Delhi High Court
Pushpa Rathi & Anr vs Jugnu Bansal on 7 September, 2017
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 7th September, 2017
+ CM(M) 765/2011 & CMs No.12354/2011 (for stay) &
9743/2013 (of respondent u/S 151 CPC)
PUSHPA RATHI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.L. Bhargava, Adv.
Versus
JUGNU BANSAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kuber Boddh and Ms.
Ashima Mandla, Advs.
AND
+ CM(M) 1098/2011, CM No.16986/2017 (u/O XXII R-4 CPC)
& CM No.16987/2017 (for condonation of 15 days delay in
filing CM No.16986/2017)
GOVERDHAN DASS BANSAL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kuber Boddh & Ms.
Ashima Mandal, Advs.
Versus
DINESH KUMAR RATHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.L. Bhargava, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM (M) No.765/2011
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the judgment [dated 5th March, 2011 in RCA No.35/2008 of
the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-03, (North-East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] allowing the appeal preferred by the
respondent/plaintiff against the order [dated 24th July, 2008 in Suit
No.77A/2007 of the Court of Sh. Vishal Gogne, Civil Judge,
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 1 of 18
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] allowing the application of the
petitioners/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and rejecting the plaint in the suit filed by the
respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession of property No.205,
Gali No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara,
Delhi along with mesne profits/damages for use and occupation and
for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from
selling, alienating or parting with possession of the said property.
2. The plaint in the suit from which this petition arises was
rejected by the Civil Judge on the ground of the claim therein for
possession being barred by limitation prescribed in Article 65 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, the narrative herein
would be concerning the aspect of limitation only.
3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this
petition arises, pleading (i) that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner
of property No.205, Gali No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali, Durgapuri
Extension, Shahdara, Delhi; (ii) that the respondent/plaintiff permitted
the partnership firm M/s Parag Enterprises in which the
respondent/plaintiff and the defendant / petitioner No.1 Pushpa Rathi
were partners; (iii) that disputes and differences arose with respect to
the said partnership and the respondent/plaintiff, vide letter dated 16th
January, 1986 to the Manager of the Bank in which the partnership
had an account, stopped operation of the partnership account with the
said Bank; (iv) that the defendant / petitioner No.2 Dinesh Rathi being
the husband of the petitioner No.1 Pushpa Rathi, on 16th January,
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 2 of 18
1986, instituted a suit against the respondent/plaintiff and her husband,
averring himself to be a tenant in the aforesaid property No.205, Gali
No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara, Delhi as
well as in property No.206, Gali No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali,
Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara, Delhi owned by the husband of the
respondent/plaintiff and to restrain the respondent/plaintiff and her
husband from forcibly dispossessing the defendant / petitioner No.2
Dinesh Rathi from the said properties; (v) that in the written statement
to the said plaint, the respondent/plaintiff and her husband while
admitted the tenancy of property No.206, Durgapuri Extension,
Shahdara but denied that there was any tenancy of property No.205
Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara and pleaded that the possession of
property No.205, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara was with the
respondent/plaintiff only; (vi) that the defendant / petitioner No.2
Dinesh Rathi, in or about 1987 applied for amendment of plaint in the
said suit No.77/1986 pleading that the husband of the
respondent/plaintiff had on 6th February, 1987, on receipt of
Rs.20,000/-, had sold both the properties i.e. properties No.205-206,
Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara to the defendant / petitioner No.1 and
forged a receipt of Rs.20,000/- and that the petitioners/defendants had
become owners of the properties by adverse possession and the
husband of the respondent/plaintiff, instead of executing necessary
documents of title in favour of the petitioners/defendants, was trying
to forcibly dispossess them from the said properties; (vii) that the
petitioners/defendants filed another suit being Suit No.25/1990 against
the husband of the respondent/plaintiff, again alleging to have become
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 3 of 18
owners of properties No.205-206, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara by
adverse possession thereof since the year 1985 (when the husband of
the respondent/plaintiff had received Rs.20,000/- for sale of both the
properties); (viii) that the husband of the respondent/plaintiff had
already filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 with respect to property No.206, Durgapuri
Extension, Shahdara (CM(M) No.1098/2011 arising wherefrom is
being listed along with this petition and in which a separate order is
being passed hereunder); (ix) that Suit No.77/1986 and Suit
No.25/1990 aforesaid, both for injunction, were still pending
consideration; (x) that the respondent/plaintiff vide notice dated 29 th
November, 1999 called upon the petitioners/defendants to deliver
possession of property No.205, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara but
which had not been delivered; (xi) that the respondent/plaintiff had
also filed Arbitration Application No.132/2000 in this Court for
appointment of an Arbitrator but which had been dismissed vide order
dated 19th December, 2005 of this Court on the ground of arbitration
being barred by time; (xii) that the petitioners/defendants after
termination vide notice dated 29th November, 1999 of their licence of
property No.205, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara were in unauthorised
occupation therefor; (xiii) that the cause of action for filing the suit
arose on issuance of notice dated 29th November, 1999 and the suit
was filed in or about January, 2007.
4. The learned Civil Judge rejected the plaint in the suit aforesaid
as barred by time, reasoning that the limitation for a suit for recovery
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 4 of 18
of possession on the basis of title was governed by Article 65 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act; that the limitation for such a suit did
not commence from the date of the notice; that since the
petitioners/defendants with effect from the amendment sought in the
year 1987 in Suit No.77/1986 were claiming to be in adverse
possession and the suit had been filed in the year 2007 i.e. after 12
years therefrom, the claim for possession and ancillary reliefs was thus
barred by time.
5. The learned ADJ vide the impugned judgment dated 5th March,
2011 has set aside the order of rejection of plaint and has remanded
the suit for trial on merits.
6. This petition was entertained and vide order dated 12th July,
2011 which continues to be in force, the operation of the impugned
judgment was stayed. Resultantly, the proceedings in the suit from
which this petition arises have not commenced since the order of
remand vide the impugned judgment.
7. This petition has been languishing for over six years with
neither counsel appearing to be interested therein. Finding the petition
to be an old one, vide order dated 4th September, 2017, the petition
was listed for hearing for today clarifying that no further adjournment
shall be granted.
8. On going through the aforesaid facts, I have at the outset
enquired from the counsel for the petitioners/defendants, as to how
this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 5 of 18
maintainable. Order rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC as per Section 2(ii) of CPC is a decree and against which decree
the appeal under Section 96 of CPC being RCA No.35/2008 was filed
and against the judgment allowing which appeal, this petition has been
filed. Against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, a
Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC would lie and it is the
settled position in law (see Ajay Bansal Vs. Anup Mehta (2007) 2
SCC 275) that once a remedy is provided under the CPC or any other
statute, Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.
9. The counsel for the petitioners/defendants states that neither did
the Registry of this Court raise this issue nor has for the last six years
the said issue been raised in any of the orders and the counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff has also not raised this issue and he is thus not
prepared therefor and seeks adjournment.
10. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is also not aware in this
respect.
11. Though I maintain no manner of doubt on the aforesaid position
in law and this petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable on
this ground alone but rather than allowing the matter to languish and
having gone through the paper book, it is deemed appropriate to deal
with the matter on merits as well.
12. I have already hereinabove noted that it was the averment in the
plaint in the suit from which this petition arises, that the suits filed by
the petitioners/defendants in which the petitioners/defendants had
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 6 of 18
taken the plea of "adverse possession" were pending consideration till
the date of institution of the subject suit. I have thus enquired from
the counsels, the fate of the two suits for injunction, being Suit
No.77/1986 and Suit No.25/1990 aforesaid.
13. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff states that both the suits
were dismissed.
14. The counsel for the petitioners/defendants states that appeals
against the judgment and decree of dismissal of the said suits are
pending consideration before the ADJ.
15. What also emerges from the aforesaid status of the pleadings is,
that the petitioners/defendants on the one hand are claiming lawful
title to the subject property No.205, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara by
pleading that the husband of the respondent/plaintiff, against receipt of
sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- had sold property No.205, Durgapuri
Extension, Shahdara as well as property No.206, Durgapuri Extension,
Shahdara to the petitioners/defendants and in the same breath are
claiming to be in adverse possession thereof.
16. It was held by the Supreme Court in Annasaheb Bapusaheb
Patil Vs. Balwan alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (1995) 2 SCC
543, Vidya Devi alia Vidya Vati Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496
Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, Karnataka
Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570, P.T.
Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (2009) 13 SCC 229 and
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 7 of 18
Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah (2010) 2 SCC 461
that the plea of lawful title and of adverse possession are mutually
destructive and once a plea of lawful title to the property in
whatsoever manner is taken, it is not open to in the same breath take a
plea of adverse possession. On the averments in the plaint at least, it
cannot be said that the respondent/plaintiff had admitted the adverse
possession of the petitioners/defendants since 1987, when the said
plea was taken for the first time.
17. There is another aspect of the matter.
18. The proceedings in which the plea of adverse possession was
taken were pending consideration till the stage of institution of the suit
for recovery of possession from which this petition arises. It is not the
case that the respondent/plaintiff or her husband in the said suits in
which the plea of adverse possession was taken for the first time, had
admitted so. The said plea was thus still under adjudication and
appears to have not been accepted in Suit No.77/1986 and Suit
No.25/1990 also, though appeals thereagainst are also stated to be
pending. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that possession of
the petitioners/defendants was without any claim or disturbance from
the true owner i.e. respondent/plaintiff, inasmuch as the
respondent/plaintiff was in Suit No.77/1986 and Suit No.25/1990
contesting the said plea. Once that is so, the necessary ingredients of
adverse possession cannot be said to have been made out.
19. I may even otherwise state, that qua a plea in a suit for recovery
of possession on the basis of title which is contested on the ground of
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 8 of 18
the suit being barred by time, it is for the defendant to establish that
his possession became adverse to that of the plaintiff more than 12
years prior to the institution of the suit and ordinarily the plaint in such
a suit cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation unless as per the
plaint and/or any admissions in the replication to the written statement
filed thereto an admission of the defendant having been in adverse
possession for more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, is
to be found
20. It is thus found that the learned ADJ in the impugned order has
reached the correct conclusion and no case for rejection of the plaint is
made out.
21. The counsel for the petitioners/defendants on being given an
opportunity to make submissions, states that he wants to raise only
one contention. It is stated that though the only question to be
adjudicated was on limitation but this Court has in the order aforesaid,
dictated in open Court, also returned findings on merits.
22. All the observations hereinabove are in the context of, whether
the plaint in the suit from which this petition arises was liable to be
rejected on the ground of the claim therein being barred by time and
once the petitioners/defendants have approached this Court, this Court,
to deal with the issue, has to necessarily advert to the facts.
23. Yet another argument now urged by the counsel for the
petitioners/defendants is, that since the Arbitration Application
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 9 of 18
No.132/2000 was dismissed by this Court, that also amounts to
holding the claim of the respondent/plaintiff being barred by time.
23. I have perused the order dated 19th December, 2005 in
Arbitration No.132/2000 and do not find any reference therein to a
claim for recovery of possession. Arbitration Application
No.132/2000 under Section 11(4)&(6) of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed as barred by time on the ground
of the disputes relating to partnership arising in the year 1986 and the
partnership business having been shut down in 1986 and the petition
being thus barred by time. The said order is of no relevance to the
controversy in the suit from which this petition arises, in which the
respondent/plaintiff is claiming possession on the basis of title.
24. No other argument has been raised by the counsel for the
petitioners/defendants.
25. The petition is thus not only not maintainable, but also
thoroughly misconceived and is dismissed.
26. The Supreme Court in Abhimanyoo Ram Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2008) 17 SCC 73, Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram
Cement (2008) 14 SCC 58 and Hindustan Associates Engineer Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. K.K. Aggarwal 2011 SCC OnLine Del 542 has held that the
Court, at the time of final adjudication, has to balance the equities
arising from the interim order in the proceedings. The
petitioners/defendants, owing to the interim order in this petition
staying proceedings in the suit, have delayed the disposal of the suit
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 10 of 18
for recovery of possession of immoveable property and for mesne
profits by six years. The petitioners/defendants are thus burdened
with costs of Rs.1 lakh payable to the respondent/plaintiff Jugnu
Bansal by cheque/pay order in the name of Jugnu Bansal before the
Trial Court on the next date of hearing, as a condition for further
participation in the suit.
27. Costs have been ordered to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff
and not to the Advocate, since the advocate for the
respondent/plaintiff has not taken the pleas which he ought to have
taken.
28. On enquiry, the counsels state that there is no date fixed in the
suit.
29. The parties to appear before the successor Court of Civil Judge,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 24th October, 2017.
30. The Trial Court record, if requisitioned in this Court, be
returned forthwith.
CM(M) 1098/2011
31. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order [dated 7th April, 2011 in RCT No.30/2010 (Unique
Case ID No.02402C0070632010) of the Court of Additional Rent
Control Tribunal, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] of
dismissal of appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 preferred by the petitioners against the order [dated 6 th February,
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 11 of 18
2010 in E-69/2009 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC),
North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] dismissing the
petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of
the Act.
32. This petition was entertained and the trial court record
requisitioned and has been languishing for the last six years.
33. The counsel for the legal heirs of both the respondents viz.
Dinesh Kumar Rathi and Pushpa Rathi states that CM Nos.16986-
87/2017 filed by the petitioners for substitution of legal
representatives of both the respondents and for condonation of delay
in filing thereof are pending consideration before the Joint Registrar
and listed next on 16th November, 2017.
34. Considering that the petition is already six years old and is
listed today for arguments, notwithstanding the date of 16th November,
2017 before the Joint Registrar, the counsels have been heard on the
said applications.
35. The counsel for the legal heirs of the respondents has argued
that the petitioners have pleaded that the applications have been filed
within the prescribed time from the intimation of the death given to
this Court when the respondents in another proceedings between the
parties had applied for substitution of legal heirs of the respondents
earlier and the statement in the applications is evidently false.
36. The counsel for the petitioners has no reply.
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 12 of 18
37. Considering the facts and circumstances, subject to the
petitioners paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the counsel for the legal heirs
of the respondents, the delay in applying for substitution is condoned
and the legal heirs of the respondents are substituted in place of the
respondents.
38. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
39. CM Nos.16986-87/2017 are disposed of.
40. The counsels have been heard on the merits of CM(M)
No.1098/2011.
41. The reason which prevailed with the ARC as well as the Rent
Control Tribunal for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner for
eviction of the respondents from House No.206, Durgapuri Extension,
Gali No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali, Shahdarda, Delhi-110032 was, that
the petitioner failed to prove that he was the owner / landlord of the
said premises.
42. I have hereinabove in the judgment in CM(M) No.765/2011
noted that the respondents, in suit No.77/1986 filed by them, claimed
to be the tenant under the petitioner in the aforesaid property No.206,
Durgapuri Extension, Gali No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali, Shahdarda,
Delhi-110032 at the rent of Rs.150/- per month and in property No.
No.205, Durgapuri Extension, Gali No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali,
Shahdarda, Delhi-110032 at the rent of Rs.150/- per month. However,
as also recorded above, the respondents thereafter amended the plaint
in Suit No.77/1986 and took up the plea of having purchased
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 13 of 18
properties No.205 as well as 206, Durgapuri Extension, Gali No.4,
Gurudware Wali Gali, Shahdarda, Delhi-110032 and of being in
possession of the premises by way of adverse possession.
43. The said suit No.77/1986 has since been dismissed vide
judgment dated 26th February, 2008 of Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Civil
Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Suit No.349/2007; though
appeals thereagainst are stated to be pending. In the said judgment, it
has been held that the respondents have failed to prove adverse
possession. Again, in view of the principle enunciated by me
hereinabove in judgment in CM(M) No.765/2011, of the claim for
adverse possession and the claim for lawful title being mutually
destructive, the question of adverse possession of the respondents of
property No.206, Durgapuri Extension, Gali No.4, Gurudware Wali
Gali, Shahdarda, Delhi-110032 subject matter of this petition does not
arise. Moreover, in the present case, the respondents having enters
into possession of the premises under the lawful title, as a tenant,
could not have set up a plea of adverse possession without
surrendering possession as tenant.
44. The learned ARC has however, notwithstanding the aforesaid
facts and law, held the ownership and relationship of landlord and
tenant to have been not made out referring to the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in H. Muthunanjaiah Vs. C.G. Indiramma
2005 (1) Kar LJ 226 holding that once the amendment has been
allowed, it is only the amended pleading which is to be seen and not
the original pleading.
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 14 of 18
45. Undoubtedly so but the same will not wash away the admission
which has been permitted to be withdrawn/amended. Though in the
suit in which amended pleading is filed, the decision may be governed
by the amended pleading but the pleading originally filed can always
be used to show admission earlier made.
46. As per the said admission, the respondent had admitted to be a
tenant of the petitioner in property No.206, Durgapuri Extension, Gali
No.4, Gurudware Wali Gali, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 at a rent of
Rs.150/- per month and I am afraid, the ARC and the Rent Control
Tribunal have applied incorrect principles of law.
47. The counsel for the respondents has argued that in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India factual
findings cannot be disturbed and has in this regard referred to
Bathutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibat R. Tarta AIR 1975 SC
1297 and Mani Nariman Daruwala & Bharucha (Deceased) through
LRs Vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena AIR 1991 SC 1494.
48. The present is not a case of upsetting of any factual findings.
49. The facts are not in dispute, nor are the same being sought to be
interfered with. It is the inference drawn from the said facts by the
Courts below, which on being found to be contrary to well enunciated
principles of law, is being interfered with.
50. Moreover, it is felt that not interfering with the orders impugned
in this petition results in inconsistent findings. In the Civil Suits
No.77/1988 and 25/1990, the claim of the respondents of adverse
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 15 of 18
possession has been disbelieved though stated to be the subject matter
of appeal. The necessary corollary of holding the petitioner to be not
owner / landlord in the orders impugned in this petition would be to
support the said claim and which would divest the petitioner of the
very title to the property. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law
(See Kanchan Kapoor Vs. Sarwan Kumar (2015) 216 DLT 136) that
qua title, it is the finding of the Civil Court which prevails over the
finding of the Rent Controller constituted under the Rent Act and who
is not even a Court but a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction.
51. I therefore set aside the orders aforesaid of the ARC and the
Rent Control Tribunal, only to the extent of holding that the petitioner
is not the landlord of the premises with respect to which the petition
for eviction was filed. However otherwise, I do not deem it necessary
to interfere with the order of dismissal of the petition for eviction
insofar as under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground of
requirement of the premises by the petitioner for his own use. The
reason therefor is that the Courts below, owing to having arrived at the
finding of there being no relationship of landlord and tenant and the
petitioner having failed to prove ownership, have not dealt with the
said fact. The eviction petition from which this petition arises, was
instituted on 24th April, 2000 and more than 17 years, have elapsed
therefrom. In the said 17 years, requirements change and it is felt that
no purpose would be served by remanding the petition for enquiry
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act. The petitioner however would
be entitled in law and is expressly granted liberty to, if still has
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 16 of 18
requirement for the premises, institute a fresh petition on the said
ground.
52. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant is found between
the petitioner and the respondent, the petition for eviction, insofar as
under Section 14(1)(a) of the Rent Act, has to be allowed and is
allowed. No order under Section 15(1) of the Rent Act having been
passed till now, the same has to be passed.
53. The petitioner is directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per
month with effect from three years prior to the date of institution of
the petition i.e. with effect from 1st May, 1997 till the end of October,
2017 to the petitioner No.1 Goverdhan Dass Bansal on or before 31 st
October, 2017. Though under Section 15(1) of the Rent Act one
month‟s time only is to be given but time till 31 st October, 2017 is
given since correction of this order and release thereof is likely to take
time.
54. If the respondents pay the said arrears of rent on or before 31 st
October, 2017, the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) shall
stand disposed of, giving benefit to the respondents of Section 14(2)
of the Rent Act. However, if the respondents fail to comply with the
order under Section 15(1) for payment of arrears of rent as aforesaid
on or before 31st October, 2017, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
take appropriate proceedings.
CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 17 of 18
55. The petition is disposed of.
56. Trial Court record be returned forthwith.
57. The date of 16th November, 2017 before the Joint Registrar is
cancelled.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017 „bs/gsr‟..
(Corrected & released on 29th September, 2017) CM(M) No.765/2011 & CM(M) No.1098/2011 Page 18 of 18