Delhi District Court
K.M.Anees-Ul-Haq vs Abdul Rehman on 24 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITEN MEHRA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-10: CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CNR NO.:- DLCT01-000092-2002
CS DJ NO.:-617806/16
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Sh. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq
S/o Sh. K.M. Umar
R/o 713, Ashia House,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi.
......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Sh. Abdul Rehman R/o 1/1, A-Block, Kirti Apartments, Behind Samachar Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Alternate address:
Chamber No.499, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Mohd. Ahmed Gangoi (Rabbani), 3/20, Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi.
3. M/s. Alami Rishta (A Monthly Magzine) Office at: 3/20, Bahadur Garh Road, Delhi.
4. Mst. Sayeda Zaveria Anees, 14th-6th Road, Nandi Durg Extension, Banglore.
5. Mohd. Zaid Khan, A-1, Nangla Meavati, Fateheabad Road, Agra, U.P.
6. Ashwani Chauhan, 197, Taj Road, Agra Cantt.
7. Sayed Akbar, 27, Ananthram Sayout, Lingrajpuram, CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 1/31 Banglore-560084.
8. Mohd. Ishaq Qasmi, Imam Masjid, Imliwali Gali, Mir Afzal, Delhi.
9. M/s. Quality Printers, Gali Qasim Jan, Ballimaran, Delhi.
10. Asif, C-5/169, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
11. Ghulam Mohammed, C-5/169, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
12. Vikar Mohd., Quarter No.4, Mandi House, Old Compound, Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phule Marg, New Delhi.
13. Sameena Siraj, 1-Hutchins Road, 3rd Cross, St. Thomas Town, Banglore.
14. Mst. Nighat Fatima, 60, 7th Cross, 8th Main Road, Vasant Nagar, Banglore-560052.
15. Mst. Gazala Anjum, 43, 3rd Cross, 8th Viveka Nanda Nagar, Banglore-560033.
16. Mst. Shaukat Jahan, C-5/169, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
17. M/s. Aisha Traders, Mustafabad, Delhi.
18. M/s. Maktaba Ilm-o-Danish, Farsh Khana, Delhi.
19. Sayed Masood, M/s. Exel Traders, Ali Mansoor, 18, Dispensary Road, Bangalore.
CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 2/31
20. A. Jabbar, Masjid Ali Mian, 3/20, Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi.
......... Defendants SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.10,57,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE DEFENDANT NO.1 TOWARDS FEE AND LEGAL EXPENSES.
Date of Institution of the Suit : 24.04.2002
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 24.01.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2024
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,57,000/- against the defendant no.1. PLAINTIFF'S VERSION AS PER THE PLAINT
2. As per the plaint, the plaintiff is stated to be the Deputy Director General in Doordarshan at the time of filing of the suit. A defamatory publication appeared in the Indian Express on 15.08.1999 in respect of which he approached the defendant no.1, who is an advocate for taking action against the editors, publishers, agents and officials of the said newspaper. The defendant no. 1 was previously acquainted with plaintiff as there were some talks of matrimonial alliance between the families CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 3/31 which ultimately did not materialise. However, the plaintiff submits that he had full faith and confidence in the defendant no.1 and engaged him to file a suit for damages against the aforementioned newspaper seeking compensation of Rs.1 Crore. The defendant no.1 promised the plaintiff that with his industry and labour, he would achieve the desired result in favour of the plaintiff.
3. As per the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 intially demanded Rs.10 Lakhs which included court fees and other legal expenses, however, he later agreed to accept an amount of Rs.9.52 Lakhs stating that Rs.5.25 Lakhs would be required for court fees and Rs.2000/- towards typing and miscellaneous expenses and the balance amount of Rs.4.25 Lakhs would be his professional fees. It was orally agreed between the parties that the professional fees would be paid by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 in two phases ie. Rs.2 Lakhs prior to filing of the suit, and the balance fee of Rs.2.25 Lakhs would be paid after the disposal of the suit. However, on the insistance of defendant no.1, the plaintiff collected and handed over cheques for the entire amount of Rs.9.52 Lakhs as security.
CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 4/31
4. According to the plaintiff, he raised the huge amount of the fees and expenses as demanded by defendant no.1 by requesting his friends and well wishers ie. the defendants no.2 to 20 who issued cheques for various amounts directly in the name of defendant no.1 totally amounting to Rs.7,27,000/-. Further it is stated that the plaintiff also handed over cheques by the defendants no.2 to 20 amounting to Rs.2.25 Lakhs which was to be utilized after processing of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 tried to get said cheques amounting to Rs.2.25 Lakhs encashed illegally and unauthorizedly and hence, they were dishonoured for the said reason.
5. The plaintiff further states that even after the defendant no.1 received the huge amount of Rs.7.27 Lakhs from the defendants no.2 to 20, the defendant no.1 kept on delaying the filing of the suit and instead, on or about 20.08.1999, he filed a criminal complaint under Sec.500/501 IPC R/w Sec.200 Cr.P.C. against the editor, owner and publisher of Indian Express which was titled as 'K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq vs. Sheikher Gupta & Anrs.' before the court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, MM, Delhi. The plaintiff states that he was kept in the dark by the defendant no.1 with respect to filing of the criminal case. Then the defendant CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 5/31 no.1 kept delaying the filing of civil suit for damages on the pretext that first the decision of the criminal court in the criminal case which had been filed by him, should be awaited first.
6. According to the plaintiff, due to the unprofessional conduct of defendant no.1, the said criminal complaint was also dismissed in default. The plaintiff states that it was revealed to him that in-fact defendant no.1 had joined hands with opposite party and in fact, even his daughter was employed on a lucrative post with Indian Express in consideration of not following up the criminal case.
7. As per the plaintiff, he later learnt that even the court fees for the civil suit to be filed was only around Rs.1,10,000/-, whereas, the defendant no.1 extorted Rs.5,25,000/- from him for the said case. Further, the civil suit for damages also could not be filed as the same was barred under limitation, since the suit had to be filed within one year of the date of the publication of the defamatory article which expired on 15.08.2000. The plaintiff submits that his legal remedy was thus impaired due to deliberate dishonesty and negligence on the part of the defendant no.1. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking refund/recovery CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 6/31 of Rs.7.27 Lakhs, which was paid by defendants no.2 to 20 to the defendant no.1 on the request of the plaintiff. Further, an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- has been claimed as interest on the above amount. The plaintiff has also prayed that a decree of the aforementioned amount be passed in favour of plaintiff alone or jointly in the names of plaintiff and defendants no.2 to 20 as per the payments made by them to the defendant no.1. DEFENDANT'S VERSION AS PER THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. The defendants no.2 to 20 did not file their written statement and were proceeded exparte and only defendant no.1 filed the written statement. The defendant no.1 has stated in his written statement that he had been helping the plaintiff in all his legal problems since 1997 and had infact taken no such legal fees as alleged by the plaintiff. The present suit was stated to be counter-blast to the fact the defendant no.1's daughter was engaged to be married to the plaintiff's nephew which did not materialize and in frustration, out of the same, the defendant no.1 had threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and his family members as they were demanding money for the marriage. The defendant no.1 states that he was first CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 7/31 introduced to the plaintiff sometimes in the year 1997 and struck a friendship. The plaintiff would often consult defendant no.1 with respect to vaious legal and professional issues. The plaintiff lived in a governement hostel whereas his entire family was based in Bangalore. The defendant no.1 learnt that the plaintiff was having illicit relations with a lady officer of Doordarshan and was also living with him. The plaintiff further stated that this arrangement was known to his wife who had no problems with it.
9. Defendant no.1 further states that the plaintiff told him that he had struck a deal with the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting to be appointed as Director General for which an amount of Rs.5 Crores was to be paid to the Minister and requested the defendant no.1 to raise Rs.10 Lakhs for the said purpose. The defendant no.1 states that he raised a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs from his circle of friends and the amount was paid to the plaintiff. Even before, the plaintiff was appointed as the Director General, he began hatching schemes to make money and told the defendant no.1 that they should produce a serial in the commissioned category and since, he was going to be DG, he could allot a prime time for the same. Ultimately, it was decided to produce a serial on the subject of the Kargil conflict and a CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 8/31 company/firm should be floated in which plaintiff and defendant no.1's wives would have equal shares. Accordingly, a proposal was also submitted to Doordarshan in this regard for a serial "Jo Laut ke Ghar Na Aaye". According to the defendant no.1, a bank guarantee was to be submitted along-with the said proposal, for which the plaintiff has collected amounts from various persons for securing a bank guarantee for the same.
10. According to the defendant no.1, the corrupt and unethical practices of plaintiff attracted media attention and the Indian Express ran a news stating that the plaintiff was a tainted officer of Doordarshan. Although, the defendant no.1 advised the plaintiff not to take any rash step, on the pleas of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 agreed to initiate legal proceedings against Indian Express and in particular, one Sh. Shekhar Gupta. The defendant no.1 states that he enquired from the plaintiff as to what was the nature of the legal action the plaintiff wanted him to take to which the plaintiff stated that he wanted Shekhar Gupta to go to jail. The defendant no.1 accordingly told him that for this purpose, a criminal complaint for defamation under the appropriate sections of IPC would have to be filed. It is stated that as per the instructions of plaintiff, on 28.08.1999 the CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 9/31 defendant no.1 filed a criminal complaint against the proprietors, editors, publishers of Indian Express before the court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, MM New Delhi. Immediately after filing of the criminal complaint, the plaintiff asked the defendant no.1 to draft a public notice giving out the facts of filing of the criminal complaint against Indian Express under his signatures. Thereafter, without telling the defendant no.1, the plaintiff made a few hundred copies of the said notice and pasted on the every floor of the Mandi House and the copies of the same were also sent to IB Ministry, PM office etc.
11. The defendant no.1 states that on 23.08.1999, the plaintiff informed the defendant that even the English weekly Outlook had published a full page article titled "Broadcast Blues" about the corrupt practices of the plaintiff. The plaintiff again asked the defendant no.1 to file another criminal complaint against Outlook to which the defendant no.1 counselled the plaintiff to hold his fury as a criminal complaint had already been filed against a national daily and filing another criminal complaint would brand him a habitual litigant and would lower his social esteem. However, due to repeated insistence of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 still sent a legal notice to Sh. Vinod Mehta, CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 10/31 Editor, Outlook Magazine.
12. The plaintiff was placed under suspension by the President of India in the September, 1999 on charges of irregularities in granting of programmes, tampering with official bills. As per the defendant, the plaintiff told him that he had been suspended as the agreed bribe of Rs.5 Crores which was to be paid to Minister IB could not materialize.
13. On 24.09.1999, the plaintiff is also stated to have broached the subject of possibility of marriage between elder daughter of defendant no.1 namely Aaliya Rehman with nephew of plaintiff namely Furkan which was agreed to by the defendant no.1.
14. As news of the suspension of the plaintiff spread, the persons who had loaned money became apprehensive and started demanding the same back and the defendant no.1 states that he had to spend Rs.4 Lakhs of his own money to pay off various persons at the behest of the plaintiff. The defendant accorded all professional help to the plaintiff during his suspension. That on 16.10.2001, the defendant gave a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the Muneeb in the presence of the plaintiff. The groom's parents CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 11/31 made a solemn promise that they would fix a date of marriage in December, 2001. The defendant no.1 and his family began enquiries in November, 2001 but received no satisfactory reply. That was the beginning of the straining of relations between the plaintiff and the defendant. That the plaintiff owed a sum of Rs.4,22,000/- to the defendant which is exclusive of any incidental expenses or professional charges. That on the defendant's complaint, a case FIR No.260/02 under Sec.406/420/34 IPC r/w Sec.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at PS Mayur Vihar against the plaitniff and his family members as well as their son Furkhan-ul-Haw @ Muneeb.
15. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the plaintiff does not enjoy a good reputation and that he is widely known for his corruption and was called Mr. Forty Percent in Mandi House. The defendant never promised or gave any assurance to the plaintiff on that score. The plaintiff avoided to appear in court in person to make a statement at the stage of pre-summoning evidence and even asked the defendant to forget about the complaint. The amount of Rs.Ten Lakhs had been procured by the plaintiff's wife for the purpose of furnishing a bank guarantee as elaborated in the preliminary objections, out of which, several CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 12/31 cheques were dishonoured, presented again and again dishonoured. There was never any demand for the fee to be paid in two phases as alleged nor was there any demand for processing of the suit as alleged and that there was no arrangement for any cheque to be kept as security. It is further submitted that the defendant never impaired any legal remedy available to the plaintiff. In fact, it was the plaintiff who in connivance with his family members caused financial loss to the tune of several lakhs of rupees to the defendant and has been instrumental in adversely affecting three years of his daughter's life. It is submitted that when the plaintiff saw the name of the defendant's daughter in print, he has thought up the allegation. His daughter Shanya Rehman had earned her degree in Journalism Honours from Delhi University and during her final year had worked as an intern at the Indian Express as a course requirement. It is reiterated that it is the plaintiff who is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,22,000/- to the defendant for which he has filed a counter claim.
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
16. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant no.1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 13/31 categorically denying the allegations as contained in the written statement. It was reiterated that the conduct of the defendant no.1 amounts to professional mis-conduct, and that the defendant cleverly entrapped him so as to part with a huge amount as a fee, court fee and legal expenses and engulfed him in series of litigation. The defendant has not paid any court fees on the alleged counter claim filed by him and it is nothing but a counter- blast to the present suit filed against him.
ISSUES FRAMED
17. Upon completion of pleadings the following issues were framed by the ld. Predecessor of the Court vide order dated 15.09.2005:
1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD-1
2. Whether the payment was made by the plaintiff?OPP
3. Whether the amount was paid to D-1 towards professional fees, if yes, its effect?OPD-1
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled any interest, if yes, for what rate and for what period? OPP
6. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
18. The plaintiff K.M. Anees-ul-Haq deposed as PW-1 and CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 14/31 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, in which he deposed that the defendant no.1 had told him that the professional fees could be paid in two phases i.e. Rs 2 Lakhs before the filing of the suit and balance of Rs.2.25 Lakhs on processing of the suit but nonetheless the defendant No.1 insisted that cheque for whole amount be given in advance. PW1 stated that he gave 19 cheques amounting to Rs. 7.27 Lakhs which was to be encashed forthwith and cheques for Rs. 2.25 Lakhs was to be kept as security and were to be encashed only after processing of the civil suit which had been agreed to be filed. PW1 further stated that he approached his friends and well-wishers for providing him necessary financial help and with their help was able to manage the funds by cheque of various persons who have been made as defendants No.2-20 in the present suit amounting to Rs.7,27,000/-. He further stated that out of the 19 cheques which were given to the defendant No. 1, three of the cheques of the defendants No.4, 5 and 15 were dishonoured and all of the other cheques were honoured and duly encashed by the defendant No. 1. In place of the cheque of the defendant No. 4, another cheque bearing No. 579928 drawn on Jamuna Gramin Bank, had been given in its place for the same amount which had been duly accepted and encashed by the defendant No.1, a copy of CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 15/31 certificate dated 07.03.2002 of the bank was produced as Ex. PW-1/1. As regards the cheque of defendant No.5 another cheque No.794934 dated 07.06.2000 for Rs.75,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Agra was given besides Rs. 25,000/- in cash. A copy of the certificate issued by the Bank was produced as Ex. PW-1/2. As regards defendant no.15, the defendant no.1 had obtained cash amount the defendant no.15 and hence a total amount of Rs.7.27 Lakhs is stated to have been paid to the defendant. A copy of the vakalatnama signed by the plaintiff was produced as Ex. PW-1/4, and legal notice requiring the plaintiff to produce the original vakalatnama was produced as Ex. PW-1/3. Certified copy of the criminal complaint filed before the Court of Sh. G.P. Singh was produced as Ex. PW-1/5. Certified copy of the vakalatnama was produced as Ex. PW-1/6. Certified copy of the Court proceedings were produced as Ex. PW-1/7. Legal notice dated 13.12.2001 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 demanding refund of fees was produced as Ex. PW-1/8. A certified copy of the criminal complaint filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1 under sections 415/420 IPC was produced as Ex. PW-1/9. The summoning order in the aforementioned case was produced as Ex. PW-1/10. A copy of the criminal complaint filed against the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff and his family was CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 16/31 produced as Ex. PW-1/11. An order dated 20.09.2000 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was produced as Ex. PW-1/12. Certified copy of an application filed by the defendant no.1 in Criminal Writ no.347 of 1999 was produced as Ex. PW-1/13. Copy of revision petition filed by the defendant no.1 and his wife was produced as Ex.PW-1/13. An order of the Bar Council of India dated 25.02.2007 was produced as Ex. PW-1/14.
That during the cross examination of the PW-1, he was asked to introduce the defendants no.2-20 and how he knew them. The witness stated some of the defendants were his family members and others were acquaintances. PW-1 admitted that some cheques were dishonoured due to funds insufficient as amounts were already withdrawn from the account on his advice to the said persons. He further admitted that he did not inform his son-in-law Zaid Khan to stop the payment on the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-. He also admitted that he did not inform Sh. Ashwani Chauhan as well with respect to stopping the payment on the cheque. The witness PW-1 also deposed that he did not personally know all the defendants no.2-20 personally and only two of them were relatives.
19. PW-1 was also cross examined on the fact that the CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 17/31 defendant no.1 had been helping the PW-1 in various writs petitions, CBI and departmental enquiries over a period of time. PW-1 also admitted his signatures on a vakalatnama Ex.PW- 1/DA at point X which was executed by him in favour of the defendant no.1 to file a criminal complaint against Yati Jindal. PW-1 stated that he could not remember whether he had requested defendant no.1 to appear before the Central Vigilance Committee as his lawyer. PW-1 also admitted that he had got a vakalatnama signed by the defendant no.1 which was to be filed by before the Central Vigilance Commission which had been filed in the present suit. PW-1 further admitted that the defendant no.1 did not charge any fees for signing the said vakalatnama.
20. PW-1 was also confronted with Ex.PW-1/DB being the original prosecution brief of the inquiry initiated against him. PW-1 was also confronted with Ex.PW-1/DC being the notes of explanation written by him regarding the statement of defence pertaining to the inquiry before the CVC. He admitted that the same were in his hand writing and could not explain as to how the defendant no.1 was in possession of the same. The witness was also confronted with the statement of defence before the CVC Ex. PW-1/DD and could not explain as to how the same CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 18/31 were in the possession of the defendant no.1 as well. The PW-1 was also confronted with proposal form Ex. PW-1/DE (Colly) of M/s Ultra Videotronics who had produced a serial 'Hamara Samvidhan Kab Kya aur Kaise' and whose file was handled by the plaintiff while he was with Doordarshan. PW-1 could not explain how the said file was also in the possession of the defendant no.1. A suggestion was put to PW-1 that infact since a complaint had been filed by M/s. Ultra Videotronics, the plaintiff had given the defendant no.1 a copy of the file for his legal help.
21. PW-1 also admitted that defendant no.1 had visited him in his office on 17/18th August, 1999 to 27th August 1999. PW-1 also admitted that the daughter of the defendant no.1 was engaged to his nephew K. M. Furkhan-ul-Haq on 16.01.2000 and further a criminal case bearing FIR no.260/02 was also registered against the plaintiff and his wife and his brother and his wife and nephew K. M. Furkhan-ul-Haq at PS Mayur Vihar, New Delhi u/s 406/420/34 IPC r/w sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on a complaint dated 25.06.2002 filed by the defendant no.1. PW-1 also admitted that he had placed on record no documentary proof that Cheques no.1-19 as mentioned in para no.8 of the plaint were encashed by the defendant no.1.
CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 19/31
22. PW-1 also admitted that with respect to the cheques mentioned at no.4 and 5 in para no.8 given to the defendant no.1, he could not even state the date and number of the cheques despite multiple opportunities on various dates. The witness was also suggested that the cheques received by him from the defendants no.2-19 were meant for providing bank guarantee, which he denied. The PW-1 also admitted that he did not ascertain from the bank statements of the persons issuing the cheques as to how many cheques were credited into the bank account of the defendant no.1. The witness was confronted with his cross examination before the Bar Council of India Ex. PW1/DH wherein he had stated that all the cheques mentioned in the plaint were credited to the bank account of defendant no1. PW-1 also could not remember whether blank cheques were given and his wife had filled in the name of the defendant no.1 in her own handwriting. The witness was also confronted with testimony of Mohd Ahmed Rubbani 'Mark X' recorded before the Bar Council of India in which he stated that he had given blank cheques to the plaintiff, wherein only amount was filled in and the payee name was not filled in. The witness was also confronted with his statement before the Bar Council in which it CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 20/31 was stated that more than 33 cheques were handed over to the defendant no.1. PW-1 also stated that he had not handed over any cheques prior to the filing of the criminal complaint for defamation by the defendant no.1.
23. The PW-1 also admitted that he had no documentary evidence to prove that the daughter of defendant no.1 was employed with the Indian Express. At first, PW-1 denied that in an English fortnightly called Newstreet dated 15.12.2002 an investigative story was published regarding him concerning his links with the underworld and that he had sent a legal notice through his counsel Sh. G. D. Gandhi upon the printer, publisher and proprietor. However, on being confronted with the legal notice 14.12.2002 Ex. DC, he admitted that the same was an authentic document but could not remember whether it was sent under his instructions. When asked as to why PW-1 did not pursue any legal action against Newstreet, he curiously stated that since the magazine was not registered with the registrar of newspapers, he did not pursue any legal remedy. PW-1 was also confronted with Mark Z and Mark ZA being copy of Newstreet magazine depicting the registration numbers, to which he stated that it is incorrect that they were registered. PW-1 refused to CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 21/31 answer the question as to whether an unregistered magazine could not be prosecuted for defamation. The witness was also confronted with Ex. DA being a vakalatnama dated 10.06.2001 executed by him in favour of the defendant no.1 in connection with filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, to which the PW-1 stated that many vakalatnamas were executed by him in favour of defendant no.1.
24. PW-1 also stated admitted that none of the defendants no.2-20 ever demanded their money back from the defendant no.1 as the money was taken from him. The witness was also confronted with Ex. DB wherein he stated that the relatives of the plaintiff had demanded money back from the defendant no.1. PW-1 also admitted that he had no proof that the defendant no.1 had demanded or obtained any cheques from the defendants no. 2-20. PW-1 also admitted that none of the defendants no.2-20 had written the name of the defendant no.1 in his or her own handwriting in any of the cheques mentioned in the plaint. PW-1 also admitted that he was shown a draft of the criminal complaint filed by the defendant no.1 against Indian Express and was satisfied with the same. He also admitted that his bio-data which was annexed along with the criminal complaint had been CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 22/31 supplied by him to the defendant no.1. The right of the defendant no.1 to cross examine PW-1 was closed on 11.5.2012.
25. PW-2 Mohammed Ahmed Rabbani deposed in favour of the plaintiff through Ex. PW2/A that in the third week of August, 1999 he had accompanied the plaintiff to office-cum-residence of the defendant no.1 for legal advice in connection with some objectionable publication in Indian Express. PW-2 has stated that at first the defendant no.1 gave an estimate of Rs.15 Lakhs as his professional fees and expenses and later agreed to accept Rs.9.52 Lakhs being Rs.5.25 Lakhs towards court fees and Rs.2000/- towards typing and Rs.4.25 Lakhs towards professional fees. He also deposed that defendant no.1 agreed to start the case on payment of Rs.7.27 Lakhs with the balance amount of Rs.2.52 Lakhs being payable on the disposal of the case. However the defendant no.1 insisted on a cheque for Rs.2.52 Lakhs as security. He also deposed that the plaintiff collected funds by way of 23 cheques from the defendants no.2-20 and handed them over to the defendant no.1 in the presence of one O.P. Arora also. No cross examination was conducted of PW-2 by the defendant no.1 despite opportunity.
CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 23/31
26. The plaintiff also examined PW-3 Vijender Kumar Jain, being the manager of Union Bank of India, Cannaught Place branch who brought the summoned record of savings bank account no.14584 of Abdul Rehman for the period 01.07.1999 to 30.11.1999 as Ex. PW-3/1.
That the plaintiff evidence was closed vide statement of the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff recorded on 29.8.2012. RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
27. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 agreed to a compromise and joint statement to this effect was recorded on 17.12.2009, wherein the defendant no.1 paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- by way of cheque to the plaintiff and the parties agreed to withdraw the various pending litigations against each other. However, although even the cheque of Rs.6,50,000/- issued by the defendant no.1 was encashed by the plaintiff, the parties remained at odds and no compromise decree was passed.
28. That, as already mentioned, the plaintiff closed its evidence on 29.08.2012 the matter was then posted for defendant's evidence, however no evidence was led by the CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 24/31 defendant despite opportunity and instead he moved an application under Order VI rule 17 CPC seeking to amend his written statement. Ultimately the case was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.02.2014 on account of non-appearance of the plaintiff.
29. The suit of the plaintiff was then revived on his application under Order IX rule 4 CPC vide order dated 21.11.2014. The application of the defendant no.1 under Order VI rule 17 CPC was also dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2015 and he was also proceeded exparte. However, vide order dated 06.05.2017, the defendant no.1 was given further opportunity to lead evidence. Despite multiple opportunities and costs imposed, the defendant did not lead any evidence and ultimately his right was closed on 29.10.2018 and the case was listed for final arguments on 20.03.2019. Thereafter final arguments were concluded before the Ld. predecessor of this Court on 21.12.2019 and the case was listed for judgment/clarifications on 21.01.2020, however, for one reason or another no judgment was passed. A perusal of the order-sheets also reveals that the plaintiff last appeared on 21.12.2020 and since then none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff on any date of hearing. The defendant no.1 also last CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 25/31 appeared before the Court on 17.09.2022 and since then he also stopped appearing. On 19.10.2023, the matter was listed before this Court, on which date again none appeared, and noting that arguments had been heard by the Ld. predecessors of this Court, an opportunity was granted to the parties to address final arguments, however none has appeared despite opportunity given.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
30. I shall now proceed to decide the issue wise findings with respect to the case, which are as follows.
31. I shall decide issues no. 2, 4 and 5 together since they are connected issues. The said issues are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
2.Whether the payment was made by the Plaintiff? OPP
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled any interest, if yes, for what rate and for what period? OPP
32. The case of the plaintiff is that he had approached the defendant no.1 to file a civil suit for damages against the editor, CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 26/31 publisher, agents and officials of Indian Express newspapers on account of an allegedly defamatory article dated 15.08.1999. Further the plaintiff has stated that he engaged the defendant no.1 for the said purpose and agreed upon for a sum of Rs.4.25 Lakhs as his professional fees, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards typing charges and a sum of Rs.5.25 Lakhs towards court fees, totally amounting to a sum of Rs.9.52 Lakhs. According to the plaintiff, it was orally agreed with the defendant no.1 that with respect to payment of his professional fees of Rs.4.25 Lakhs, an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs would be paid prior to the filing of the suit and the balance amount of Rs.2.25 Lakhs would be paid by to him after the completion of the suit. However, on the insistence of the defendant no.1, cheques for the entire amount of Rs.9.52 Lakhs were to be given in advance and hence assured that cheques amounting to Rs.2.25 Lakhs would be kept as security and would only be encashed on the completion of the suit. The plaintiff approached the defendants no.2-20, who are his friends and well wishers and collected cheques of various amounts in the name of the defendant no.1 from them. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the plaintiff approached the defendants no.2-20 to issue cheques directly in the name of the defendant no.1 instead of collecting the amount himself and directly paying/issuing cheque CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 27/31 in favour of the defendant no.1. Further, no written statement was also filed by the said defendants no.2-20 despite service and none entered the witness box as well, which furthers dents the version of the plaintiff. No evidence has also been placed on record to suggest that the said cheques were encashed into the bank account of the defendant no.1 for the purpose of legal fees on behalf of the plaintiff.
33. The version of the plaintiff has completely broken down during the cross-examination by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff admitted that he did not personally know all the defendants no.2- 20 and that that he had not placed on record any documentary proof that Cheques no.1-19 as mentioned in para no.8 of the plaint were encashed by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff has also admitted that he did not ascertain from the bank statements of the persons issuing the cheques as to how many cheques were credited into the bank account of the defendant no.1. He has also admitted that he could not remember whether blank cheques were given and his wife had filled in the name of the defendant no.1 in her own handwriting. The witness was also confronted with testimony of Mohd Ahmed Rubbani 'Mark X' recorded before the Bar Council of India in which he stated that he had CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 28/31 given blank cheques to the plaintiff, wherein only amount was filled in and the payee name was not filled in. The plaintiff also admitted that he had no proof that the defendant no.1 had demanded or obtained any cheques from the defendants no.2-20 and further that that none of the defendants no.2-20 had written the name of the defendant no.1 in his or her own handwriting in any of the cheques mentioned in the plaint. Furthermore, the plaintiff has been unable to explain as to why the defendant no.1 was in possession of multiple vakalatnamas executed by him for various other litigations and matters.
34. PW-1 has repeatedly taken inconsistent stands and his testimony is riddled with falsehoods. With respect to the testimony of PW-2 Mohammed Ahmed Rabbani who has deposed that negotiations for the fees and handing over of the cheques took place in his presence, even though the said witness was not cross-examined, there is no whisper of the same in the plaint and his testimony deserves to be discarded as being an after-thought to create evidence in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the above, it emerges that the version of the plaintiff that defendants no.2-20 had issued cheques to the defendant no.1 on behalf of the plaintiff as legal fees to file a civil suit for damages CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 29/31 is a false and concocted story. Accordingly issues no. 2, 4 and 5 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no.1.
35. I shall next proceed to decide issues no.1 and 3 together since they are connected issues. The said issues are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD-1
3.Whether the amount was paid to D-1 towards professional fees, if yes, its effect?OPD-1
36. The defendant has not led any evidence at all in the suit despite opportunity and hence the issue no.1 is decided against the defendant no.1. However with respect to issue no.3, since the issues no. 2, 4 and 5 have been decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no.1, the issue no.3 is also decided in favour of the defendant no.1 being connected with the same.
RELIEF
37. As a result of the aforementioned facts and reasons, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove its case against the defendant no.1 and the present suit is dismissed. CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 30/31 Costs of the suit are awarded in favour of the defendant no.1. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Jiten Mehra)
on 24.01.2024 ADJ-10/Central/THC/Delhi.
CS DJ NO.:-617806/16 K.M. Anees-ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Page 31/31