Delhi District Court
(1) Sh. Om Prakash vs (1) Smt. Pyari on 23 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPEALS
MCA No.04/2020
(1) Sh. Om Prakash
S/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043.
(2) Smt. Rewati
W/o Late Sh. Ram Sarup @ Ram Saran
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043.
(3) Smt. Parveen
W/o Sh. Rajender Prasad
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043.
(4) Smt. Sunita
W/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043.
(5) Smt. Manju
W/o Sh. Rajesh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043. ..............Appellants
Versus
(1) Smt. Pyari
W/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
(2) Sh. Ashish Yadav
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
(3) Sh. Tek Chand
S/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
(4) Sh. Om Dutt
S/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
All R/o 243, Badi Patti,
Village Paprawat,
Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.1 of 18
PO Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043.
(5) Smt. Kamlesh
W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
R/o H. No.230, Village Chakarpur,
District Gurugram,
Haryana - 122 002.
(6) Smt. Suresh
W/o Sh. Brij Mohan
D/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
R/o H. No.13, Village Chakarpur,
District Gurugram,
Haryana - 122 002.
(7) Smt. Shanti Devi
W/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(8) Sh. Lochan Singh
W/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(9) Sh. Sripal
W/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(10) Smt. Sunita
W/o Sh. Virender Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(11) Smt. Anita Yadav
W/o Sh. Bijender Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Plot No.43A, Khasra No.15/21,
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh,
Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.2 of 18
New Delhi - 110 043.
(12) Shri Krishan (deceased)
(Through LRs)
(a) Sh. Vinod S/o Shri Krishan
(b) Sh. Kedar S/o Shri Krishan
(c) Sh. Bhupender S/o Shri Krishan
(d) Smt. Nando Devi D/o Shri Krishan
(e) Smt. Rekha W/o Shri Krishan
All R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043. ................Respondents
+
MCA No.05/2020
Sri Kishan (deceased)
Through his LR Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sri Kishan
R/o 332, Paprawat, PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043. .................Appellant
Versus
(1) Smt. Pyari
W/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
(2) Sh. Ashish Yadav
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
(3) Sh. Tek Chand
S/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
(4) Sh. Om Dutt
S/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
All R/o 243, Badi Patti,
Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043.
(5) Smt. Kamlesh
W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
R/o H. No.230, Village Chakarpur,
District Gurugram,
Haryana - 122 002.
Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.3 of 18
(6) Smt. Suresh
W/o Sh. Brij Mohan
D/o Late Sh. Rang Lal
R/o H. No.13, Village Chakarpur,
District Gurugram,
Haryana - 122 002.
(7) Smt. Shanti Devi
W/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(8) Sh. Lochan Singh
W/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(9) Sh. Sripal
W/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(10) Smt. Sunita
W/o Sh. Virender Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(11) Smt. Anita Yadav
W/o Sh. Bijender Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Plot No.43A, Khasra No.15/21,
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(12) Sh. Om Prakash
S/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(13) Sh. Ram Chander
Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.4 of 18
S/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(14) Smt. Rewati
W/o Late Sh. Ram Sarup @ Ram Saran
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(15) Smt. Parmod Yadav
W/o Sh. Ram Chander Yadav
R/o RZ - 30, Prem Nagar,
Phase - I, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(16) Smt. Parveen
W/o Sh. Rajender Prasad
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(17) Smt. Sunita
W/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043.
(18) Smt. Manju
W/o Sh. Rajesh
R/o Village Paprawat,
PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043. ................Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF BOTH APPEALS : 11.11.2020
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 16.12.2021
DATE OF DECISION : 23.12.2021
JUDGMENT
BRIEF INTRODUCTION
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide these two Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.5 of 18 miscellaneous appeals filed by appellants under Section 104 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) read with Order XLIII CPC against order dated 22.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by the Court of Sh. Babru Bhan, Ld. ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in case titled as "Pyari @ Ram Pyari and Others Vs. Om Prakash and Others" having CS No.1469/2019 pending in said Court vide which it allowed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Since, the appellants of both these appeals have assailed same order vide their appeals, therefore, they are taken up together as they can be conveniently decided by common discussion and judgment. The appellants of appeal no.04/2020 and deceased respondent no.12 (made respondent through LRs) are defendants in the suit pending before Ld. Trial Court. The respondents no.01 to 11 of said appeal are the plaintiffs in suit pending before Ld. Trial Court. Similarly, the appellant of appeal no.05/2020 is legal-heir of deceased defendant no.04 before Ld. Trial Court. Its respondents no.12 to 18 are also defendants in the suit pending before Ld. Trial Court and its respondents no.01 to 11 are plaintiffs in suit pending before Ld. Trial Court. Hence, the Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.6 of 18 respondent no.01 to 11 of both these appeals are actual contesting respondents and other respondents are arrayed only as proforma respondents in both appeals as their interest in suit is similar to the interest of appellants in the suit pending before Ld. Trial Court. For sake of convenience and clarity, henceforth, the respondents no.01 to 11 of these appeals would be referred to as plaintiffs and the appellants along-with proforma respondents of both these appeals shall be referred to as defendants during course of further discussion as is their status before Ld. Trial Court. BRIEF FACTS/PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUIT BEFORE LD.
TRIAL COURT
2. The plaintiffs have preferred a suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendants before Ld. Trial Court. Succinctly, the case of plaintiff side before Ld. Trial Court as discernible from their plaint is that plaintiffs no.01 to 06 are legal-heirs of Late Sh. Rang Lal and plaintiffs no.07 to 11 are legal-heirs of Late Sh. Sardar Singh. Late Sh. Rang Lal and Late Sh. Sardar Singh purchased agriculture land in khasra nos.198, 199 and 200 in area of Village Roshan Pura, New Delhi on 06.06.1980. The defendant no.01, 02, 04 and husband of defendant no.03 also simultaneously purchased lands in khasra Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.7 of 18 nos.192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 202 and 203 along-with Late Sh. Rang Lal and Late Sh. Sardar Singh. Late Sh. Rang Lal, Late Sh. Sardar Singh, defendant no.01, defendant no.02, defendant no.04 and husband of defendant no.03 entered into a mutual agreement on 06.06.1980 itself whereby the parties to the agreement agreed to provide 'rasta' of one 'gatha' to each other as per terms of said agreement. The passage was left with mutual consent connecting land of each khasra. Agreement was signed by all the parties personally and on behalf of other co-sharers. Passage was not only left to connect every khasra, but it was also left to connect tube- well available there at the time of purchase of entire land. No other road or aam rasta was available there connecting the land of the plaintiffs except the rasta agreed. All parties/owners enjoyed their land without any interference and interruption. All owners also used 'rasta' as well as tube-well without any hindrance and obstruction from each other. With passage of time, the water level fell down and all owners installed their own personal tube-wells in their respective lands. Late Sh. Sardar Singh and defendant no.01 to 04 constructed and fixed an iron gate to enter the 'rasta'. Plaintiff no.01 applied for new agriculture electricity connection with BSES on 13.04.2017. BSES officials surveyed the site and Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.8 of 18 plaintiff no.01 paid the necessary/requisite fee to the BSES for installation of same. After surveying the site, BSES erected electric poles in the said 'rasta' for providing electricity to plaintiff no.01, but it did not provide electricity on one pretext or other. Plaintiff filed civil suit against BSES on 24.10.2017. BSES filed written statement that defendant no.01 to 04 have raised objections in providing electricity connection to plaintiff no.01 from said 'rasta'. After filing of said suit by plaintiff no.01, the defendants started creating hindrance and obstructions in the entrance of plaintiffs in one way or other. Defendants started encroaching upon the 'rasta' provided as per their mutual agreement dated 06.06.1980. Defendant no.01 to 04 filed suit no.933/2019 for permanent and mandatory injunction against BSES and plaintiff no.01 with malafide and dishonest intentions. The defendants in collusion and in connivance with each other have started encroaching upon the common 'rasta' as well as common area of tube-well. On 15.09.2019, when plaintiff no.01 to 04, 08 and 09 visited their property, defendants tried to stop them from entering in their property and threatened not to use the said rasta. On 05.10.2019, the defendants put a lock at the main gate which used to be used by all parties to approach their respective lands. With Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.9 of 18 these averments, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that common rasta can be used by all parties as per agreement dated 06.06.1980. They also sought decree of mandatory injunction against defendants not to encroach upon said 'rasta'. They also sought decree of permanent injunction against defendants from creating any kind of hindrance and obstructions to the plaintiffs in use/enjoyment of their properties in khasra nos.198, 199 and 200.
3. The summons of the suit for settlement of issues and notice of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC were directed to be issued to the defendants by Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court held vide order dated 02.03.2020 that all defendants have been served on 27.01.2020, they have failed to file written statement within statutory period, therefore, their right to file written statement is hereby closed. The Ld. Trial Court directed that matter be proceeded ex-parte against defendants. It is pertinent to note here that defendant no.01 was present in person before Ld. Trial Court on 02.03.2020 when order for proceeding ex-parte was passed against him. On 02.08.2020 applications under Order 9 Rule 6 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were filed by all defendants except defendant no.04 and matter was then fixed for 22.10.2020. On 22.10.2020, Ld. Trial Court treated the application Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.10 of 18 under Order 9 Rule 6 CPC of the defendants no.01, 02, 03, 05 to 08 as an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and allowed it subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-. It also directed defendant no.01, 02, 03, 05 to 08 to file their written statements within 15 days of said order. Application of defendants no.01, 02, 03, 05 to 08 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. The Ld. Trial Court allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC of the plaintiff side vide impugned order.
GROUNDS OF BOTH APPEALS 4.1 The impugned order of allowing application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC of plaintiff side by Ld. Trial Court has been assailed before this Court by way of present appeals by the appellants/defendants and in gist they have raised following grounds : -
(a) The Ld. Trial Court could not have disposed-off application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC without looking into/taking their defence when the order qua proceeding ex-parte against the defendant no.01, 02, 03, 05 to 08 have already been set-
aside and they were granted opportunity to file their written statement within 15 days.
(b) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.11 of 18 defendant Sri Kishan has already expired. The fact of death of defendant Sri Kishan was brought to the knowledge of Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court could not have proceeded further without impleading legal-heirs of deceased defendant Sri Kishan so as to pass binding order upon the legal-heirs of deceased defendant Sri Kishan and further an order against dead person is nullity.
(c) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that agreement dated 06.06.1980 was not enforceable one, was without any consideration and at the best, could be a license which could be revoked at any time.
(d) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Well is not in use since 1990 and persons having interest in khasra nos.198, 199 and 200 has not shown/taken any reciprocal obligation(s) vide said agreement.
(e) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that even otherwise also, civil Court has no jurisdiction in this matter as per Section 185 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
4.2 Vide written replies, in gist, the main respondents no.01 to 11 of both appeals have submitted that these appeals are mockery of procedure of law. The impugned order of Ld. Trail Court suffers no infirmity as it was passed after due appreciation of Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.12 of 18 facts and circumstances. The defendants of the suit and their legal- heirs have no respect/regard to law and justice. The legal-heirs of Late Sh. Sri Kishan and other defendants did not apprise Ld. Trial Court about the factum of death of Late Sh. Sri Kishan. Ld. Counsel Sh. Raghuvinder Godhara had submitted before Ld. Trial Court on the date of impugned order that he shall be representing the legal-heirs of defendant no.04. He sought time for moving appropriate application for impleading legal-heirs of deceased defendant no.04, he was given 07 days time for the same and for getting set-aside the ex-parte order passed against deceased defendant no.04. Neither said Ld. Counsel nor legal-heirs of Late Sh. Sri Kishan has moved any such application till date. The Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order after going through oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Their suit is not hit by Section 185 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The grounds of appeals are baseless, therefore, appeals are liable to be dismissed. 4.3 Both sides have filed written submissions supported by judgments and documents in support of their contentions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1 The main ground on which the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court is assailed is that the defendant no.04 Sri Kishan of suit Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.13 of 18 had already expired before the passing of impugned order. The said factum was brought to the knowledge of the Ld. Trial Court and it finds mention in zimini order of 22.10.2020. Ld. Trial Court proceeded to pass impugned order without impleading the legal- heirs of deceased defendant no.04. The order against deceased defendant is nullity.
5.2 The Order 22 Rule 4 CPC which rules the sphere of such eventualities provide as under : -
"4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant. - (1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.
(2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.
(3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.
[(4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place.] [(5) Where -
(a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and
(b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified therefor in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under section 5 of that Act on the ground that he had, by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period specified in the said Act, the Court shall, in considering the application under the said section 5 have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved.]"
5.3 The Order 22 Rule 4 (1) CPC makes it amply clear that the Court shall first cause the legal representatives of the deceased Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.14 of 18 defendant be made party to the suit and shall then proceed further with the suit unless it exempts the plaintiff from impleading the legal-heirs of the deceased defendant as per Order 22 Rule 4 (4) CPC. The latter does not appear to be the case here. Ld. Trial Court could not have proceeded to decide the application against legal-heirs of defendant no.04 without bringing them/impleading them as defendants on record in place of deceased defendant no.04. The impugned order being passed without impleading legal-heirs of deceased defendant no.04 can at best be said to have been passed against the deceased defendant no.04. It is settled preposition of law that an order/decree passed against a dead person is nullity. Reference can be made to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matters of "Jayarama Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land" AIR 1979 SC 1393 and "Amba Bhai & Ors. Vs. Gopal & Ors." AIR 2001 SC 2003 on this issue. The impugned order of Ld. Trial Court, therefore, cannot be certainly sustained against the legal-heirs of defendant no.04 Sri Kishan. It is also pertinent to note here that vide order of same date, the Ld. Trial Court has set-aside the order of proceeding ex- parte against the defendant no.01, 02, 03, 05 to 08. It also afforded opportunity to them to file written statements within 15 days. In Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.15 of 18 given circumstances, where the order of proceeding ex-parte against the defendants no.01, 02, 03, 05 to 08 was already set-aside by Ld. Trial Court and they were provided opportunity to file their written statement, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have waited for written statement of said defendants before finally deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC against them or at least should have obtained written replies to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC before deciding the same. Each party must be given appropriate and meaningful opportunity of being heard before decision one way or other effecting him/her/it as a rule of principle of natural justice of audi-altrem-partem. Ld. Trial Court could have passed some ad-interim order till obtaining the written statements or replies if the situation had been so that an immediate intervention of the Court by some order was required to maintain/preserve tranquility or status quo. In given circumstances, it can be said that the other defendants no.01, 02, 03, 05 to 08 were also not provided meaningful opportunity to put their case forward before decision of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Hence, in totality of circumstances, the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court is set-aside. The Ld. Trial Court is directed to first get impleaded the legal-heirs of deceased Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.16 of 18 defendant Sri Kishan/provide them sufficient opportunity to get so impleaded, get written statements/replies of legal-heirs of deceased defendant and of other defendants/provide them sufficient opportunity to file their written statements/replies and then proceed further to decide application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC afresh after considering all the legal and factual issues raised by defendants vide their pleadings/replies/submissions. CONCLUSION/RELIEF
6. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated 22.10.2020 of Ld. Trial Court of allowing application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is set-aside. The Ld. Trial Court shall decide the said application afresh after impleading the legal-heirs of deceased defendant Sri Kishan/providing them sufficient opportunity to get so impleaded, after getting written statements/replies of legal-heirs of deceased defendant and of other defendants/after providing sufficient opportunity to them to file their written statements/replies and considering all the legal and factual issues raised by defendants vide their pleadings/replies/submissions. The Ld. Trial Court may pass appropriate ad-interim orders in the meantime of said decision, if so warranted by circumstances to maintain/preserve tranquility or Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.17 of 18 status quo. Needless to say that parties who have been burdened with cost vide order dated 22.10.2019, need to pay it first before their written statements and replies are taken on record by Ld. Trial Court. Both appeals stands disposed-off in said terms.
7. The records of Ld. Trial Court be sent back along-with copy of this judgment in compliance of Order XLI Rule 37 CPC read with Order XLIII Rule 2 CPC. Appeal files be consigned to Digitally signed Record Room after due compliance. by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
Announced in the open Court 2021.12.24
13:39:40 +0530
on 23.12.2021.
(HARVINDER SINGH)
SCJ-cum-RC/South-West,
DWK/ND/23.12.2021
Note : - This judgment is having 18 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed signatures. HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2021.12.24 13:39:46 +0530 (HARVINDER SINGH) SCJ-cum-RC/South-West, DWK/ND/23.12.2021 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari & Ors. MCA Nos.04 & 05 of 2020 [23.12.2021] Page No.18 of 18