery status and made different endorsements at different times. These endorsements do not amount to refusal. The defendant has categorically denied receipt of any legal notice. Endorsements showing non-availability or inability to locate the addressee cannot give rise to a presumption of valid service.
28. He argued that when the same notice is sent through three modes and all show different endorsements, it raises serious doubts about genuineness of service. If defendant was actually avoiding service, all three would show similar endorsements like "refused to accept". The contradictory endorsements show postal Digitally Civil Suit No.873/18 signed by H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN Page No.13 of 35 VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 17:06:52 +0530 authorities made random endorsements without actually attempting service.
29. He argued that the Allahabad High Court, in " Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Manoj Kumar Sahu", (2022), observed that where a registered letter is returned with postal endorsements such as "addressee not available at the address", "not met" or "out of station", it shows that there was no occasion for the postal authorities to tender the notice to the addressee and no act on the part of the addressee showing denial of receipt. In such circumstances, the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and under Section 114 of the Evidence Act cannot arise in favour of the sender.
30. He argued that the tracking reports are electronic records printed from websites of India Post and courier company. Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (replacing Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872) provides that electronic records are admissible if onditions mentioned therein are satisfied. Section 63(4) specifically requires that a certificate in prescribed form shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted as evidence. The certificate must identify the electronic record, describe manner of production, provide device details, state hash value and algorithm, and be signed by person responsible for operation of relevant device.
31. He argued that the plaintiff has not filed any certificate under Section 63 BSA along with the tracking reports. The plaintiff merely filed printouts without any certificate from postal Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.14 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:07:12
+0530
authorities or expert authenticating genuineness. In absence of such certificate, the tracking reports cannot be admitted in evidence as they do not satisfy conditions prescribed under Section 63 BSA. The tracking reports are digital documents maintained on computer systems. When such documents are sought to be proved, the party must prove authenticity by filing certificate under Section 63.
32. He argued that the entire claim is based on oral arrangement without any written fee agreement or contemporaneous documentary evidence. The plaintiff admitted:
"My fee of Rs.55,000/- per case was settled between the defendant orally" and "There was no condition to give any fix amount and as per the convenience of the defendant, the entire payment was to be made before the conclusion of trial." The plaintiff admitted receiving only Rs.8,000/- in two installments against total claimed fees of Rs.1,10,000/- for two trial court cases. If the defendant had paid only Rs.8,000/- out of Rs.l,10,000/-, why did the plaintiff continue rendering services for almost two years? Why not withdraw or refuse further services? Why agree to contest the appeal when trial court fees were allegedly unpaid?
33. He argued that when questioned, the plaintiffs answer was that the matter was won and Rs.12,00,000/- was awarded, so question of stopping services never arose. This is wholly unconvincing. If not receiving agreed fees, plaintiff had every right to withdraw. When asked why he accepted to contest appeal if defendant was not paying, plaintiff answered "It is against my Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally Page No.15 of 35 signed by VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 17:07:19 +0530 ethics." This is vague and does not explain accepting appeal when trial fees were allegedly unpaid. The plaintiff's conduct of continuing services despite alleged non-payment is contrary to normal human behavior and raises serious doubts about truthfulness of claim. 8. The plaintiff admitted: "During the period of two years, my relationship with a defendant was cordial." If defendant was not paying agreed fees and making only token payments, it is highly unlikely the relationship would remain cordial for two years, This strengthens defendant's case that all payments were made and there was no dispute regarding fees during representation. The plaintiff could not specify when the Rs.8,000/- was paid. Similarly, defendant admitted paying Rs.25,000/- for appeal but could not remember exact date. This inability to remember exact dates is natural when payments are made in cash over time in a professional relationship based on trust. Such cordiality is inconsistent with the plaintiff's allegation of persistent non-payment of fees and strongly supports the defendant's version that all agreed fees were duly paid.
34. He argued that the plaintiff's claim that defendant threatened him saying "jo karna hein karlo mein paise nahi deta.." is wholly unsubstantiated and appears to be an afterthought. The plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that he did not give any complaint to any authority regarding this alleged threat. When a person claimns to have been threatened with dire consequences but does not make any complaint to authorities, it raises serious doubts about truthfulness of the claim.
Digitally signed by VARUNCivil Suit No.873/18 CHANDRA
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi
VARUN
Date:
CHANDRA
Page No.16 of 35
2026.02.20
17:07:26
+0530
35. He argued that the plaintiff has not shown that he sent any bill or invoice to defendant demanding payment during the period when cases were going on. If defendant was not making payments, plaintiff would normally have sent bills or invoices demanding payment. No such bill or invoice was sent during two years, showing plaintiff was receiving payments regularly. The legal notice dated 26.07.2017 was sent only after all cases were concluded and settled. No demand for payment was made during pendency of cases, which is unnatural if plaintiffs claim is true.
36. He argued that Under Rule 26 of Part VI, Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules, an advocate is required to maintain proper accounts of client money and to issue receipts for amounts received. The plaintiff admittedly did not issue any receipt and has not produced any account record. Such conduct is inconsistent with professional norms and substantially weakens the eredibility of the plaintiff's version.
37. He argued that the plaintiff has not produced any bill book, ledger, receipt book or any other record showing transactions with defendant. If maintaining proper accounts, he would have maintained bill book or ledger recording fees agreed, payments received, and balance Outstanding for each client. The non-production of such records raises serious doubts about genuineness of claim. When a professional person claims fees for services rendered, he must produce accounts showing services rendered, fees charged, and payments received. Absence of such accounts creates an adverse inference against claimant. The Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.17 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:07:35
+0530
plaintiff has not produced any accounts or records supporting his claim. The only document relied upon is the alleged promissory note, which is disputed and not proved.
38. He argued that the plaintiff admitted he never gave any receipt to the defendant despite receiving payments. When defendant stated plaintiff never gave receipt on his asking, defendant was asked whether he asked for acknowledgement. Defendant's answer: "It is wrong to suggest that I did not ask the acknowledgement with regard of counsel fees as I did never ask from the plaintiff." This shows defendant trusted plaintiff and did not insist on receipts. The Bar Council of India Rules require advocates to maintain proper accounts and issue receipts for payments received. The plaintiff's failure to maintain proper accounts and issue receipts is a violation of professional ethics and casts serious doubt on his claim.
39. He argued that the plaintiff raised the alleged demand for outstanding fees only after the defendant received settlement money from the opposite parties. This conduct gives rise to a strong inference of result-linked expectation, which is impermissible Rule 20 of Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II provides that an advocate shall not stipulate for a fee contingent on results of litigation or agree to share proceeds thereof. The plaintiff admitted he continued to render services for two years despite alleged non-payment, and only raised demand after defendant received settlement amount of Rs.11,51,000/- from opposite parties. This shows plaintiff was waiting for outcome and Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed by Page No.18 of 35 VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 17:07:42 +0530 wanted to claim fees based on result achieved. This conduct is contrary to Bar Council Rules and amounts to claiming contingent fees.
40. He argued that the plaintiff claimed fees of Rs,55,000/- for contesting an appeal which was eventually settled between parties. The plaintiff admitted that on 22,07,2017, defendant settled all matters with opposite parties for Rs.l1,51,000/-. If matter was settled, what services did plaintiff render in appeal for which he is claiming Rs.55.000/-? Plaintiff cannot claim fees for services not rendered or for a case settled without any contest. Plaintiff cannot claim fees based on amount recovered or received by defendant from opposite parties. Fees must be determined based on agreement between plaintiff and defendant and services rendered, not based on result or amount recovered.
41. He argued that in "Ganga Ram vs. Devi Dasi" (1907), it was held that contingent fees are void and against public policy as they go against ethical conduct of lawyers. An advocate cannot make fees dependent upon result or amount recovered by client. The plaintiffs conduct shows he was seeking to claim fees based on settlement amount received by defendant. The alleged promissory note was conveniently prepared after one case resulted in favor of defendant and after defendant received substantial compensation, This timing is highly suspicious and indicates plaintiff fabricated promissory note to extract money.
Digitally
signed by
Civil Suit No.873/18 VARUN
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN CHANDRA
CHANDRA Date:
Page No.19 of 35 2026.02.20
17:07:50
+0530
42. He argued that the plaintiff has withheld material evidence, failed to prove the foundational document, and has not supported his claim with any contemporaneous record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath" has held that a litigant who does not approach the Court with clean hands is not entitled to relief. The conduct of the plaintiff squarely attracts this principle.
43. He argued that the defendant has consistently maintained that all agreed professional fees were paid in cash during the course of representation. In professional relationships founded on trust and confidence, cash payments without receipts are not uncommon. The overall probabilities, conduct of the parties, and evidence on record clearly favour the defendant's case.
44. He argued that the plaintiffs conduct throughout proceedings shows he has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The plaintiff has concealed material facts: (a) not disclosed that he himself typed the alleged promissory note; (b) not produced original promissory note despite being in possession;
(c) not explained why he continued to render services for two years despite alleged non-payment; (d) not produced any bill book or ledger Showing transactions; and (e) filed the promissory note belatedly without court permission. All these factors show the plaintiff is not a truthful witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon.
Digitally
signed by
VARUN
Civil Suit No.873/18 VARUN CHANDRA
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi CHANDRA Date:
Page No.20 of 35 2026.02.20
17:07:57
+0530
45. He argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath", (1994) 1 SCC 1 has held that "A litigant who approaches the Court must come with clean hands. If the Court finds that the litigant has not disclosed material facts or has misrepresented facts, the Court can dismiss the suit on the ground that the litigant has not come with clean hands." The plaintiff has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts. The suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
46. He argued that the plaintiff continued to render services for almost two years without making any complaint or protest regarding non-payment of fees. The plaintiff agreed to contest appeal when allegedly trial court fees had not been paid. By his conduct, plaintiff led defendant to believe that all payments were being received and there was no dispute regarding fees. Having acted in this manner, plaintiff cannot now turn around and claim fees were not paid. Whena person by his conduct leads another to believe that a certain state of affairs exists and the other person acts on that belief to his detriment. The first person is estopped from denying that state of affairs. The plaintiff is estopped from claiming that fees were not paid.
47. He argued that the plaintiff is legally estopped from claiming any alleged arrears of fees, as he continued to render professional services for a continuous period of nearly two years without once raising a protest or demand regarding non-payment. By subsequently agreeing to contest the Appeal after the Civil Suit No.873/18 Digitally H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi signed by Page No.21 of 35 VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 17:08:03 +0530 conclusion of the Trial Court proceedings, the plaintiff by his own conduct led the defendant to believe that all prior accounts stood settled and no dues remained. The plaintiff cannot now be permitted to 'turn around' and claim that fees were unpaid. Under the Doctrine of Estoppel, the plaintiff's long-standing silence and continued representation act as a waiver of any such claims, rendering the present suit a mere afterthought and legally unsustainable."
48. He argued that the defendant has consistently maintained throughout proceedings that all agreed fees were paid to plaintiff in cash. The defendant stated in written statement that he paid Rs.15,000/- as filing charges for both cases and thereafter Rs.2,500/- on every date of hearing. For the appeal, he paid Rs.25,000/- before contesting the appeal. During examination as DW-1. defendant reiterated the same stand. In professional relationships between advocates and clients, payments are often made in cash without receipts, particularly where there is relationship of trust and confidence. Absence ofreceipts does not necessarily mean payment was not made. Court has to examine evidence asa whole and determine truth based on probabilities and conduct of parties.
49. He argued that the defendant stated in cross- examination: "It is correct that no settlement talks/dialogues have been done between the plaintiff and me after disposal of all the cases." This shows there was no dispute between parties regarding fees after conclusion of cases. If Rs.1,57,000/- was outstanding as Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.22 of 35 by VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 17:08:10 +0530 claimed, there would have been discussions or negotiations after conclusion. Absence of such discussions shows all payments had been made by defendant.
50. He argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. The plaintiff has failed to prove execution of alleged promissory note, failed to produce original, failed to explain conduct of continuing services for two years despite alleged non-payment, failed to produce any accounts or records, and has not come with clean hands. The typographical error in cross-examination created an admission contrary to defendant's consistent stand and should be corrected. The defendant has consistently maintained that all agreed fees were paid, and this defense is supported by probabilities and conduct of parties.
51. The issue wise findings, in this case are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.1,57,000/- against the defendant? OPP
52. The onus of said issues was upon the defendant to prove.
53. In order to prove his case, one witness viz., PW1, Sh. H.S. Rai was examined in support of the case of the plaintiff. During examination in chief, the plaintiff viz. PW1, Sh. H.S. Rai has tendered in evidence his affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. He has Civil Suit No.873/18 Digitally signed by H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN Page No.23 of 35 VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20 17:08:17 +0530 relied upon the following documents viz., Notice dated 26.07.2017, Ex.PW1/1(OSR)(Colly); Original postal acknowledgment (registered AD), Ex.PW1/2; speed post, Ex.PW1/3; original courier acknowledgment, Ex.PW1/4; track report of courier, Ex.PW1/5; track report of registered AD, Ex.PW1/6; track report of speed post, Ex.PW1/7; certified copy of vakalatnama along with trial court filed documents, Ex.PW1/8(Colly); certified copies of vakalatnama along with trial court filed documents pertaining to case no. CC 6390/1/112 titled as "Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Vs. Yukta", Ex.PW1/9; certified copies of ordersheets of appeal CA no. 31/12/2016 and 54367/16, Ex.PW1/10; certified copies dated 22.07.2017 pertaining to appeal CA No. 31/12/16 & 54367/16, Ex.PW1/11; certified copies of party's statement dated 22.07.2017 of Yukta and Paramjeet Singh Oberoi, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13(Colly); certified copies of memorandum understanding dated 21.07.2017, Ex.PW1/14;
certified copies of judgment dated 10.03.2016 passed by Sh. Ajay Malik, Ld. MM pertaining to case title Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Vs. Yukta CC no. 6390/1/12; Ex.PW1/15; certified copies of order of quantum of sentence dated 05.04.2016 by Sh. Ajay Malik, Ld. MM pertaining to case title Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Vs. Yukta CC no. 6390/1/12, Ex.PW1/16; copy of BCD Card issued by BCD, Ex.PW1/17 and promissory note/undertaking dated 16.08.2016, Mark PW1/18.
54. In order to prove his case, one witness viz., DW1, Sh. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi was examined in support of the case of the defendant. During examination in chief, the defendant viz.
Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Page No.24 of 35 Digitally signed by VARUN VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date: 2026.02.20 17:08:24 +0530
DW1, Paramjeet Singh Oberoi has tendered in evidence his affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A. He has relied upon the following documents viz., copy of Aadhaar card of the deponent, Ex.DW1/1(OSR) and copy of order dated 09.08.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Mark A.
55. The plaintiff has claimed that he contested three cases for the defendant wherein all three matters were mutually decided to be contested with all-inclusive fees of Rs.55,000/- each; that the defendant merely made a paltry sum of Rs.8,000/- and despite request failed to make payments; for which the plaintiff had to prefer the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,57,000/-. To corroborate his claim, he has furnished the certified copies of the legal proceedings along with duly signed vakalatnama on his behalf; copy of a promissory note; and tracking report regarding delivery of legal demand notice. It has been argued on his behalf that the defendant denied his hard-earned money/legal fees despite him ensuring the matter being awarded in favor of the defendant for the sum of Rs.11,50,000/-.
56. It has been argued on behalf of the defendant that the alleged claim of plaintiff is wrong and baseless as the agreed fees was Rs.15,000/- for filing charges and Rs.3,200/- for each hearing, which was duly paid by him by way of cash; that plaintiff failed to furnish original promissory note; did not lead sufficient evidence to prove said document; admitted writing said promissory note himself; that plaintiff failed to produce any ledger/statement of account/fixed criteria on basis of which stated amount has been Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.25 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:08:31
+0530
claimed by him; that legal demand notice was not duly served; and no certificate under Section 63 BSA was furnished alongwith; despite claim of non-payment for two years, plaintiff did not withdraw from the case; that plaintiff had result-linked expectation from the defendant.
57. All arguments were duly considered by this court while determining the aforesaid issue. While the defendant claims the promissory note has not been produced before this court by way of separate application under Order 7 Rule 14, same was not objected to by him during the entire proceedings of the trial. The promissory note was duly denied by him by way of affidavit after the same was filed. No objections were raised at the time when said document was being relied upon by the plaintiff during evidence. The defendant failed to ask the plaintiff in his cross- examination to reproduce the original of the document before this court. Perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiff reflects that the suggestion was made to the plaintiff regarding the promissory note which was duly accepted by him. The claim of the defendant that the evidence recorded in open court be read as otherwise at the stage of final arguments cannot be accepted, as the same has been duly decided by way of separate order dated 12.02.2026. Be as it may, the document has not been proved by the plaintiff and the same shall be considered accordingly.
58. The defendant has contested the claim of the plaintiff regarding non-payment of fees in the following manner: one, that entire amount was duly paid at the due stage of trial; two, that no Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.26 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:08:37
+0530
ledger/account book was maintained by the plaintiff; three, that plaintiff had result-linked expectation regarding fees, same being illegal under Bar Council Rules under Part VI; that plaintiff while knowing that payments were not made continued to represent the defendant and did not withdraw, entailing law of estoppel on his claim.
59. When the onus was upon the defendant to disprove the claim of the defendant and he had specifically pleaded that entire amount was paid by him, i.e. filing fees of Rs.15,000/- and an amount of Rs.3,200/- per hearing; the defendant states that no receipt was issued by the plaintiff despite his request. The defendant did not produce any bank withdrawal statement to corroborate his claim of complete payments being made. Simple production of a few bank withdrawals would have shown that cash had been paid by the defendant. The defendant failed to show that the due amount was being paid to the plaintiff by him for the entirety of the period of two years; so much so that he admitted that said amount was not disclosed by him in his ITR during his cross-examination. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff also finds its applicability here as the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant during the pendency of the matter before the trial court, i.e., he had not undertaken any filing procedure whatsoever.
60. The defendant, while attempting to disprove the alleged claim of the plaintiff, himself took an antithetical stand, as he himself has suggested that in professional relationships between advocates and clients where there is a relationship of trust and Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.27 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:08:44
+0530
confidence, cash payments without receipts is a common practice.
61. The defendant in his bid to disprove the defendant, took multiple stances which weakened his end of the arguments furnished before this court. While on one hand, the defendant states that cash payments could be made on trust, on the other hand he claims the statement of cordial relation between the plaintiff and defendant could not be true, since the plaintiff had claimed that no payment was being made for the period of two years.
62. The defendant has relied upon the Bar Council Rules, Part VI to show the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff. Part VI Section II, Rule 11 to 33 i.e. duties to the client is being reproduced hereunder:-
"Section II Duty to the client:
11. An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities in or before which he proposes to practise at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case.
Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief.
12. An advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from engagements, once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notices is given to the client. Upon his withdrawal from a case, he shall refund such part of the fee as has not been earned.
13. An advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a case in which he has reason to believe that he will be a witness, and if being engaged in a case, it becomes Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.28 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20 17:08:52 +0530 apparent that he is a witness on a material question of fact, he should not continue to appear as an Advocate if he can retire without jeopardising his client's interests.
14. An advocate shall at the commencement of his engagement and during the continuance thereof, make all such full and frank disclosure to his client relating to his connection with the parties and any interest in or about the controversy as are likely to affect his client's judgement in either engaging him or continuing the engagement.
15. It shall be the duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. He shall defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, bearing in mind that his loyalty is to the law which requires that no man should be convicted without adequate evidence.
16. An advocate appearing for the prosecution of a criminal trial shall so conduct the prosecution that it does not lead to conviction of the innocent. The suppression of material capable of establishment the innocence of the accused shall be scrupulously avoided.
17. An advocate shall not, directly or indirectly, commit a breach of the obligations imposed by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
18. An advocate shall not, at any time, be a party to fomenting of litigation.
19. An advocate shall not act on the instructions of any person other than his client or his authorized agent.
Digitally
Civil Suit No.873/18 signed by
VARUN
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN CHANDRA
Page No.29 of 35 CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20
17:08:59
+0530
20. An advocate shall not stipulate for a fee contingent on the results of litigation or agree to share the proceeds thereof.
21. An advocate shall not buy or traffic in or stipulate for or agree to receive any share or interest in any actionable claim. Nothing in this rule shall apply to stock, shares and debentures of government securities, or to any instruments which are, for the time being, by law or custom, negotiable or to any mercantile document of title to goods.
22. An advocate shall not, directly or indirectly, bid for or purchase, either in his own name or in any other name, for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other person, any property sold in the execution of a decree or order in any suit, appeal or other proceeding in which he was in any way professionally engaged. This prohibition, however, does not prevent an advocate from bidding for or purchasing for his client any property which his client may himself legally bid for or purchase, provided the Advocate is expressly authorised in writing in this behalf.
22A. An advocate shall not directly or indirectly bid in court auction or acquire by way of sale, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer either in his own name or in any other name for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other person any property which is subject matter of any suit appeal or other proceedings in which he is in any way professionally engaged.
23. An advocate shall not adjust fee payable to him by his client against his own personal liability to the client, which liability does not arise in the course of his employment as an advocate. Digitally signed by Civil Suit No.873/18 VARUN H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN CHANDRA CHANDRA Date:
Page No.30 of 35 2026.02.20
17:09:05
+0530
24. An advocate shall not do anything whereby he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.
25. An advocate should keep accounts of the client's money entrusted to him, and the accounts should show the amounts received from the client or on his behalf, the expenses incurred for him and the debits made on account of fees with respective dates and all other necessary particular.
26. Where moneys are received from or on account of a client, the entries in the accounts should contain a reference as to whether the amounts have been received for fees or expenses and during the course of the proceeding, no advocates shall, except with the consent in writing of the client concerned, be at liberty to divert any portion of the expenses towards fees.
27. Where any amount is received or given to him on behalf of his client, the fact of such receipt must be intimated to the client, as early as possible.
28. After the termination of the proceeding, the advocate shall be at liberty to appropriate towards the settled fee due to him, any sum remaining unexpended out of the amount paid or sent to him for expenses or any amount that has come into his hands in that proceeding.
29. Where the fee has been left unsettled, the advocate shall be entitled to deduct, out of any moneys of the client remaining in his hands, at the termination of the proceeding for which he had been engaged, the fee payable under the rules of the Court, in force for the time being, or by then settled and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the client.
Digitally
signed by
Civil Suit No.873/18 VARUN
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi VARUN CHANDRA
Page No.31 of 35 CHANDRA Date:
2026.02.20
17:09:11
+0530
30. A copy of the client's account shall be furnished to him on demand provided the necessary copying charge is paid.
31. An advocate shall not enter into arrangements whereby funds in his hands are converted into loans.
32. An advocate shall not lend money to his client for the purpose of any action or legal proceedings in which he is engaged by such client.
Explanation. An advocate shall not be held guilty for a breach of this rule, if in the course of a pending suit or proceeding, and without any arrangement with the client in respect of the same, the advocate feels compelled by reason of the rule of the Court to make a payment to the Court on account of the client for the progress of the suit or proceeding.
33. An advocate who has, at any time, advised in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other matter or has drawn pleadings, or acted for a party, shall not act, appear or plead for the opposite party."
63. Perusal of the document would entail that the plaintiff was following due ethics as per the guidelines mentioned in the Bar Council Rules specified hereinabove. The claim of the defendant that plaintiff waited to send notice after the appeal was duly settled and the defendant was awarded an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- showing result linked expectation does not hold any ground; as the defendant failed to explain why would the plaintiff contest on his behalf for the period two years and ask for the stated amount when the final settlement agreement was Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed Page No.32 of 35 by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20 17:09:17 +0530 completed for a good sum of Rs.11,50,000/- as on 22.07.2017 and even after the trial court matter was awarded in favor of the defendant herein for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- as on 10.03.2016. It has been argued on behalf of the defendant, that when the settlement was reached between the parties in the appeal, the plaintiff had not given much effort or services in the matter.
However, the certified copies of CC 6391/1/12 reflect that the plaintiff was present from the stage of Complainant's evidence. The final settlement between the given parties in the appeal only occurred after the final arguments were furnished before the Ld. Appellate Court. The defendant herein has taken opposite stands again, as on one hand he claims that the plaintiff did not render much service as the matter got settled, while on the other hand says that plaintiff only worked with result-linked expectation. He has strayed from his own claim that complete payments were duly made by him to the plaintiff.
64. Lastly, it had been argued on behalf of the defendant that the legal notice was not duly received given multiple copies were sent that generated multiple reasons of service/non-service. It is pertinent to mention that the address of the defendant on the legal notice is stated as A-166, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi - 110018. The Aadhar Card furnished by the defendant reflects the address of the defendant as A-166, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi - 110018. The address of the defendant in the memo of parties state it to be A-166, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi - 110018. The plaintiff has duly filed the original postal receipts wherein the legal notice was sent by way of registered post to the defendant, thereby, drawing the Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Digitally signed by VARUN Page No.33 of 35 VARUN CHANDRA Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20
17:09:24
+0530
applicability of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The defendant cannot claim the tracking report to be not admissible in evidence and then rely upon its entries to disprove the service of the notice. While it is stated that multiple reasons were mentioned, perusal of the tracking report reflects that multiple entries were generated against the legal notice vide consignment number ED320574559IN and RD7892073341N. The end result of both tracking report reflect that they were duly delivered. Further, the summons issued by the court upon the same address were initially returned back with the remarks "refused by wife" and "refused by brother", against which the defendant had to be proceeded ex- parte. This entails the conduct of the defendant that he did not take the proceedings of the court seriously. Further, on the note of conduct, it is pertinent to mention that the defendant changed his own counsel contesting the matter multiple times. There are 4 vakalatnamas furnished on behalf of the defendant, and none of them were duly withdrawn once the next one was filed. Said conduct weakened the claims of the defendant in the present matter.
65. Thus, the court is of the opinion that the defendant has failed to shift the onus of proof and the plaintiff has succeeded to prove his claim on the scale of preponderance of probability. In view of reasons discussed, the issue is awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Digitally
signed by
ISSUE NO.2 VARUN
VARUN CHANDRA
CHANDRA Date:
Civil Suit No.873/18 2026.02.20
H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi 17:09:32
Page No.34 of 35 +0530
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the interest from the defendant @ 36% per annum? OPP
66. Given issue no 1 has been decided in favor of the plaintiff, the present issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff as well, however, the relief of 36% is decided to be on the higher side. The plaintiff is hereby awarded pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
RELIEF
67. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,57,000/- along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization.
68. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Note : This judgment contains 35 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. Digitally signed by VARUN CHANDRA VARUN Date:
CHANDRA 2026.02.20 17:09:42 +0530 Pronounced in open court (Varun Chandra) today on 20.02.2026 CJ-02/Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Civil Suit No.873/18 H.S. Rai Vs. Paramjeet Singh Oberoi Page No.35 of 35