Delhi District Court
Vikas Batra vs Devender Khanna @ Rinku on 30 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG SAIN, ADJ02 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No.: 100/16
Vikas Batra
S/o Sh. N.M. Batra
Prop. of Vikas Auto Centre,
Shop at 2/3, Kotla Scooter Market,
Mayur Vihar PhaseI,
Delhi110091
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Devender Khanna @ Rinku
S/o Late Sh. Subhash Chandra Khanna,
R/o 34/357, Trilok Puri,
Delhi110091
Shop at: 16/1, Sarpanch Complex,
Kotla Scooter Market,
Mayur Vihar PhaseI,
Delhi110091
Also at:
110, 3rd Floor,
Gali No.05, South Anarkali,
Delhi110051
.......Defendant
Date of institution : 28.03.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 30.08.2016
Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2016
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.5,70,000/ along with
pendentelite and future interest @ 24% p.a. has been filed by
the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the defendant was
closely known to the plaintiff and in the month of July, 2011,
the defendant approached the plaintiff for advancing a personal
loan of Rs.5 lac which has been given by the plaintiff to the
defendant and on 12.07.2011, one agreement on the stamp
paper of Rs.100/ was executed in the presence of the witnesses
to this effect whereby the defendant had agreed to pay the
aforesaid amount in 24 monthly equal installment of
Rs.20,850/p.m. commencing from 15.08.2011. It is further the
case of the plaintiff that despite the agreement and various
requests, the defendant had not paid a single installment to the
plaintiff. It is further averred that the transaction between the
parties was commercial and even as per trade, usage and
practice, the plaintiff is entitled to claim and recover the amount
of Rs.Five Lac with interest @ 24% p.a. being the contractual
rate of interest on the aforesaid amount and interest for seven
month w.e.f. 15.08.2011 to 15.03.2012 comes to Rs. 70,000/
and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a total sum of
5,70,000/. It is further averred that plaintiff also issued a legal
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 2 of 21
notice dt. 24.02.2012 to the defendant however neither the
defendant replied the same nor refunded the aforesaid loan
amount to the plaintiff. On these premise, the plaintiff has filed
the present suit.
3. Initially the suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 CPC
however, vide order dated 10.09.2012, on the request of the ld.
counsel for the defendant, the present suit has been treated as
ordinary suit for recovery.
4. Written statement was filed by the defendant wherein he has
taken preliminary objections such as plaintiff has not
approached the court with clean hands and concealed the true
facts and the agreement has been got executed in a very
connivance manner and making a false promise that the
plaintiff will disburse the loan amount to defendant but after
getting the signature of the defendant on the agreement, the
plaintiff had not given the said loan amount to the defendant;
The agreement dt. 12.7.2011 is neither duly attested by a notary
public nor duly registered with the Registrar; The agreement dt.
12.7.2011 has not been duly stamped as per Section 33 of
Indian Stamp Act; The suit is not maintainable as the agreement
dated 12.07.2011 is creating serious dout and proves that the
defendant has not received any loan amount from the plaintiff
as the signature of the defendant on the agreement dated
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 3 of 21
12.07.2011 is at the place of lendee/giver whereas the signature
of the plaintiff is at the place of borrower/lender; There is no
money receipt to prove that the defendant has received the said
loan amount from the plaintiff; There is no cause of action in
favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no locus standi to
file the present suit. The present suit is an afterthought and also
a counter blast to the legal notice dated 15.03.2012 sent by the
defendant to the plaintiff as well as the police complaint dated
17.03.2012 made by the defendant against the plaintiff. On
merits, the defendant denied the contents of the plaint in toto
and prayed for the dismissal of the present suit.
5. Replication to the written statement filed by the plaintiff
wherein all the averments made in the plaint have been
reiterated and reaffirmed whereas those made in the written
statement have been denied.
6. The court vide order dated 15.07.2013 framed following
issues:
(1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of
Rs.5,70,000/ along with interest as prayed for? OPP
(3) Relief
7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as
PW1 and tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 4 of 21
Ex. PW1/1. PW1 has also relied upon documents viz
agreement dated 12.07.2011 as Ex. PW1/A, Legal notice dated
24.02.2012 as Ex. PW1/B and courier receipts as Ex. PW1/C to
Ex. PW1/E. This witness was crossed examined on behalf of
the defendant
8. The plaintiff also examined Sh. Ved Prakash Mehandirata as
PW2 and Sh. Sameer Khurana as PW3 who tendered their
evidence by way of their respective affidavit Ex. PW2/A and
Ex.PW3/A. Both the witnesses were cross examined by the ld.
counsel for the defendant and vide separate statement, the
plaintiff closed his evidence on 04.11.2015.
9. To rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant examined
himself as DW1 who tendered his examination in chief by way
of affidavit Ex. DW1/1. He also relied upon documents viz
legal notice dated 15.03.2012 as Ex.DW1/A and copy of police
complaint dated 17.03.2012 as Ex. DW1/B. This witness was
cross examined by the ld. counsel for the plaintiff. Vide
separate statement, the defendant closed his evidence on
11.04.2016.
10.I have heard ld. counsel for the parties. I have also gone
through the entire records of the case including pleadings of the
parties, evidence led by the parties and documents proved by
the parties during trial.
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 5 of 21
11.The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of the
alleged loan amount on the basis of agreement dated
12.07.2011 against the defendant and the defendant has filed
other suit for declaration bearing CS No.429/16 titled as
Devender Khanna Vs. Vikas Batra thereby declaring the
agreement dated 12.07.2011 as null and void. Since both the
cases are interconnected arising out of the agreement dated
12.07.2011, therefore the evidence led by both the parties in
both the cases are considered together.
12.Before I advert to the facts of the case, let me discuss the
various principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a
civil case.
13.In fact, in this mortal world, in all human endeavors, absolute
certainty is a myth and chasing the same is chasing the mirage.
Instead, the law has provided a working solution in the doctrine
of preponderance of probabilities. The evidence in a civil case
is appreciated on the altar of preponderance of probabilities. In
civil cases, high preponderance of probability is enough.
14.My issuewise findings are as under:
Issue no.1
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable? OPD
15.Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. No material
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 6 of 21
evidence led by the defendant on this issue. Nor any arguments
led by the defendant in this regard. Accordingly, this issue is
decided against the defendant.
16.Issue no.2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of
Rs.5,70,000/ along with interest as prayed for? OPP
17.Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
18.The case of the plaintiff is that he had advanced a friendly loan
of Rs. Five Lac to the defendant on 12.07.2011 in the presence
of the witnesses which was to be repaid by the defendant in 24
equal monthly installments of Rs.20,850/ commencing from
15.08.2011 and an agreement dated 12.07.2011 in this regard
was executed between them but the defendant did not repay the
same.
19.On the order hand, it is the case of the defendant that though an
agreement dated 12.07.2011 was executed between the parties
with respect to the friendly loan but after the execution of the
agreement dated 12.07.2011, the plaintiff did not disburse the
loan amount to the defendant and has misused the aforesaid
agreement dated 12.07.2011 by filing the present suit.
20.From the facts, it is clear that there is no dispute with respect to
the execution of the agreement dated 12.07.2011. The only
dispute between the parties is whether the friendly loan of
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 7 of 21
Rs.Five Lac was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the
time of execution of the agreement dated 12.07.2011 or not.
From the above, what is apparent that it is the defendant who
has to show that the plaintiff has not paid Rs.Five Lac to him.
21.At the outset, the court is of the opinion that defence of the
defendant is devoid of any merits being hit by the provisions of
Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. Section 91 and 92 make
it clear whether the recital in the document are absolutely clear
and are expressed in unmistakable terms then there left no room
for adducing evidence aliunde to contract the recitals of the
document and any evidence so adduced, clearly hit by Section
91 & 92 of the Evidence Act. Section 91 & 92 of the Evidence
Act make it clear that restricts oral evidence between the parties
against the terms of deed between the parties.
22.In the present case, the terms of agreement Ex. PW1/A dated
12.07.2011 are clear, specific and unambiguous. The amount in
the exhibit Ex.PW1/A was clearly and specifically mentioned.
It has also been clearly and specifically mentioned that the said
amount has been duly received by the defendant and executed
Ex. PW1/A in this regard which is duly witnessed by the
witnesses. Thus, the defence so raised by the defendant in the
the written statement is beyond what is recited in the document.
The recital of documents are not under dispute. Accordingly,
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 8 of 21
the court is of the opinion that the averment of the defendant
must fail for the same.
23.Looking the matter from the angle of the defendant and
assuming for the sake of arguments that what the defendant has
stated in his written statement has to be considered, let us
examine the case of the defendant whether he has been able to
prove his case.
24.Besides the averment of the plaintiff in his evidence and also
during cross examination that the amount was paid by him to
the defendant, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Ved Prakash
Mehandirata as PW2 who was the witness to the agreement
dated 12.07.2011 Ex. PW1/A. In the cross examination, it has
come on record that 'The said amount of Rs. Five Lac was
given without interest as it was a friendly loan and the
installment was Rs.20,850/ which was to be given in 24
months'.
25.In the entire case, except the self serving statement of the
defendant that though he has signed the agreement dated
12.07.2011 Ex. PW1/A, it has been the stand of the defendant
that no amount was given to him, there is nothing on record in
this regard. Merely the self serving statement does not suffice
the purpose and if the same is allowed to be given weightage, it
would open pandora box to other who after taking the money
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 9 of 21
and executing the document would refuse to repay the same on
the ground that the amount was not paid to them.
26.The defendant has filed a suit for declaration bearing CS No.
429/16 titled as Devender Khanna Vs. Vikas Batra for the
decree of declaration to declare the document dated 12.07.2011
as null and void, the same being without consideration. In the
said case also in the plaint so filed by the defendant herein, it is
the case of the defendant that defendant was in need of money
and approached the plaintiff for friendly terms loan of Rs.Five
Lac from the plaintiff which as per him was not paid to him and
nothing else. Apart from the same in the aforesaid suit that he
has not received the money, nothing has been shown or proved
by the defendant. It cannot be gain said that mere statement
without supporting material would suffice the allegations of not
making the payment, the same are not backed by any evidence
on record.
27.If it is the case of the defendant that he was in need of money
and he approached the plaintiff for taking the loan of Rs.Five
Lac, the defendant has not shown and proved what was the
need and what loss he has suffered when he did not receive the
loan amount. It is the incumbent duty of the defendant to show
and prove that he was in need of money and for which he
approached the plaintiff for the loan and because of the non
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 10 of 21
payment of the amount as stated by the defendant, he has
suffered any loss because of the same. The same is
conspicuously missing in the present matter. The defendant has
filed a suit for declaration before suit no.429/16. In the said
suit, the defendant has stated that he has approached the
plaintiff for the loan of Rs.Five Lac which was agreed by the
defendant. Except the same, nothing has been shown or proved
by the defendant why he required the loan and for what purpose
he required the loan and what loss he has suffered for the non
payment of the loan of Rs.Five Lac. In fact, there is nothing
also stated by the defendant in the suit bearing no.429/16 in his
evidence also.
28.If the defendant was in need of money and the same was not
paid to him by the plaintiff what steps has he taken, no steps
have been taken by the defendant in this regard. The agreement
was executed on 12.07.2011 and till 15.03.2012, nothing has
been said or done by the defendant in this regard. The
argument of the ld. Counsel for the defendant that he has issued
a legal notice dated 15.03.2012, filed suit for declaration
bearing no.429/16 and filed criminal complaint under Section
156 (3) Cr. P.C. is of no help to the defendant. Interestingly all
these acts were done by the defendant when the plaintiff has
taken steps. The defendant issued legal notice dated 15.03.2012
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 11 of 21
of the legal notice dated 24.02.2012 issued by the plaintiff
exhibited as Ex. PW1/B when the plaintiff instituted the present
suit for recovery against the defendant. Defendant filed a suit
for declaration against the plaintiff herein. This shows that all
the steps are counter blast to the steps taken by the plaintiff in
the present matter.
29.The defendant has not examined any witness in support of his
contention before the court. In the suit for declaration bearing
CS No. 429/16 filed by the defendant, the defendant herein and
the plaintiff in the said suit besides examining himself, has also
examined two witnesses namely Amar Nath Sharma and Raju
Sawant. In the cross examination of PW3, it has come on
record that 'I was not present at the time of execution of the
aforesaid agreement. I was told by the plaintiff that he has not
been paid a sum of Rs. Five Lac by the defendant. Thus the
testimony of this witness is hearsay in nature.
30.As regards PW2, he has stated that he was not present at the
time of agreement. The cross examination of this witness shows
that he has deposed what has been told to him by the defendant.
The testimony of this witness is also hearsay in nature and
therefore the same cannot be looked into.
31.From the above, it is celar that the defendant has failed to show
that he has not received the money as alleged by him.
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 12 of 21
32.In case the defendant fails to prove what is averred by him as
above, would this mean, the case of the plaintiff stands proved.
The answer is 'no'. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs.
33.It is cardinal principle of law that the initial burden of proving
the case is always on the plaintiff and he has to discharge the
same.
34.Burden of proof Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
provides that whosoever desires any court to give judgment as
to any legal right or liability dependent upon the existence to
facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exists. When
a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said
that burden of proof lies on that person.'
35.It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled as
A. Raghuvamma and Another Vs. Chenchamma and
Another that there is an essential distinction between the
burden of proof and onus to proof. Burden of proof lies upon
the person who has to prove the facts and it never shifts but the
onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous
process in the evaluation of evidence. Under Section 101 of the
Indian Evidence Act says that whosoever desires any court to
give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent upon
the existence to facts which he asserts must prove that those
facts exists. When a person is bound to prove the existence of
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 13 of 21
any fact, it is said that burden of proof lies on that person.
Section 102 of the said Act says that the burden of proof in a
suit or proceeding lies on that person, who would fail if no
evidence at all were given on either side. Section 103 of the said
Act shows that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies
on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence,
unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall
lie on any particular person.
36.It is settled proposition of law that the initial burden to prove
the case is upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to stand of his
own leg to prove the case. Under Section 101 of the Evidence
Act the burden of proof has been on the plaintiff as he wanted
the Court to give judgment as to the legal right dependent on
the existence of facts which he asserted and that must have
proved those facts. Thus, it is the incumbent duty of the
plaintiff to at least discharge his initial burden of proof.
37.Let us examine the case of the plaintiff in the light of the above.
38.Before coming to the same, let us examine the alleged
transaction as stated by the plaintiff qua the advancing of the
loan to the defendant. Whether the said transaction was a valid
transaction permissible under law or an illegal transaction.
39.The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. He deposed that
he is running finance business. He further deposed in the
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 14 of 21
affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/1 that the defendant approached
him for advancing personal loan of Rs.Five Lac in the month of
July 2011 and on 12.07.2011, the defendant executed one
agreement on stamp paper of Rs.100/ in the presence of
witnesses namely Sameer Khanna and Ved Prakash
Mehandirata and in the said agreement, it was agreed that the
defendant will pay the amount @ Rs.20,850/ per month to be
payable in 24 months and will commence from 15.08.2011.
40.The plaintiff in order to prove the same examined himself as
PW1 wherein he has stated that he has paid a sum of Rs.Five
Lac to the defendant. He has also examined two witnesses to
the agreement dated 12.07.2011 who have also deposed that the
plaintiff has paid the amount to the defendant. Besides the
averment by the plaintiff qua the advancing of the loan by him
to the defendant, it has come in the cross examination of the
witness PW2 that 'the said amount of Rs. Five Lac was given
without interest as it was a friendly loan and the installment was
Rs.20,850/ which was to be given in 24 months'.
41.In the cross examination, a question was put to the plaintiff
with respect to the availability of the funds and the
accountability of the amount so paid. The plaintiff has stated
that he is doing the business of finance and is an income tax
payee. A specific question was asked from the plaintiff during
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 15 of 21
cross examination as to whether the aforesaid loan amount was
shown in the ITR to which the witness has replied that since it
was a friendly loan without interest and not commercial loan
therefore the same was not shown in the ITR.
42.It has been deposed by the plaintiff in the cross examination
that the amount so paid by him has not been shown in the
income tax returns nor the same has been shown in his
statement of account which was his duty to do so. Thus, from
the above, it is clear that the aforesaid amount is an amount
which is unaccounted.
43.Moreover, the plaintiff has not explained as to why such large
sums of moneys were transacted in cash. The plaintiff has not
filed a single document to show the availability of cash in such
large volume with him as on 12.07.2011 at the time of
execution of agreement. When the plaintiff who stated himself
to be running the finance business transacts such large volume
of amount in such a casual manner, does so at his own peril.
The alleged transaction of Rs. Five Lac in the present matter is
not properly documented in accordance with law.
44.In the other suit for declaration bearing CS no.429/16 titled as
Devender Khanna Vs. Vikas Batra, Vikas Batra, the plaintiff
herein was cross examined on behalf of the defendant herein.
The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced as
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 16 of 21
under:
'...........I do not remember the name of the parties who had
given the amount to me. It is correct that we maintained
account in the computer for the amount paid by the parties
to us'.
Q Can you produce the aforesaid statement of
account?
Ans I can say about the same after checking the record. I
can produce only cash in hand record of that particular
date. I can produce the same on the next date of hearing.
45.Ld. counsel for the plaintiff argued that even assuming that the
amount is not shown in the Income Tax Return or the statement
of account is not filed, that does not absolve the defendant from
his liability. He further argued that merely nondisclosure of
the transaction or the amount of Rs.Five Lac in the Income Tax
return or in the statement of account/balance sheet is not fatal to
the case of the plaintiff when the defendant himself has
admitted to have received the amount of Rs. Five Lac and
executed the agreement dated 12.07.2011. He further argued
that the fact of making the payment by the plaintiff to the
defendant has been duly proved by the plaintiff besides
examining himself and two other witnesses PW2 and PW3.
46.As per the agreement dated 12.07.2011 Ex. PW1/A, the alleged
loan amount of Rs.Five Lac was repayable in 24 equal monthly
installments of Rs.20,850/ and not within a few months. Thus,
if in a given case the amount advanced by the plaintiff to the
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 17 of 21
defendant is a large amount and is not repayable within few
months, the failure to disclose the amount in Income Tax
Return or Books of Accounts of the plaintiff is sufficient to
draw adverse inference against the plaintiff.
47.The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a case titled as Sanjay
Mishra Vs. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr., 2009 (3)
Civil Court Cases 563 (Bombay) in para 7 has held that :
"7. It is true that merely because amount advanced is
not shown in the Income Tax Return, in every case, one
cannot jump to the conclusion that the presumption under
section 139 of the said Act stands rebutted. There may be
cases where a small amount less than a sum of Rs.20,000/
is advanced in cash by way of loan which may be
repayable within few days or within few months. A
complainant may not show the said amount in the Income
Tax Return as it is repayable within few days or few
months in the same financial year. In such a case the
failure to show the amount in the Income Tax Return may
not by itself amount to rebuttal of presumption under
section 139 of the said Act. If in a given case the amount
advanced by the complainant to the accused is a large
amount and is not repayable within few months, the failure
to disclose the amount in Income Tax Return or Books of
Accounts of the complainant may be sufficient to rebut the
presumption under section 139 of the said Act.
48.The aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the
present case as in the present case it is not the small amount.
The amount is Rs.Five Lac and it is also not to be repayable
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 18 of 21
within few days or few months but the same was to be repaid in
24 months on equal monthly installments of Rs.20,850/. In that
eventuality the nondisclosure of the same in the income tax
records or books of accounts or balance sheet calls for adverse
inference against the plaintiff.
49.It has been further held in the said judgment in para 13 that :
"13. In the present case, there is a categorical admission
that the amount allegedly advanced by the applicant was
entirely a cash amount and that the amount was
'unaccounted'. He admitted not only that the same was not
disclosed in the Income Tax Return at the relevant time
but till recording of evidence in the year 2006 it was not
disclosed in the Income Tax Return. By no stretch of
imagination it can be stated that liability to repay
unaccounted cash amount is a legally enforceable liability
within the meaning of explanation to section 138 of the
said Act. The alleged debt cannot be said to be a legally
recoverable debt".
50.In the present case, it has come categorically in the cross
examination of the plaintiff that the alleged amount which he
has paid to the defendant was cash amount, he has not been
shown the same in his income tax returns nor the plaintiff has
filed any statement of account or balance sheet in this regard.
Thus, it can be safely inferred that the amount so paid, if any, is
an unaccounted payment which by stretch of imagination can
fall under the umbrella of enforceable debt. Para 13 of the
aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the present fact.
C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 19 of 21
51.The defendant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in a case titled as G.
Pankajakshiamma Vs. Mathai Mathew, 2004 Law Suit
(SC), 384 where in para 10, it has been held that :
"10. There is any reason also why the impugned
judgment cannot be upheld. According to the 1 st
respondent, these transactions were to be unaccounted
transactions. According to the 1st respondent, all these amounts are paid in cash. If these are unaccounted transactions then they are illegal transactions. No court can come to the aid of the party in an illegal transaction. It is settled law that in such cases the loss must be allowed to lie where it falls. In this case, as these are unaccounted transactions, the Court could not have lent its hands and passed a decree. For these reasons also, the suit was required to be dismissed".
The aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case.
52.From the facts of the case viz a viz the law laid down as above, the court is of the considered opinion, assuming that the plaintiff has advanced the money to the defendant however the same being unaccounted one and thus, the court could not lay its hands to allow to pass a decree against the defendant. The court cannot allow illegal transactions to be given the cover of legally enforceable debt. This would amount to be a part of promoting illegal transactions which have direct affect on the C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 20 of 21 economy of the State. Allowing such transactions in the society would mean that there is direct loss to the Government exchequer and promoting illegal transactions to the society is not beneficial to the State. It is high time that the courts should come forward to put halt on such huge transactions which are unaccounted in nature and has no proof for the same. Such transactions should be curbed so that a party should not go to enter into such illegal transactions. Thus, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue. The issue is answered accordingly.
53.Issue no.3 Relief.
54.In view of the observations made hereinabove, the present suit is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
55.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
56.File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court On 30.09.2016 ( Anurag Sain) Addl. District Judge02 (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 21 of 21 C.S. No.: 100/16 30.09.2016 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, the present suit is dismissed. There is no order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Anurag Sain) ADJ2, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi/30.09.2016 C.S. No.: 100/16 Page 22 of 21