Delhi District Court
Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt on 29 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016
CNR No. DLSW010002482014
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAMESH KUMAR SHUKLA
Proprietor of Krishna Rent a Car,
At 418-19, Sector 16 B,
Pocket B, Phase II, Janta Flats,
Dwarka, New Delhi ........Plaintiff
Versus
MANOJ DUTT
R/o D-87, Anand Niketen,
New Delhi .......Defendant
Date of institution 26.09.2014
Date of reserving judgment 27.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment 29.03.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of ₹19,20,000 with pendente lite and future interest. The suit was earlier decreed ex parte on 22.12.2016, however the ex parte judgment was set aside. The brief facts of the case are:− PLAINT 1 The plaintiff and the defendant had been acquainted for several years. In August 2011, the defendant approached the plaintiff with a request to lease an SUV for a period of five years. It was mutually agreed that the defendant would take on lease a TATA Safari (8-seater) bearing Registration Certificate (RC) number DL-7-CN-0928 for a monthly rental payment of CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 1/17 ₹80,000, effective from 01.09.2011. Accordingly, an agreement and a delivery receipt were executed on 01.09.2011 to formalise this arrangement.
2 Subsequently, the defendant made rental payments for a period of twelve months only, including a partial payment of ₹40,000 in February 2012, despite continuing to use the vehicle until 22.07.2014. It is submitted that the defendant is in arrears of rent from 01.09.2012 until July 2014, amounting to a total sum of ₹18.80 lakhs. The defendant consistently provided excuses for non-payment of the dues.
3 Finding no alternative, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 15.07.2014, terminating the agreement and demanding the return of the vehicle. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 16.07.2014 was also issued to rectify the vehicle number. However, despite the service of the notices, the defendant failed to make the requisite payment, although he eventually returned the vehicle on 22.07.2014.
4 Furthermore, the defendant had agreed to compensate the plaintiff for damages to the vehicle amounting to ₹40,000, which also remains unpaid. Accordingly, the present suit has been instituted for the recovery of ₹19.20 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
WRITTEN STATEMENT 5 The defendant filed a written statement denying the issuance of any receipt or execution of any agreement with the plaintiff. The defendant also refuted the authenticity of the four letters relied upon by the plaintiff, dated 06.12.2012, 12.03.2013, 27.09.2013, and 15.03.2014. It is contended that, at the relevant time, the market value of the TATA Safari ranged between ₹15 CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 2/17 lakhs and ₹18 lakhs, and no prudent individual would agree to pay ₹80,000 per month, amounting to ₹48 lakhs in total. However, the defendant admits to having been in possession of the said vehicle from November 2011 to July 2014. 6 The defendant alleges that the four letters in question have been altered or modified by the plaintiff to support his case. It is further asserted that the letter dated 15.03.2014 was addressed to the defendant in his capacity as Vice-President of BNP Paribas Bank, whereas he had resigned from the said position on 04.03.2014, following a three-month notice period. 7 The defendant states that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of providing car rental and hire services under the name 'Krishna Rent-a-Car.' As Vice-President (Administration), the defendant was responsible for arranging transportation for bank officials visiting Delhi on official assignments. In 2007, under instructions from the senior management, the defendant engaged the plaintiff's services for providing rental vehicles. Consequently, a professional relationship developed between the plaintiff and the defendant during this period. 8 The defendant further contends that an internal inquiry was initiated by the bank against its officers and representatives of 'Krishna Rent-a-Car,' during which the defendant was also investigated. However, he was exonerated of any wrongdoing. During the course of the investigation, officials of 'Krishna Rent- a-Car' admitted to several discrepancies, leading the bank to terminate all contracts with the company. In March 2014, a settlement was reached between the bank and 'Krishna Rent-a- Car,' following which the bank closed all related files and ceased business with the entity.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 3/17 9 Shortly thereafter, on 06.03.2014, the defendant allegedly received a call from one Ms. Nisha Jha, who claimed to be the owner of 'Krishna Rent-a-Car' and the sister of the plaintiff. She purportedly threatened the defendant, demanding a sum of ₹80 lakhs as the differential amount to be recovered from the bank. It is further stated that Ms. Nisha Jha began harassing and intimidating the defendant and his family members. As a result, the defendant's father approached the police, who subsequently warned Ms. Nisha Jha to cease such actions. Thereafter, the defendant initiated criminal proceedings by filing a criminal complaint under Sections 200 read with 156(3) CrPC against both the plaintiff and Ms. Nisha Jha.
10 The defendant contends that, in November 2011, the plaintiff handed over the vehicle in question based on an oral agreement, whereby the defendant agreed to purchase the vehicle for ₹18 lakhs, payable in instalments. In pursuance of this understanding, the defendant asserts that he made payments of ₹2.30 lakhs through cheques, ₹3.70 lakhs in cash, and issued a post-dated cheque dated 04.07.2014 for a sum of ₹11 lakhs. It was agreed that upon the successful encashment of the said cheque, the plaintiff would transfer ownership of the vehicle to the defendant. However, the plaintiff allegedly reneged on the agreement and demanded the return of the vehicle without refunding the amount already paid. Consequently, the defendant issued 'Stop-Payment' instructions to his bankers concerning the cheque for ₹11 lakhs.
11 The defendant asserts that he returned the vehicle in question to the plaintiff on 19.07.2014, but the plaintiff refused to accept it. As a result, the defendant was compelled to file a CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 4/17 formal complaint dated 19.07.2014.
REPLICATION 12 The plaintiff filed a replication reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the averments of the written statement. ISSUES 13 On 13.04.2015, six issues were framed by Ld Predecessor Court:
"i)Whether the plaintiff has forged and fabricated the documents i.e. car hire contract dated 01/09/2011, delivery receipt dated 01/09/2014 and four letters dated 06/12/2012, 12/02/2013, 27/02/2013 and 15/3/2014 respectively? ...OPD
ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? ....OPD
iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action against the defendant? ...OPD
iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery in the sum of Rs 19,20,000/(Rupees Nineteen Lacs twenty thousand only) from the defendant? ..OPP
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so at what rate and for what period? ...OPP
vi) Relief."
EVIDENCE 14 In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined three witnesses:
14.1 The plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex PW-1/1 in evidence. Ex. PW-1/1 mostly reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as
1. Original Car hire contract dated 01.09.2011 Ex PW1/A
2. Delivery Receipt Ex PW1/B CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 5/17
3. Legal demand notice dated 15.07.2014 and Ex PW1/C and its Corrigendum Ex PW1/D
4. The postal receipts, AD card, etc Mark E to Mark J and Ex PW1/J and Ex PW1/K
5. Copy of the receipt of receiving the vehicle Mark M before SHO PS South Campus
6. Undertaking given by the defendant Ex PW1/N
7. Four reminder letters Ex PW1/O1 to Ex PW1/O4
8. Reply dated 12.08.2014 of the defendant Ex PW1/P
9. Ledger maintained by the plaintiff Ex PW1/Q
10. Receipt of Gurunanak Car Care regarding Ex PW1/R the repairs of the vehicle 14.2 PW2/Ms Nisha Jha tendered her affidavit Ex PW2/A stating that she was working as accounts manager in 'Krishna Rent-a-car' and she had sent the letters Ex PW1/O1 to Ex PW1/O4 to the defendant for outstanding payments. She stated that the letters were acknowledged by the defendant but he did not pay. She also stated that the entries were also recorded in the ledger Ex PW1/Q, which was maintained by her. 14.3 PW3/Sh. Gurvinder Singh stated that he was the owner of Gurunanak Car Care and on 30.07.2014, he had repaired the vehicle in question for estimated repair cost of ₹45,000/- and he issued the receipt Ex PW1/R. 15 The defendant entered the witness box as DW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex DW-1/A in evidence which reiterates the contents of the written statement. He relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as 1. Copy of complaint dated 24.04.2014 Ex DW1/1 (OSR) 2. Copy of complaint dated 03.05.2014 Mark A 3. Copy of complaint dated 19.07.2014 Ex DW1/3 (OSR) CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 6/17
4. Copy of vehicle acknowledgment receipt Ex DW1/4 dated 22.07.2014
5. Copy of employment certificate and copy of Ex DW1/5 and letter of promotion Ex DW1/6
6. Copy of letter of the plaintiff Ex DW1/7
7. Screenshot of SMS chat Ex DW1/8
8. Email dated 10.07.2014 Ex DW1/9
9. Certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act Ex DW1/10
10. Statement of accounts of the defendant Ex DW1/11
11. Certified copy of evidence recorded in the Ex DW1/12 complaint case FINDINGS 16 I have heard Sh. Saurabh Tyagi, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh R.K. Ruhil, Ld Counsel for the defendant. 17 Issue-wise findings are as under:
18 i)Whether the plaintiff has forged and fabricated the documents i.e. car hire contract dated 01/09/2011, delivery receipt dated 01/09/2014 and four letters dated 06/12/2012, 12/02/2013, 27/02/2013 and 15/3/2014 respectively? ...OPD 18.1 The plaintiff has relied upon the hire agreement Ex PW1/A and the delivery receipt Ex PW1/B, both dated 01.09.2011. It is noted that there is a typographical error in the issue, as it incorrectly states the date of the delivery receipt as "01.09.2014"; the correct date should be read as "01.09.2011." 18.2 Furthermore, the plaintiff has relied upon four letters Ex PW1/O1 to Ex PW1/O4 to assert that, in continuation of the agreement, the plaintiff had been issuing reminders to the defendant for payment of rental charges.
18.3 The defendant has denied affixing his signatures on all these documents. His contention is that although he was in possession of the vehicle in question from November 2011 to CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 7/17 July 2014, he never executed any such agreement or delivery receipt. Instead, he asserts that there was an oral understanding between the parties that he would purchase the vehicle for ₹18 lakhs, payable in instalments.
18.4 Since the onus of proving this issue was placed upon the defendant, he filed an application seeking examination of these documents by a handwriting expert, which was allowed.
However, the defendant chose not to proceed with the examination of the documents.
18.5 Ld Counsel for the plaintiff submits that an adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant for failing to have the documents examined by an expert, despite having obtained permission to do so.
18.6 Conversely, Ld Counsel for the defendant contends that when the execution of an unregistered document produced by the plaintiff is denied by the defendant, the burden to prove the authenticity of the documents lies upon the plaintiff. It is argued that the defendant cannot be required to establish that the documents were forged. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Thiruvengadam Pillai vs. Navaneethammal & Anr, (2008) 4 SCC
530. 18.7 Ld Counsel further contends that merely because the defendant had filed an application to send the documents for signature verification, it does not absolve the plaintiff of the burden of proving their execution. The primary burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and reliance is placed on the case of Robinson vs. Ramachandran, 2014-3-LW 644.
18.8 Additionally, Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that after receiving a copy of the written statement, CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 8/17 wherein the defendant denied his signatures on the documents, the plaintiff ought to have filed an application for signature verification. It is argued that the burden of obtaining an expert examination cannot be shifted onto the defendant. Reliance is placed on S.K.P. Kanniappan vs. P. Mariappan, 2024 SCC OnLine MAD 5977.
18.9 Ld Counsel for the defendant further submits that when a defendant admits his signatures on a document but alleges that they were obtained by fraud, the burden to prove such fraud lies upon the defendant. However, in cases where the defendant denies his signatures and alleges forgery or fabrication, he is not required to provide further specifics to support his contention. Instead, the plaintiff--who has approached the court--bears the burden of disproving allegations of fraud or forgery. Reliance is placed on Sheikh Yusuf vs. Haji Mohammad, 2015(2) Mh.L.J
209. 18.10 I concur with the arguments advanced by Ld Counsel for the defendant. It is a fundamental principle of evidence law that the burden of proof in a suit lies upon the party who would fail if no evidence were produced on either side. The burden of establishing entitlement to relief lies upon the plaintiff, in accordance with Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. The defendant was not required to prove his defence before the plaintiff had first established the due execution of the documents in question. The next consideration, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has successfully discharged this burden. 18.11 The first document relied upon by the plaintiff is the 'Car Hire Contract' Ex PW1/A. The defendant has categorically denied that the signatures on this document belong to him.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 9/17 18.12 Ld Counsel for the plaintiff argues that the defendant is an educated individual who was serving as the Vice-President of BNP Paribas Bank at the relevant time. It is asserted that the defendant signed the contract not once, but on each page, leaving no doubt as to the authenticity of his signatures. 18.13 Conversely, Ld Counsel for the defendant disputes this claim, highlighting that the contract bears the date 01.09.2011, whereas the defendant was promoted to the position of Vice- President of the bank only in 2012. It is submitted that this fact is evidenced by the promotion letter Ex DW1/6, which demonstrates that the contract was backdated by the plaintiff with the intent to extort money from the defendant. It is further argued that the terms of the alleged contract are highly unreasonable, such that no prudent individual would have agreed to them. The vehicle in question was valued between ₹15 lakhs and ₹18 lakhs at the time, whereas under the purported contract, the defendant would have been liable to pay ₹80,000 per month for five years, amounting to ₹48 lakhs in total. It is contended that a far more economical option for the defendant would have been to purchase a new vehicle in his name through a loan, where the monthly instalment would have been approximately ₹30,000. 18.14 I do not consider the act of signing a document multiple times as conclusive proof of its genuineness. However, I do not fully concur with the arguments advanced by Ld Counsel for the defendant either. During the examination of DW1, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff raised an objection regarding the mode of proof for documents Ex DW1/5 to Ex DW1/7. Despite this, the defendant failed to summon any witness from the bank to authenticate the appointment and promotion letters- Ex DW1/5 CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 10/17 and Ex DW1/6- or the original letter Ex DW1/7. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff is justified and is accordingly allowed. Nevertheless, I do agree that the terms of the contract Ex PW1/A appear highly unreasonable, raising substantial doubt as to why any prudent individual would agree to such terms.
18.15 Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the contract Ex PW1/A was not only proved through the plaintiff's testimony but also through the testimony of his employee, PW2. Additionally, it is submitted that it is undisputed that the defendant retained the vehicle in question until July 2014. 18.16 Conversely, Ld Counsel for the defendant has highlighted certain inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claim. It is pointed out that, according to the plaintiff, the contract Ex PW1/A and the delivery receipt Ex PW1/B were executed simultaneously. However, the delivery receipt specifies the time of execution as 8:00 AM, whereas PW2, when questioned about the execution of these documents, stated that it occurred during office hours, which commenced at 9:30 AM. Furthermore, none of these documents bear the signature of PW2--only her name appears on them. It is further argued that the delivery receipt references a temporary vehicle number, whereas the contract cites the registration certificate number of the same vehicle. This discrepancy suggests that the two documents could not have been prepared at the same time. Accordingly, it is submitted that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the authenticity of these documents.
18.17 I find merit in the argument that PW2 neither signed the contract nor the delivery receipt, and her testimony regarding the CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 11/17 time of execution contradicts the recorded time on the delivery receipt, making it improbable that the documents were executed as alleged. Additionally, the fact that two documents purportedly prepared at the same time contain different vehicle numbers raises further suspicion regarding their authenticity. 18.18 Ld Counsel for the defendant has also correctly pointed out that PW2 lacked knowledge of the contents of the contract and, therefore, could not competently prove its execution. 18.19 Turning to the reminders Ex PW1/O1 to Ex PW1/O4, these documents refer only to the designation of the defendant without mentioning either his name or the vehicle number. The plaintiff asserts that the vehicle was provided for the personal use of the defendant; however, the fact that these reminders were addressed to him in his official capacity contradicts this assertion. 18.20 Moreover, it has been admitted by the plaintiff's witnesses that the plaintiff was engaged in providing vehicles to the bank and that he had dealings with the defendant in that capacity, including sending invoices to him for payments due from the bank. Given this background, it cannot be definitively established that the reminders--even if they bear the defendant's signatures--were issued in relation to the vehicle in question. 18.21 Ld Counsel for the defendant has also rightly argued that once the defendant denied affixing his signatures on the reminders, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to lead positive evidence proving that the signatures were indeed those of the defendant. However, it is an undisputed fact that neither PW1 nor PW2 witnessed the defendant signing the reminders. No other evidence has been produced to establish the authenticity of the signatures.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 12/17 18.22 I also find merit in the argument that neither the contract nor the payment reminders are corroborated by invoices, ledger entries, or annual balance sheets. Both PW1 and PW2 claimed that invoices were regularly issued against the monthly rent, yet not a single invoice has been placed on record. During cross-examination, despite being specifically questioned about these invoices, the plaintiff failed to produce them. This omission warrants an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
18.23 The plaintiff's attempt to establish liability through the ledger Ex PW1/Q has not only failed but has also had the opposite effect, as it is evident for multiple reasons that an incorrect ledger account was prepared to support the claim. First, the plaintiff deposed that PW2 had prepared the ledger Ex PW1/Q; however, the document neither bears PW2's signature nor any verification by him. Second, the ledger was computer generated, yet no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was furnished to validate its authenticity. Third, the ledger makes reference to invoices and reference numbers, which, as previously noted, were never filed. Fourth, while the ledger states that it pertains to the period from 01.01.2014 to 26.12.2014, it contains entries dating back to 01.02.2012, raising serious doubts regarding its accuracy. Fifth, the plaintiff admitted that he had received ₹2 lakhs from the defendant, and the statement of account Ex DW1/11 reflects this payment on 05.04.2014. Moreover, in his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the plaintiff acknowledged that this amount was received as rent for the vehicle, yet it finds no mention in the ledger. Sixth, the plaintiff suggested during cross-
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 13/17 examination that the defendant had issued a cheque of ₹11 lakhs towards the vehicle rent; however, neither this cheque nor its details are recorded in Ex PW1/Q or even pleaded in the plaint. Seventh, PW2--the accountant, who was allegedly the author of the ledger and responsible for raising regular invoices, had no knowledge of either the ₹2 lakh payment or the ₹11 lakh cheque. Eighth, while the plaintiff asserts that the defendant paid rent for the first year, the ledger contains no entry reflecting such payments.
18.24 Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant ever made a payment of ₹80,000 or any multiple thereof to the plaintiff.
18.25 This brings us to the defence raised by the defendant-- he contends that he took possession of the vehicle in November 2011 based on an oral understanding that he would purchase the same for ₹18 lakhs, payable in instalments.
18.26 Ld Counsel for the defendant has argued that the defendant made payments of ₹2.30 lakhs through cheques and ₹3.70 lakhs in cash, and additionally issued a post-dated cheque dated 04.07.2014 for a sum of ₹11 lakhs. However, the plaintiff did not transfer the vehicle in the defendant's name and subsequently demanded its return without refunding the amounts already paid. Consequently, the defendant issued 'Stop-Payment' instructions to his bank concerning the ₹11 lakh cheque, which led to the plaintiff filing a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The defendant was eventually acquitted in that case. It is further contended that the plaintiff has failed to establish his ownership of the vehicle, as no registration certificate has been placed on record.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 14/17 18.27 I find that Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has rightly argued that the ownership of the vehicle was admitted by the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff need not have proved the admitted facts.
18.28 However, it is noteworthy that during cross- examination Ex DW1/12, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant had requested him to take back the vehicle and return the ₹11 lakh cheque.
18.29 In a civil suit, the decision is rendered on a preponderance of probabilities. Given the poor quality of evidence presented by the plaintiff, I find that the defendant's version of an arrangement for purchase appears more probable and plausible.
18.30 Resultantly, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the car hire contract Ex PW1/A, the delivery receipt Ex PW1/B and the reminders Ex PW1/O1 to Ex PW1/O4. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
19 ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? ....OPD 19.1 The defendant has not explained why the suit is not maintainable in its present form and therefore, issue no. ii) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
20 iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery in the sum of Rs 19,20,000/(Rupees Nineteen Lacs twenty thousand only) from the defendant? ..OPP 20.1 In view of the findings on issue no. i), the plaintiff is not entitled to any recovery towards the purported rent of the CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 15/17 vehicle.
20.2 Now, turning to the plaintiff's claim for recovery on account of damages to the vehicle, the plaintiff has examined PW3, who asserts that an amount of ₹40,000 was paid towards vehicle repairs, as recorded in Ex PW1/R. However, I am unable to place any reliance on either the testimony of PW3 or the bill Ex PW1/R for the several reasons.
First, PW3 failed to produce any evidence establishing his association with 'Gurunanak Car Care', despite claiming to be its proprietor.
Second, the bill Ex PW1/R bears no signature of either PW3 or any of his employees; according to PW3, the bill was prepared by one Sunil, who has not been examined.
Third, the bill does not mention the vehicle number. There is absolutely nothing in the bill connecting it to the vehicle in question, apart from the generic mention of "Safari". PW3 attempted to justify this by asserting that the plaintiff owned only one Safari vehicle. However, when questioned about the total number of vehicles owned by 'Krishna Rent-a-Car', he failed to provide an answer. It is inexplicable how PW3 could vouch for the number of Safari vehicles owned by 'Krishna Rent-a-Car' while being unaware of the total number of vehicles owned by the business.
20.3 Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any recovery under this head as well.
20.4 The plaintiff is thus, not entitled to any recovery from the defendant. This issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 16/17 21 v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so at what rate and for what period? ...OPP 21.1 In view of the findings on issue no. iv), this issue does not survive and is accordingly answered.
22 iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action against the defendant? ...OPD 22.1 The burden of proof with respect to this issue rested upon the defendant. Since the defendant has successfully established that he owes no liability to the plaintiff, it follows that the plaintiff had no valid cause of action against him. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
23 vi) Relief.
23.1 The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with parties left to bear their own costs.
24 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
25 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN
GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2025.03.29
SOLANKI 15:52:40 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
th
on 29 March, 2025 District Judge-02, South West
Dwarka Courts Complex
New Delhi
CS DJ ADJ No. 515387/2016 Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt Page no. 17/17