Delhi District Court
Shri Jaspal Singh vs Shri Laxman Prashad Gupta & Another on 8 July, 2008
(1)Suit no. 200/06
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:DELHI
Suit no. 200/06
Shri Jaspal Singh
.......Plaintiff
versus
Shri Laxman Prashad Gupta & another
.......Defendants
ORDER
1.By this order I propose to dispose of preliminary issue no.1 and also issue no.4 which are as under:-
"Issue no.1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged in the preliminary objection no.2 of the written statement?OPD Issue no.4 Whether the plaintiff has not correctly valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction as alleged in the preliminary objection no. 5 of the written statement, if so, its effect? OPD"
2.The brief facts as alleged in the pleadings of the parties are that the present suit for possession was instituted by Page no.-( 1)-
(2)Suit no. 200/06the plaintiff Shri Jaspal Singh on his behalf as well as on behalf of other legal heirs of his late father as their attorney inter-alia alleging that the father of the plaintiff late Shri Raghubir Singh Wadera who died on 30/11/1992 has purchased a flat no. 1 & 2 at mezzanine floor at 14, School Lane, Bangali Market, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as "suit property") from M/s Lion Builders Pvt. Ltd, for a consideration of Rs. 1.5 lacs. The payment was made through cheque dated 02/6/1989 against receipt-cum-possession letter dated 02/6/1989 issued by the sellers and the actual physical possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff's father Shri Raghubir Singh Wadera. The sellers also issued to the plaintiff's father a duly sworn and attested affidavit dated 01/10/1990 and letter of allotment dated 29/05/1989. By virtue of aforesaid facts, the plaintiff happens to be the true and original owner of the suit property.
Page no.-( 2)-
(3)Suit no. 200/06
3.It is alleged that the defendants forcibly and illegally by breaking open the locks of the suit property on or around 26/3/1991 and by removing the office furniture i.e tables and chairs of plaintiff's father entered into forcible possession of the suit property. A criminal complaint in that regard was filed by the father of the plaintiff against the defendants which is still pending before Ld MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and was fixed for hearing on 30/06/2006. The defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against late Shri Raghubir Wadera bearing suit no. 142/91 on fictitious grounds as a counter-blast to the criminal complaint filed by the father of the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed by the Ld Civil Judge, Delhi on 22/10/2005 on the point of maintainability in terms of the prayer against the LR's of the deceased. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs thoroughly maintained that their father is the owner of the suit property and through him they are the legal owners. The plaintiff has also instituted a civil suit Page no.-( 3)-
(4)Suit no. 200/06for permanent injunction against defendants alongwith contempt petition no. 35/99 before the Ld Civil Judge, Delhi. The defendants are in illegal possession of the suit property since 1991 and are enjoying the fruits of ill-gotten possession of the same. Hence, the present suit for recovery of the possession as well as mesne- profits for the last 36 months @ Rs. 41,000/- totaling to a sum of Rs. 14,76,000/- alongwith interest.
4.The defendants in their written statement took the preliminary objection stating that the suit was barred by limitation; the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit because defendants are the true owners and in possession of the suit property as they have purchased it from consideration against duly executed documents; the defendants are the bonafide purchasers and their possession is protected under section 53 (A) of Transfer of Property Act; the suit of the plaintiff was barred by section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, because Page no.-( 4)-
(5)Suit no. 200/06documents relied upon by the plaintiff were not registered; suit was not valued properly for the purpose of the court fees and jurisdiction. The documents in the form of General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff is apparently forged document because Ms Gurjeet Kaur in the civil suit pending before Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi has claimed herself to be the sole beneficiary under a Will dated 03/11/1992 allegedly executed by Shri R.S.Wadera; that the defendants are in lawful possession of the suit property being its lawful purchasers for consideration and were put in the possession by the sellers and have never tress-passed or taken the forcible possession of the suit property. The suit is barred by res-judicata as the plaintiff being defendant no. 6 in suit no. 112/2000 titled as "Jeet Singh Kambhoj V/s L.P. Gupta and others" and the said suit was dismissed on merits by the court of Ld Additional District Judge, Delhi vide order dated 19/2/2004. On merits, it is stated that the defendants purchased the suit Page no.-( 5)-
(6)Suit no. 200/06property from M/s Lion Builder Pvt Ltd on 07/2/1991 and received the possession of the same alongwith documents. The defendants booked the flat in the year 1983 and paid the consideration in installments against receipts through Shri S. S. Satija. A sum of Rs. 4,51,000/- was paid against receipts and after the said payment, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendants by Shri S. S. Satija, Managing Director of M/s Lion Builder Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated in para. 10 on merits that late Shri R.S. Wadera has lodged an FIR against Shri S.S.Satija, Managing Director of M/s Lion Builder Pvt. Ltd and the FIR no. 242/91 u/s 420 IPC was registered in Police Station Tilak Marg, Delhi. The contents of the FIR shows that the deceased father of the plaintiff was never inducted in the possession of the suit property. All other averments have been controverted and denied.
5.In replication, all the material averments in the written Page no.-( 6)-
(7)Suit no. 200/06statement have been controverted and denied and all averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and re-affirmed.
6.From the pleadings of the parties the issues were framed on 16/5/2001. The issue of limitation was not considered as a preliminary issue holding that "the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, hence, same can not be treated as preliminary issued". Aggrieved by the said observations, the defendants preferred CM (M) 928/07 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stating that the defendant has urged before Ld Trial Court that the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation. It was further stated that it was also urged by the defendants before the Ld Trial Court that no evidence was required for the reasons in para. no. 5 of the plaint. It was averred that the alleged trespass took place on 26/3/1991 and as such 12 years limitation for a suit for possession would be over on 26/3/2003 and hence suit Page no.-( 7)-
(8)Suit no. 200/06was filed much beyond 26/3/2003 therefore barred by limitation. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to order as under:-
"para no. 4 Declining to treat issue no.1 as a preliminary issue learned Trial Court has observed as under:-
"The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, hence, the same can not be treated as preliminary issue."
para.5 Needless to state no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge as to why it was held that in the instant case the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. Further, the learned Trial Judge has not dealt with the plea of the petitioner that the suit was ex-facie barred by limitation. The plea of the petitioner has been noted briefly hereinabove.
Para.6 I accordingly dispose of the petition setting aside the impugned order dated 16/5/2007 in so far it has declined to treat issue no.1 as a preliminary issue. Learned Trial Judge is directed to pass a reasoned order, meaning thereby, if the court opines that the issue of limitation in the instant case is a mixed question of law and fact same needs to be brought out with clarity. If it is held that the issue of limitation could be decided without evidence the same needs to be decided.
Page no.-( 8)-
(9)Suit no. 200/06Para.7 Before concluding I note that issue no.4 pertaining to court fee has already been treated as a preliminary issue. Learned counsel for the parties informed that decision on issue no.4 has not been pronounced. Thus, learned Trial Judge would decide issue no.1 along with issue no.4, guided by the observations in the present order.
7.In the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I have heard Ld counsel for the parties at length on the issue of limitation. Ld counsel for the defendants argued that the right of the plaintiff to recover the possession of the suit property has extinguished as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act,1963. It was further argued that the period of limitation provided for recovery of possession is given in Article 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act. It is further argued that section 65 is applicable in the present case because plaintiff is seeking recovery of possession on the basis of the title documents of the suit property. It is further argued that the plaintiff is claiming Page no.-( 9)-
(10)Suit no. 200/06possession of the suit property on the basis of inadmissible and unregistered documents. Ld counsel for the defendant took me to para. no. 2, 5, 12 and 13 of the plaint to point out that the averments in the said paras shows that the suit of the plaintiff is ex-facie barred by limitation. It is pointed out that in para. 5 of the plaint the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants forcibly and illegally breaking open the locks on or around 26/3/1991 and removing the office furniture of the plaintiff's father, took the forcible possession of the suit property. In para. 12 of the plaint, it is alleged that the defendants are in illegal possession of the property of the plaintiffs since 1991 and are enjoying the ill-gotten gains of the same till today. Lastly, para. 13, related to the cause of action is pointed out which reads as under:-
"para. 13. That the cause of action arose at Delhi first on when the suit property was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs on 02/06/1989, then when the defendants illegally occupied the suit premises by forcibly breaking the locks on 26/03/1991 and the cause of action still Page no.-( 10)-(11)Suit no. 200/06
continues.
8. It was therefore argued that the above averments shows that the plaintiff himself is claiming the cause of action having been arisen lastly on 26/3/1991 and the present suit filed on 16/10/2006 is hopelessly barred by limitation. Ld counsel for the defendants further argued that after expiry of 12 years and defendants being remained in continuous, uninterpreted possession of the suit property, the right of the plaintiff to recover the possession from them stands extinguished. In support of his contentions Ld counsel has referred the following cases :-
AIR 1989 Karnataka, 83 where Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in AIR 1967 SC 978 was followed wherein it was held that :-
"A person in adverse possession acquires title by prescription despite a decree against him both in regard to title and possession. If physical possession was with the judgment Page no.-( 11)-(12)Suit no. 200/06
debtor, who with hostile animus and continuous possession throughout the period of prescription sustains such possession without being interrupted either by removal or otherwise, then notwithstanding a galore of decrees against that person, at the end of the 12th year, plaintiff's title gets extinguished in virtue of adverse possession by a hostile possessor.
9.In (1973) 2 SCC 705, titled as "Rajender Singh and Others V/s Santa Singh and others" wherein it was held that:-
"15. The doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending, by private dealings which may remove the subject-matter of litigation from the ambit of the Court's power to decide a pending dispute or frustrate its decree. Alienees acquiring any immovable property during a litigation over it are held to be bound , by an application of the doctrine, by the decree passed in the suit even though they may not have been impleaded in it. The whole object of the doctrine of lis pendens is to subject parties to the litigation as well as others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property, which are the subject-matter of a litigation, to the Page no.-( 12)-(13)Suit no. 200/06
power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated.
16. It is very difficult to view the act of taking illegal possession of immovable property or continuance of wrongful possession, even if the wrong-doer be a party to the pending suit, as a "dealing with" the property other-wise than by its transfer so as to be covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The prohibition which prevents the immovable property being "transferred or otherwise dealt with" by a party is apparently directed against some action which would have an immediate effect, similar to or comparable with that of transfer, but for the principle of lis pendens. Taking of illegal possession or its continuance neither resemble nor are comparable to a transfer. They are one sided wrongful acts and not bilateral transactions of a kind which ordinarily constitute "deals" or dealings with property( e.g contracts to sell). They cannot confer immediate rights on the possessor. Continued illegal possession ripens into a legally enforceable right only after the prescribed period of time has elapsed. It matures into a right due to inaction and not due to the action of the injured party which can approach a court of appropriate jurisdiction for redress by a suit to regain possession. The relief against the wrong done must be sought within the time prescribed. This is Page no.-( 13)-(14)Suit no. 200/06
the only mode of redress provided by law for such cases. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was not meant to serve, indirectly, as a provision or a substitute for a provision of the Limitation Act to exclude time. Such a provision could and would have been there in the Limitation Act, where it would appropriately belong, if the policy behind the law was to have such a provision.
21. It is not possible, in the absence of any provision which would entitle the plaintiffs to exclude time and thus bring their suit within 12 years period of limitation, to accept a contention which would enable the plaintiffs to escape the mandatory provisions of Section 3 of the Act read with section 28 and Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act of 1908. Courts of Justice cannot legislate or reconstruct law contained in a statute or introduce exceptions when statutory law debars them from doing so. Even hard circumstances of a case do not justify the adoption of such a course. Moreover, we fail to see how the plaintiffs could complain of hardship when their own negligence or failure to act in time enabled defendants to acquire rights by reason of the operation of a law of limitation with the wisdom or justice of which we are not concerned here."
10. Ld counsel for the defendants vehementally argued Page no.-( 14)-
(15)Suit no. 200/06that the cases referred and relied upon by him proves stand of the defendants that as per the allegations in the plaint the continuous illegal possession of the defendants has ripened into legally enforceable right after the prescribed period of time has elapsed. It is further argued that the pendency of the various litigations between the parties does not save the period of limitation and for that reasons the suit is barred by limitation.
11.Ld counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand argued that the case referred and relied upon by the defendants are not relevant because the said cases deals with a situation where the alleged illegal possession of a person has matured into the legal possession due to inaction on the part of the true owner. Ld counsel for the plaintiff further stated that in the case cited as AIR 1967 SC 978 (Supra) of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the situation which was dealt with related to the plea of adverse Page no.-( 15)-
(16)Suit no. 200/06possession by the defendant. Ld counsel for the plaintiff specifically argued that in the written statement the case of the defendant as narrated is that they are true owners and in possession of the said suit property on the basis of title documents allegedly executed in their favour by Shri S.S. Satija. It is further argued that in para. 8 of the written statement a contradictory plea has been taken by the defendants stating that the suit for recovery of immovable property based on the title can be filed within 12 years when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to that of the plaintiff. It is argued that the defendants are claiming themselves as owners on the basis of title documents and on the other hand they are claiming that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation due to expiry of 12 years and possession of the defendants having become adverse to that of the plaintiff. Ld counsel for the plaintiff further argued that in the present case it is not the situation that the illegal possession of the defendant can be culminated into Page no.-( 16)-
(17)Suit no. 200/06legal possession due to inaction on the part of the plaintiff. It is further argued that in para. no. 6 of the plaint which is admitted to be a matter of record by the defendants, the plaintiff has clearly stated that in respect of the forcible possession by the defendants on 26/3/1991, accordingly a complaint was filed by late Shri Raghubir Wadera, father of the plaintiff against the defendants and same was still pending in the court of Ld MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi where the next date of hearing was 30/06/2006. It is further argued that the defendants themselves filed the suit for permanent injunction against the father of the plaintiff bearing no. 142/91 which was dismissed on 22/10/2005 by the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi holding that the same was not maintainable against the present plaintiff. Thus, it shows that the alleged illegal possession of defendants was not uninterpreted and there was no inaction on the part of the plaintiff to challenge the illegal possession of the defendants. Ld counsel for the plaintiff further argued Page no.-( 17)-
(18)Suit no. 200/06that in the written statement filed by Shri S.S. Satija to the suit of the defendants i.e suit no. 142/91 discussed above, Shri S.S. Satija categorically stated that he has never sold the suit property to the defendants herein stating that on the alleged date of execution of the documents on 07/2/1991 he was not available/present to execute the documents. He has categorically stated in the written statement that the suit property was sold on 02/6/1989 to Shri R. S. Wadera predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff herein and possession was already handed over to him on 02/06/1989. Ld counsel for the plaintiff further pointed out that a civil suit was instituted by Shri Jit Singh Kambhoj bearing no. 112/2000 against the defendants herein, in which Shri S.S. Satija was impleaded as defendant no.3, M/s Lion Builders Pvt Ltd, as defendant no.4 and late Shri R. S. Wadera was as defendant no. 6 who was represented by Shri Jaspal Singh present plaintiff. It is argued that the said suit was decided by Ld Additional District Judge, Page no.-( 18)-
(19)Suit no. 200/06Delhi relates to same suit property wherein specific issues were framed "As to whether Shri Laxman Prasad Gupta and Smt Rita Gupta are the owners of the suit property and as to whether late Shri R.S. Wadera is the owner of the suit property". It is further argued that in the said suit these two issues were given numbers as issue no. 5 & 6. It is argued that the Ld Additional District Judge,Delhi in judgment dated 19/2/2004 has disposed of the suit without giving findings on both these issues. It is therefore argued that the Ld Additional District Judge, Delhi has left the said question open meaning thereby the plaintiff at the time of disposal of the said suit on 19/2/2004 had the cause of action to recover the possession of the suit property. It is further argued that in para. 13 of the plaint the plaintiff has specifically alleged that the cause of action still continuous. Above circumstances and the material shows that cause of action continued at the time of institution of the present. For that reasons, the suit is not ex-facie barred Page no.-( 19)-
(20)Suit no. 200/06by limitation.
12.I have considered the rival submissions made at Bar. In the present suit in order to establish whether the alleged possession of the defendants has culminated in to legal possession due to inaction on behalf of the plaintiff as is being claimed by the defendants, this court is required to appreciate evidence in the form of judgments and pleadings of the parties in civil and criminal litigations either pending between them or decided by the Court. In the suit bearing no. 112/2000 decided by Ms Sunita Gupta, Ld ADJ, Delhi, the issue no. 6 was "whether the suit property belonged to defendant no. 6 i.e late Shri R.S.Wadera through legal representative Shri Jaspal Singh". The issue no. 5&6 in the said suit were disposed of without returning any finding by the Ld Additional District Judge, Delhi stating that the defendant no. 1&2 i.e Sh. Laxman Prasad Gupta and Ms Rita Gupta (defendants herein) has alleged that they are in Page no.-( 20)-
(21)Suit no. 200/06possession of the suit property in the capacity of owners and they have never taken the possession of the suit property forcibly or by breaking open the locks and are legally entitled to the possession of the suit property. On the other hand, defendant no. 6 i.e late Shri R. S. Wadera predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff herein is also claiming to be lawful owner of the property having purchased from Shri S. S. Satija vide Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/4. Ld Additional District Judge held that it may be mentioned that it will not be proper in this suit to decide as to who is original and lawful owner of the suit property in as much as, it is the admitted case of the parties that number of several criminal litigations are pending between them. It was further held that the interest of the defendant no.1, 2 & 6 i.e (defendants and plaintiff respectively herein) are not required to be adjudicated upon in these proceedings. Had the Court decided those issues or if issue no. 6 had been decided in favour of the plaintiff herein, the plaintiff herein could Page no.-( 21)-
(22)Suit no. 200/06have asked for recovery of the possession of the suit property u/s 151 CPC, if declared owner of the suit property. The finding and the decision of the above judgment shows that the possession of the defendants in this suit property is not uninterpreted and plaintiff herein is not guilty of inaction so that the possession of the defendants may be considered to have been legalized either because of adverse possession or because of extinguishment of right of the plaintiff to recover the possession of the suit property as per the provision of section 27 of the Limitation Act and Article 64 and 65 of Limitation Act.
13.Another strange situation also emerges in this case because in the written statement the defendants have taken contradictory pleas of ownership by way of adverse possession as well as being owners on the basis of title documents of the suit property. In case the defendants are allowed to take their plea of adverse Page no.-( 22)-
(23)Suit no. 200/06possession, it may adversely affect their defence in the criminal complaint instituted by the plaintiff herein for the alleged house trespass by the defendants. In case the plaintiff succeeds in his criminal case, the court on conclusion of the trial may restore the possession of the suit property to the complainant/plaintiff herein as provided by section 452 and 456 of the Cr.PC,1973. Because in cases where a plea of adverse possession is taken, the claimant of the plea necessarily presumes the opposite party as owner of the suit property. In "Rama Kanta Jain Vs M.S. Jain and Others", 1999 III AD (DELHI) 32, it was held that Adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property Page no.-( 23)-
(24)Suit no. 200/06claimed. Where possession could be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse.
14.Because of the above discussion and the reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the question of the limitation in the present suit is a mixed question of law and fact which can not be decided without appreciation of pleadings, leading of the evidence and appreciating the documentary evidence discussed above. In order to find out whether the cause of action to institute the present suit was continuing at the time of filing of the present suit, the court is required to appreciate the pleadings of litigation between the parties and to appreciate the documentary evidence and other evidence discussed above and is also required to take evidence of the parties.
15.I am fortified in my view by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 VI AD (SC) 325, in case Page no.-( 24)-
(25)Suit no. 200/06titled as "Ramesh B. Desai & Others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Others" it was held that: -
"14. The principle underlying Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 is no different. We will refer here to a recent decision of this Court rendered in Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 wherein it was held as under in para no. 10 of the report: -
"10. Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force."
16. A plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The question whether the words "barred by law" occurring in Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC would also include the ground Page no.-( 25)-
(26)Suit no. 200/06that it is barred by law of limitation has been recently considered by a two Judge Bench of this Court to which one of us was a member (Ashok Bhan J.) in Civil Appeal No. 4539 of 2003 (Balasaria Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hanuman Seva Trust & Others) decided on 8.11.2005 and it was held: -
"After hearing counsel for the parties, going through the plaint, application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC and the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the paint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time." this principal would be equally applicable to a Company Petition. Therefore, unless it becomes apparent from the reading of the Company Petition that the same is barred by limitation the petition cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC."
Page no.-( 26)-
(27)Suit no. 200/06
16. For the above reasons, ex-facie in the present case on reading of whole plaint, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time.
17.With regard to issue no. 4 relating to the valuation of the suit property, Ld counsel for the plaintiff argued that the said issue can not be decided without affording an opportunity for leading evidence to the plaintiff to prove that the valuation done by him is correct value as per law for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Ld counsel for defendants on the other hand argued that the suit property is worth crores of rupees and for that reasons the plaintiff has not valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction correctly. The onus of this issue was placed upon the defendants and defendants are required to substantiate their defence in their written statement in that regard by leading evidence. Accordingly, issue no. 4 can not be decided without leading evidence by the parties. However, Page no.-( 27)-
(28)Suit no. 200/06before proceeding trial of the matter, this issue of valuation of the suit property needs to be decided before deciding the other issues. For that reasons, parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings in that regard. The decision of issue no.1 is accordingly deferred to be decided finally after leading evidence by the parties. Issue no.4 will be decided before deciding other issues after leading evidence by the parties. The question of the disposal of the preliminary issues is disposed of accordingly in above terms.
Announced in the open court on 08/7/2008.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
DELHI.
Page no.-( 28)-