Delhi District Court
Shri D. N. Talwar vs Shri Atul Duggal on 30 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE CENTRAL-09: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS N0. 75/06.
UID No. 02401C0260252006.
Shri D. N. Talwar
son of late Shri Ishwar Dass Talwar
resident of 6B/4, Ramesh Nagar
Main Market
New Delhi
........... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Atul Duggal
S/o. Shri Dalip Duggal
2. Shri Arun Duggal
S/o. Shri Dewan Chand Duggal
Both r/o Duggal Motor Service
Blind School, Panchkuian Road
New Delhi
Also at :
R/o. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar
IInd Floor, New Delhi
......... Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 30.03.2006.
Date of reserving for judgment : 30.07.2014.
Date of judgment : 30.07.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,80,000/- filed by the plaintiff.
CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 1
2. Brief facts of the case are :
a) In the last week of May, 2005, the defendants had approached
and persuaded the plaintiff to grant them a loan of Rs. 8 lacs as they were in financial constraints. The plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 8 lacs in favour of the defendants on 31/05/2005 which was agreed by the defendants to repay within a period of four months along with interest @ 12% p.a. Defendants had also executed an undertaking dated 31/05/2005 in favour of the plaintiff thereby agreeing to repay the said loan amount of Rs. 8 lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. within a period of four months.
b) It was further agreed that the said loan shall remain as a charge over their property bearing no. 8/18, second and third floor, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. It was further undertaken not to dispose of the said property till the entire loan amount along with interest is repaid by them to the plaintiff.
c) However, the intention of the defendants became malafide and they neither repaid the loan amount nor interest thereon inspite of repeated requests and approaches made by the plaintiff in this regard from time to time.
d) The plaintiff issued demand notice to the defendants through his counsel on 09/03/2006 which was duly served upon the defendants but in spite of receipt of the same, defendants failed to comply with the contents of the same and rather they threatened the plaintiff that they would sell, transfer, alienate, dispose of and/or create some charge and lien over their property bearing no. 8/18, second and third floor, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi by sale or otherwise. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay the amount as well as interest thereupon.
3. Written statement filed by the defendant wherein it is stated that in CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 2 January, 2005 the family of the defendants had sold their house at Karol Bagh and were looking for a suitable property in Ramesh Nagar. For this purpose they contacted a property dealer namely Talwar Properties and Estate Agents. The said property dealer in March 2005, introduced them to the plaintiff being intending seller. At that time the plaintiff represented himself to be the owner of the second and third floors of the property bearing no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi measuring 100 sq. yds. The family of the defendants liked the above property and decided to purchase the same. Accordingly, two bayana receipts were executed between the parties i.e. Sh. Dalip Duggal and Sh. Arun Duggal on 31/03/2005 i.e. one for the second floor and the other for the third floor. As per the above two receipts the total consideration for the two floors was agreed at Rs. 23,30,000/- i.e. Rs. 12,50,000/- for the second floor and Rs. 10,80,000/- for the third floor. It is manifest that father of defendant no. 1 namely Sh. Dalip Duggal was shown as the purchaser for the second floor and stated to have paid an advance in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e. Rs. 1 lakh vide cheque no. 617671 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Connaught Place and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. At the time when the aforesaid bayana receipts were executed, one room on the third floor of the aforesaid property was in a semi finished condition. At that time the plaintiff had agreed that he would get the same fully constructed and properly finished. But later on the plaintiff showed his difficulty in completing the said room and accordingly, it was agreed between the parties that aforesaid sale consideration of Rs. 23,30,000/- for both the floors shall be reduced by Rs. 1 lakh and thereby reducing the total agreed sale consideration to Rs. 22,30,000/-. To confirm the above position, the plaintiff made endorsement of the above amount on the aforesaid two bayana receipts The plaintiff also offered to get the loan arranged from CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 3 ICICI Bank for the family of the defendants as it was informed by the plaintiff that he got nexus with the said bank. Accordingly, the plaintiff organized meetings between defendant no. 2, father of defendant no. 1 and the officials of the ICICI Bank at his residence. Thus, the family of defendants have full faith in the plaintiff and started giving all the documents i.e. blank papers, printed forms, cheques etc. as suggested and demanded by the plaintiff on the premise that the same were required by the bank. The defendant and their family are having the business of motor workshop under the name and style of M/s. Duggal Motor Centre, Pachkuian Road, New Delhi. The officials of the bank after examining all the documents furnished by the defendants and their family members had also regarding the aforesaid business, told defendants no. 2 and father of defendant no. 1 that they could jointly get a loan of Rs. 11 lacs. Defendant no. 2 and father of defendant no. 1 agreed to avail the aforesaid loan through the plaintiff. The bank finalized the loan in the last week of May, 2005. The bank had to disburse the loan only at the time of completion of the sale transaction and prepared the cheque/draft directly in the name of the seller, the official of the bank informed them and the plaintiff that as per the title documents shown to them the second and third floors of the property stood in the name of the wife of the plaintiff namely Smt. Kanta Rani. Accordingly, the bank advised that since the title documents of the property were only in the name of the wife of the plaintiff, the sale documents have to be executed by her only and the draft/cheque shall be prepared in her name only. Therefore, bank advised to enter into agreement to sell in writing between Smt. Kanta Rani and the purchasers. Accordingly, an agreement to sell dated 30/05/2005 was executed between Smt. Kanta Rani and the defendants. Thereafter, the bank disbursed the said amount in favour of defendant no. 2 and CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 4 father of defendant no. 1. Thereafter, the wife of the plaintiff namely Smt. Kanta Rani executed the sale deed in respect of the second and third floor of property no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi in favour of father of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 on 08/06/2005. Defendants had paid total sale consideration of Rs. 22,30,000/-. However, the plaintiff still demanded more money from defendant no. 2 and father of defendant no. 1. The plaintiff made wrongful and illegal demands on account of expenses towards registration, balance sale consideration, for organizing loan from the bank and for installing iron gates etc. The plaintiff also started blackmail and defraud the defendants forged and fabricated the so called undertaking dated 31/05/2005 on the blank stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. Rest of the contents of the plaint are denied in view of the submissions made therein. It is vehemently denied that the defendants never executed undertaking dated 31/05/2005 in favour of the plaintiff. It is admitted that notice dated 09/03/2006 was issued by the plaintiff and the same was received by the defendant.
4. Replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant wherein the averments made in the written statement are denied and contents of the plaint are re-iterated and affirmed.
5. My ld predecessor by order dated 27/01/2010 framed following issues :
"(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based on forged and fabricated undertaking dated 31.05.2005 ? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amount claimed ? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP.
(iv) Relief." CS No. 75/06. D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 5
6. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P-1 (PW1). He further relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3. In defence, defendant no. 2 examined himself as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. He further relied upon documents Ex. DW1/3 to DW1/13 and Ex. DW1/16 to DW1/22. DW1 examined himself as DW2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A. Defendant further examined Sh. Dalip Duggal as DW3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW3/A. All these witnesses were cross-
examined by ld counsel for the plaintiff and thereafter by separate statement, ld counsel for the defendant closed DE.
7. I have gone through the entire record of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led by the parties and documents proved by the parties during trial. My issuewise findings are :
8. Issues No. 1 & 2.
Issue No. 1 : Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based on forged and fabricated undertaking dated 31.05.2005 ? OPD. Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amount claimed ?
OPP.
Onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the defendants whereas onus to prove issue no. 2 is upon the plaintiff. Since facts pertaining to both these issues are common, therefore, I am going to decide both these issues by common findings. Ex. P1 is similar to the averments made in the plaint. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that he is a builder for the last 10-15 years. He is an income tax assessee for the last 10-12 years. In the year 2005, he and his wife had no other property in their name except the property at property no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar.
CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 6 He has purchased property no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar in the name of his wife for the purpose of building second and third floor and reselling the same after raising the construction. The defendants were introduced to him by the owner of property no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. He did not remember but he was elder brother of Sh. Gulshan. He has admitted that at the time when he was introduced with the defendant the construction was still in progress. At that time the rooms at the third floor were being finished. He has admitted receipts cum agreement dated 31/03/2005 as Ex. PW1/D1 and Ex. PW1/D2as they bore his signatures at points C and D. Ex. PW1/D1 is perused. It is a documents executed by the plaintiff. He also identified the signature of Sh. Avinash on documents at points E and F and the signatures of Sh. Atul Duggal at points G and H. He further identified his signatures at back of Ex. PW1/D1 at points I and J. He has further stated that he did not remember whether the sale consideration was reduced for a sum of Rs. 1 lac from Rs. 23,30,000/- to Rs. 22,30,000/-. He has further admitted that Ex. PW1/D1 and Ex. PW1/D2 bore his handwriting at points K and L in token of sale consideration of Rs. 1 lac. He further admits issue of Ex. PW1/D3 in his own handwriting at the front as well as back. He has further stated that he has received the balance sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the balance sale consideration and rest of the amount also as mentioned in the slip Ex. PW1/D3. He has further stated that the entry 'loan KA' is not in his handwriting on Ex. PW1/D3. He has further stated that in other entries the words are also not in his handwriting. Only the entries in figures are in his handwriting since he is illiterate. He has further stated that he had approximately sum of Rs. 10-12 lacs in his bank account in May 2005 in State Bank of India, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi. He has further stated that the defendant had demanded a loan of Rs. 8 lacs on 31/03/2005 CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 7 approximately and was to be returned after 2 months in May 2005. He had withdrawn some amount from the bank and some amount was lying with him. He had paid the loan of Rs. 8 lacs on 31/03/2005. He has further stated that Ex. PW1/1 was signed in his presence. He did not remember who had signed on Ex. PW1/1. The signatures appearing on Ex. PW1/1 are of two persons standing in the court and are of his nephew. Ex. PW1/1 is undertaking executed by Sh. Atul Duggal i.e. defendant no. 1. He could not identify the signatures of Sh. Dalip Duggal, Sh. Arun Duggal and Sh. Atul Duggal. A suggestion was given that he had never given any loan of Rs. 8 lacs to the defendants and the suggestion was denied. He has further proved statement of account regarding saving bank account with SBI which is Ex. PW1/D1. He has further admitted that the entry at point A is the amount received from the defendants by his wife in regard to sale of property no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. In the statement of account Ex. PW1/D1 at point A there is entry of Rs. 8,80,000/-. Contents of Ex. DW1/A are similar to the averments made in the written statement. DW1 further relied upon Ex. DW1/3 which is agreement to sell dated 30/05/2005. Sale deed executed by Smt. Kanta Rani in respect of property bearing no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi along with proportionate ownership rights is Ex. DW1/7. During cross- examination, it is stated by DW1 that the third floor property bearing no. 8/18, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi was agreed to be sold for Rs. 10,80,000/- and the second floor for Rs. 12,50,000/-. Two separate agreements were entered into between the parties in respect of 2nd and 3rd floor on 31/03/2005. At the time of registration of the sale deed, Smt. Kanta Rani, plaintiff and Sh. Dalip Duggal were present. Out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 11 lacs, a cheque of Rs. 8,80,000/- was made in the name of Smt. Kanta Rani and two cheques of Rs.
CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 8 1,10,000/- each were made in the name of himself and Sh. Dalip Duggal. He has admitted that he has not made any complaint to the local police that his signatures were obtained by the plaintiff on Ex. PW1/1 by fraud of concealment of the material facts. Contents of Ex. DW2/A are also similar to the averments made in Ex. DW1/A. During cross-examination he identified signature at Ex. PW1/1 of Sh. Dalip Duggal and Sh. Arun Duggal. Sh. Dalip Duggal is father of defendant no. 1 and brother of defendant no. 2. He also stated similar facts as stated in Ex. DW3/A. He has admitted about the issue of notice Ex. PW1/3 by Ms. Veena Goswami, advocate. He further admits that the notice was drafted upon his instructions and served upon the plaintiff. He has further stated that he has not shown any sale purchase regarding the property in his income tax return or not any mutation was done in this property. He identified his signature Ex. PW1/1 at point C. He has further stated that he has not made any complaint to police or in any department regarding his signatures taken on blank stamp papers.
9. Ex. PW1/1 is carefully perused. At the back of Ex. PW1/1, this is a stamp paper having noting that it was issued in the name of Sh. Arun Duggal i.e. defendant no. 2 for the purpose of execution of I-Bond on 31/05/2005. This is a stamp paper of value of Rs. 100/- and undertaking was executed for a loan amount of Rs. 8 lacs by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. It is is the case of defendants and all his witnesses that this document was executed fraudulently. However, admittedly none of the witness of the defendant including the defendants made any police complaint regarding this document. The fact remains that plaintiff also not come with clean hands before this court and to disclose about Ex. PW1/D1 and Ex. PW1/D2. These CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 9 documents executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 2 and Sh. Dalip Duggal. It is the case of the plaintiff that he advanced the loan of Rs. 8 lacs to the defendants. The plaintiff also did not disclose in the plaint that Ex. PW1/D1 and Ex. PW1/D2 were executed in token of the sale consideration of Rs. 1 lac. He has also stated that he had approximately a sum of Rs. 10-12 lacs in his bank SBI, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi. However the statement of account already exhibited and from December, 2004 to June, 2005 there never a sum of Rs. 10 to 12 lacs were lying in his bank account. On 11/06/2005 at point A, there is a credit entry of Rs. 8,80,000/- and at that point there was a balance amount of Rs. 8,91,992.91. It was highest entry in the bank account of the plaintiff but there was never a sum of Rs. 10-12 lacs in his bank account. It is further stated that he had withdrawn a sum of the amount from the bank and some of the amount was with him and he paid the amount on 31/03/2005. But the fact remains that till 11/06/2005 there was no debit entry in six figures as per the statement of account of plaintiff's proved. There is another debit entry of Rs. 5 lacs on 11/06/2005 i.e. on the same day when there is credit entry in his bank account of Rs. 8,80,000/- but that entry was also through cheque. Therefore, on 31/03/2005 the specific day there is no debit entry from the account of the plaintiff then how the plaintiff got arranged such a huge amount on 31/03/2005 is not explained. On the other hand, this court further observes that the defendants are not telling truth about Ex. PW1/1 only either to conceal something or to mislead this court. The document was executed and it was signed not by DW1 but by DW2 also and both of them stated that they did not made any complaint about the fraud committed in respect of Ex. PW1/1 to the police. The stamp paper used for preparation of Ex. PW1/1 was purchased by DW1 himself. In such circumstances, this CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 10 court is of the considered opinion that defendants are also not coming with truth before this court. Therefore, the plaintiff as well as both defendants are not telling true facts before this court. Whereas, the plaintiff is not able to prove about the loan given by him to the defendants for the amount of Rs. 8 lacs and on the other side defendants are also not able to prove about the fraud during execution of Ex. PW1/1 i.e. document Ex. dated 31/03/2005 (which wrongly typed in issue as 31/05/2005). Therefore, in my considered opinion, issue no. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that Ex. PW1/1 is not a forged and fabricated undertaking dated 31/03/2005 but the plaintiff is also not able to prove regarding giving of any amount of Rs. 8 lacs by him to the defendant. Therefore, the crux of the findings given are that despite execution of Ex. PW1/1, the plaintiff is not able to prove about the transaction of Rs. 8 lacs on 31/03/2005. Thus, the plaintiff is not able to prove about the transaction and therefore, issue no. 2 is answered against the plaintiff.
10. Issue No. 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. However, since during disposal of issue no. 2, it has been held by the court that plaintiff is not entitled for any amount and, therefore, there is no question of interest and accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff.
11. Issue No. 4.
Relief.
In view of the observations made herein above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. But this court has already observed that all the CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 11
parties are not telling the truth before this court. At the cost of
repetition, this court further observes that the plaintiff is not telling truth about merely Rs. 8 lacs lying in his bank account as per his own bank account statement whereas the defendants are telling false facts about Ex. PW1/1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-4913 of 2011 observed in para 34 :
"34. According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because our courts do not impose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated in our courts and that operates as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Unless the courts, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in para 52 in the same judgment :
"52. ...... At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed."
Earlier the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahila Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 34 held in para 10 to 12 :
"10. For exercising the powers under the section the court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 12 given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the court must come to the conclusion that in the interest of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. All these conditions are mandatory (see Narayanswami v. State of Maharashtra).
11. The object of the provision is to deal with the evil of perjury in a summary way.
12. The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions (sic proportions) in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the provision more effectively and frequently than it is presently done."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Chandrasekaran and another Vs. Administrative Officer and others (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 133 held in paras 45, 47 and 48 :
"45. The judicial process cannot become an instrument or oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court.
47. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. "Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest". An action at law is not a game of chess, therefore, a litigant cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions. It is one of those fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings (Vide Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. and Amar Singh v. Union of India).
48. In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira this Court taking note of its earlier judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi held:
(Maria Margarida case, SCC p. 393, para 81) CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 13
81. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the real estate.
Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimised to a large extent.
The Court further observed that wrongdoers must be denied profit from their frivolous litigation, and that they should be prevented from introducing and relying upon false pleadings and forged or fabricated documents in the records furnished by them to the court."
Further in paras no. 38 and 39 of A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President and others (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 430, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"38. False averments of facts and untenable contentions are serious problems faced by our courts. The other problem is that litigants deliberately create confusion by introducing irrelevant and minimally relevant facts and documents. The court cannot reject such claims, defences and pleas at the first look. It may take quite some time, at times years, before the court is able to see through, discern and reach to the truth. More often than not, they appear attractive at first blush and only on a deeper examination the irrelevance and hollowness of those pleadings and documents come to light.
39. Our courts are usually short of time because of huge pendency of cases and at times the courts arrive at an erroneous conclusion because of false pleas, claims, defences and irrelevant facts. A litigant could deviate from the facts which are liable for all the conclusions. In the journey of discovering the truth, at times, this Court, at a later stage, but once discovered, it is the duty of the court to take appropriate remedial and preventive steps so that no one should derive benefits or advantages by abusing the process of law. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent and dishonest litigants."
CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 14 Recently in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2014 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 150 :
"150. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated at he has lost, for no fault ? The suggestion to the legislature is, that a litigant who has succeeded, must be compensated by the one, who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism, that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly, pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs".
In this case, the plaintiff by making false pleadings and evidence abused the process of the court when his own documents have falsified his own statement and pleadings. The defendant also has made false pleadings and averments regarding execution of Ex. PW1/1. This court is of the considered opinion that both the parties have concealed facts and made false case or defence to justify their respective claims. Therefore, the plaintiff as well as defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 all are burdened with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) each to be deposited with D.L.S.A. The cost is imposed in view of the fact that conduct of all the parties to the suit is not proper and they did not come before this court with true facts as already observed CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 15 herein above. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Nazir of this court is directed to register the copy of decree sheet as execution application, give separate number and to place before the execution court to recover the amount of the cost which shall be deposited with D.L.S.A. Copy of decree sheet be also sent to the Secretary, D.L.S.A. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) court on 30/07/2014. Additional District Judge-09 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 16
CS No. 75/06
30/07/2014
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost upon the plaintiff as well as defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) each to be deposited with D.L.S.A. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Nazir of this court is directed to register the copy of decree sheet as execution application, give separate number and to place before the execution court to recover the amount of the cost which shall be deposited with D.L.S.A. Copy of decree sheet be also sent to the Secretary, D.L.S.A. File be consigned to record room.
Execution be placed by Nazir of this court before execution court on 29/08/2014.
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra) Additional District Judge-09 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/30.07.2014 CS No. 75/06.
D. N. Talwar Vs. Atul Duggal Page 17