Delhi District Court
) Sh. Varun Prakash vs Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal on 18 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. 347/2009
Unique I. D. No. 02401C0087972008
1) Sh. Puneet Prakash,
1) Sh. Varun Prakash,
Both sons of Sh. J.P. Sharma,
R/o HS19, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi110048.
......Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal,
S/o Sh. Bhikam Sain Singhal,
Shop No. HS19/1, Kailash Colony Market,
New Delhi110048.
.......Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS
Date of institution of suit : 24.01.2008
Arguments concluded on : 20.07.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.08.2015
CS347/2009
Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 1 of 43
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, damages and mesne profits against the defendant. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case of plaintiff are as follows. The grand mother of plaintiffs, namely Smt. Sona Devi purchased House No. HS19, Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048 on 02.06.1994 alongwith two tenanted shops located on ground floor facing market road for consideration vide sale deeds dated 02.06.1994. The defendant was inducted as tenant in shop no1, HS19, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi ad measuring showroom 14' X 15' and store/office 14' X 13' on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ excluding electricity and water charges under the landlordship of Sh. V.K. Saksena vide rent deed dated 27.11.1975 setting out the terms and conditions mentioned therein, more specifically shown in green colour in the site plan annexed. After the death of Sh. V.K. Saksena, the defendant continued to be as tenant of LRs of Sh. V.K. Saksena. Consequent of purchase of aforesaid property said Smt. Sona Devi informed about the same to defendant and consequently in first CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 2 of 43 week of June 1994, a meeting was held between both parties in presence of some respectable persons of the locality and keeping in view the old tenancy of the defendant in the shop in question and the escalating rate of rent in the locality, it was mutually and orally agreed and settled that the defendant would pay rent of said shop @ Rs. 3,000/ per month excluding electricity and water charges. The defendant paid Rs. 3,000/ to Smt. Sona Devi as rent of month of July 1994. The said property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sona Devi on 08.08.1994 in Municipal records. Consequent upon payment of agreed rent for the month of July 1994, the intentions of defendant became malafide and thereafter he defaulted in payment of arrears of rent of the shop in question and instead vide letter dated 17.09.1996 sent cheque for Rs. 8,100/ towards rent of the shop in question @ Rs. 300/ per month for the period from 01.07.1994 to 30.09.1996, which was returned by grand mother of plaintiffs being not the agreed rent. Smt. Sona Devi executed a Will dated 25.10.1996 in respect of house property No. HS19, Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048 in favour of plaintiffs. Smt. Sona Devi died on 04.12.1998 at Delhi. Plaintiffs became absolute owner of aforesaid property and said property was mutated in their name in Municipal records on 13.02.2003. On CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 3 of 43 03.01.2005, plaintiffs came to know that defendant has illegally, unlawfully and without their permission and knowledge removed the intervening wall between the office/store of shop no. HS19/1 and the small store measuring 8' X 10' located with gate in the residential portion of the plaintiffs, shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed, which the defendant had failed to restore the said intervening wall between the said two stores nor handed over possession thereof to plaintiffs despite service of notice dated 24.05.2005. Defendant failed to pay agreed arrears of rent @ Rs. 3,000/ per month of the aforesaid tenanted premises, nor handed over possession of the shop in question, so plaintiffs filed an eviction petition against him and his brother before the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Plaintiffs also served demand notice dated 08.01.2008 upon defendant demanding peaceful vacant possession of the said store admeasuring 8' X 10' after restoring the intervening wall between the two stores and payment of damages @ Rs. 2,500/ per month w.e.f. 03.01.2005 to 02.01.2008 amounting to Rs. 90,000/ for the use and occupation of the said store as shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed. Defendant sent reply, which was not tenable. Consequent was this suit, seeking possession of the aforesaid CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 4 of 43 store admeasuring 8' X 10', hereinafter called as suit property, specifically shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed with plaint forming residential part of house property No. HS19, Kailash Colony, New Delhi alongwith sum of Rs. 90,000/ as damages @ Rs. 2500/ per month for use and occupation of suit property from 24.01.2005 to 23.01.2008 and pendentelite and future damages/mesne profits till delivery of possession of suit property with interest.
2. In the filed written statement, defendant took preliminary objections viz., (i) the suit had not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and this court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit as the market value of the property in dispute was more than Rs. 20 Lakhs on the date of institution of the suit; (ii) the suit is barred by limitation; (iii) suit was not maintainable as similar petition for eviction against the defendant under Section 14 (1) (a) (b) and (j) of The Delhi Rent Control Act was pending; (iv) present suit was liable to be stayed under the provisions of Section 10 CPC; (v) the plaint was liable to be rejected as plaintiff no2 had not filed any affidavit in support of the plaint; and (vi) the plaintiff had not paid the requisite court fee. At the CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 5 of 43 outset, defendant denied of being inducted as a tenant in shop no1, HS19, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi admeasuring showroom 14' X 15' and store/office 14' X 13' on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ excluding electricity and water charges under the landlordship of Sh. V.K. Saksena vide rent deed dated 27.11.1975 setting out the terms and conditions mentioned therein, more specifically shown in green colour in the site plan annexed. It was averred by defendant that alleged rent deed was not sufficiently stamped and was unregistered and inadmissible in evidence. The site plan was not correct according to the spot. Defendant denied that after the death of Sh. V.K. Saksena, he continued to be tenant of his LRs as alleged by plaintiffs. Defendant further averred that he was tenant in respect of the portion shown in green and yellow in the site plan annexed with the plaint submitting further that he was inducted in the said premises by Sh. Virender Kumar somewhere in 1975 and was in possession of the same since then. Defendant also denied of any information conveyed by Smt. Sona Devi regarding purchase of the said property. Defendant also denied of any meeting in first week of June 1994 between both the parties in the presence of some respectable persons of the locality as claimed by CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 6 of 43 plaintiffs, also submitting that it was never agreed to pay Rs. 3000/ per month rent excluding electricity and water charges. Defendant also denied of having paid Rs. 3,000/ to grand mother of plaintiffs towards rent for the month of July, 1994. The defendant stated of having paid rent to Sh. Virender Kumar up to June 1994. Thereafter, Smt. Sona Devi represented to defendant that she purchased the property so defendant attorned to her and sent a cheque for Rs. 8,100/ towards rent @ Rs. 300/ per month for the period 01.07.1994 to 30.07.1996 but Smt. Sona Devi did not accept the rent from the defendant. No rent as such was ever paid to Smt. Sona Devi. Defendant stated that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 300/ per month. Defendant also denied of any Will, executed by Smt. Sona Devi in favour of plaintiffs on 25.10.1996 with respect to the property in question. Defendant also denied of ownership of plaintiffs with respect to the property in question saying plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the property. Defendant also denied of property having been mutated in the name of plaintiffs saying even mutation cannot confer any right upon plaintiffs. Defendant denied of having illegally, unlawfully and without permission or knowledge of plaintiffs removed the intervening wall between office/store of shop No. HS19/1 and small CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 7 of 43 store measuring 8' X 10', located with gate in the residential portion of plaintiffs, more specifically shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed. Defendant submitted that there was no gate in the store shown in yellow towards the remaining portion of the property at any time. Said gate has been shown in site plan annexed with the plaint by the plaintiffs by malafide intention to take the false plea to file the present false and frivolous suit. Defendant also contended that petition for eviction pending in the court of Additional Rent Controller was filed in August 2005 by plaintiff but no such plea was raised by plaintiffs in the said petition. Also, defendant stated that premises were in the same condition as they were at the time of letting out to the defendant and defendant was in possession of the premises as tenant. Defendant averred that notice dated 24.05.2005 was duly replied by him vide reply dated 09.06.2005. Defendant also contended that notice dated 08.01.2008 was false and frivolous to which he sent reply dated 14.01.2008. Defendant denied of plaintiffs to be entitled for any relief claimed and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 8 of 43
3. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants to controvert the contentions of the written statement and to reiterate the averments of the plaint.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.01.2010 : ISSUES
1) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction or requisite court fees have not been paid? OPD
2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
3) Whether this court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD
4) Whether the proceedings of this suit have to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC?
OPD CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 9 of 43
5) Whether the plaint is bad due to nonfiling of supporting affidavit as prescribed in Order 6 of CPC? If so, its effects. OPD
6) Whether the plaint is not properly verified as per the provisions of CPC? If so, its effect.
OPD
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession for the suit property? OPP
8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for payment of damages? If so, at what rate and for what period. OPP
9) Relief.
5. Plaintiff no2 examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex P1. Sh. Jai Prakash Sharma, father of plaintiffs was examined in chief as PW2 vide affidavit Ex P2 but his crossexamination was deferred on 23.08.2010 before my Ld. Predecessor. On 13.09.2012, it was submitted before my Ld. Predecessor that said Sh. Jai Prakash Sharma CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 10 of 43 (PW2) had expired. Incomplete testimony of PW2 cannot be read in evidence as such. Smt. Uma Sharma, mother of plaintiffs was examined as PW3 vide affidavit Ex PW3/A. PW1 relied upon documents i.e., (i) site plan exhibited as Ex PW1/1; (ii) copy of rent deed dated 27.11.1975 exhibited as Ex PW1/2; (iii) demand notice dated 08.01.2008 exhibited as Ex PW1/8; and (iv) two photographs taken on digital camera exhibited as Ex PW1/9 (colly). PWs1 and 3 were crossexamined.
6. Defendant examined himself as DW1 vide affidavit Ex DW1/A. DW1 was crossexamined.
7. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Pankaj Batra, Ld. counsel for plaintiff, Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for defendant and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence, written arguments and carefully perused the relied precedents by parties and have also examined the record of the case.
8. Ld. counsel for plaintiffs argued in terms of the averments of the pleadings submitting by evidence led plaintiffs have proved the case CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 11 of 43 and judicial notice be taken of (i) certified copy of Will dated 25.10.1996;
(ii) certified copy of lease deed of Mrs. Pista Gupta for mesne profits/market rent; and (iii) copy of sale deed dated 02.06.1994 in favour of Smt. Sona Devi relying upon the following precedents: (1) Shail Kumari Vs. Saraswati Devi, 2001 Legal Eagle (Del) 913;
(2) Rama Tube Company Vs. Jay Rapid Roller Ltd., 2002 Legal Eagle (Del) 1378;
(3) Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kaushalya Devi, 2001 Legal Eagle (Del) 1404;
(4) Sudarshan Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Mukta Jain & Anr., 2014 Legal Eagle (Del) 2117; (5) D.N. Singhal & Ors. Vs. Kishan Kumar (deceased) through his LRs & Ors., 2014 Legal Eagle (Del) 866; (6) Plastic Chemicals Company Vs. Ashit Chadha, 2004 Legal Eagle (Del) 664; (7) Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & Ors., 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 914; CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 12 of 43 (8) Ram Dass, Chela of Late Mahant Net Ram Vs. Thakurdwara Radha Krishan (Regd. Soc.), 2010 Legal Eagle (Del) 1213; (9) Gurcharan Kaur & Anr. Vs. Raja Ram & Anr. 2011 Legal Eagle (Del) 748; (10) State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, 2001 Legal Eagle (SC) 898; (11) Praveen Davar, Retd. Capt. and Anr. Vs. Harvansh Kumari and Ors., 2008 Legal Eagle (Del) 862; (12) Grander Kirti Rani Tandon Vs. VXL Loading N Boarding Services Pvt. Ltd., 2013 Legal Eagle (Del) 171; (13) Harish Chander Malik Vs. Vivek Kumar Gupta & Ors., 2011 Legal Eagle (Del) 639; (14) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. I.S. Ratta, 2005 Legal Eagle (Del) 581; (15) Magunta Kota Reddy (died) & Ors. Vs. Pothula Chendrasekhara Reddy, AIR 1963 AP 42; (16) Javer Chand Vs. Pukhraj Surana, 1961 Legal Eagle (SC) 207; CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 13 of 43 (17) Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., 2010 Legal Eagle (Del) 843; (18) Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Panchanan Banerjee, 1995 Legal Eagle (SC) 628; (19) C. Mohammad Yunus Vs. Syed Unnissa, 1961 Legal Eagle (SC) 57; (20) R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargava & Anr., 1986 Legal Eagle (Del) 67; and
(21) Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal, RC Rev. 479/2011, decided on 28.08.2012 Also was argued that fact of death of Smt. Sona Devi is admitted by defendant for which judicial notice of death certificate of Smt. Sona Devi be taken. Also has been argued that the defendant is unauthorized occupant in the suit premises which never formed part of tenancy premises of defendant entitling plaintiffs for claimed mesne profits for which also judicial notice be taken in terms of precedents relied upon and elicited herein above.
9. Ld. Counsel for defendant argued also in terms of the averments in the pleadings of defendant alleging the suit property was CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 14 of 43 part of tenancy since inception of tenancy since 1975 and plaint is bereft of any material particulars as to when and how defendant came into unauthorized possession thereof, which on the face of it is false assertion established and proved on record by the evidence on record, including own assertion of PW1. Also was argued that no judicial notice of private documents subsequently registered can be taken and even plaintiff has failed to prove the copy of the rent deed dated 27.11.1975 as per law and Section 90 of Evidence Act cannot be invoked. Also was argued that no rent deed was ever executed between defendant and Sh. V.K. Saksena as alleged by plaintiffs and the presented copy of the rent deed was a fabricated document and cannot be relied upon. Ld. counsel for defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit relying upon the following precedents : (1) Lourembam Heramot Singh Vs. Laisram Angahal Singh & Ors., AIR 1979 Gauhati 68;
(2) Parsa Singh Vs. Smt. Parkash Kaur & Ors., AIR 1976 Punjab & Haryana 235;
(3) Rabindra N. Das Vs. Santosh Kumar Mitra & Ors., AIR 1975 Calcutta 381; CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 15 of 43 (4) Mohinuddin & Anr. Vs. President, Municipal Committee, Khargone, AIR 1993 MP 5; (5) Traders Syndicate Vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 Calcutta 337; (6) Rajinder Pershad (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Smt. Darshana Devi, 93 (2001) DLT 1 (SC); (7) Syed Yousuf Yarkhan & Ors. Vs. Syed Mohd. Yarkhan & Ors.,MANU/SC/0294/1967; (8) Lachchi Ram & Anr. Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., AIR 1984 NOC 120 (ALL.) (9) The Eastern Food Products (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Rabia Dusad & Ors., AIR 1971 Assam & Nagaland 140; (10) National Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion
Pictures Association, 122 (2005) DLT 629 (DB);
(11) Hari Singh (deceased through LRs) Vs. S.S. Jogi etc., 102 (2003) DLT 215 (DB)
10. My issue wise findings are as under : CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 16 of 43 Findings on Issue No(1) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction or requisite court fees have not been paid? OPD It has been the foremost preliminary objection of defendant in written statement that the market value of the suit property i.e. "small store measuring 8' X 10' " was more than Rs. 20 Lakhs as on the date of institution of the present suit, so suit had not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Onus to prove this issue was on defendant. There had been oral and bald assertion in the affidavit Ex DW1/A of DW1 akin to afore elicited averment in the written statement but no cogent evidence has been led by defendant to discharge his onus on the issue. Defendant has failed to prove that the suit property was of market value exceeding Rs. 20 Lakhs as alleged. Accordingly, defendant has failed to prove that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Issue no1 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiffs accordingly. CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 17 of 43 Finding on Issue No (4)
4) Whether the proceedings of this suit have to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC?
OPD
11. In preliminary objection no3 of written statement, it was the averment of the defendant that plaintiffs having earlier filed petition for eviction against defendant under Section 14 (1) (a) (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which was pending in the court of the Additional Rent Controller, South District, Delhi and matter in issue in present suit and in the said eviction petition was similar. Defendant also averred that the suit property i.e. "small store measuring 8' X 10' " was part of oral tenancy in favour of defendant since the inception of tenancy under the landlordship of Sh. Virender Kumar Saksena in year 1975, wherein defendant had been in possession since then. Per contra, it is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant had trespassed into the aforesaid suit property and was in unauthorized occupation of the same and said suit property was not part of tenancy of defendant as alleged by him.
CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 18 of 43
12. It is admitted case of the parties that eviction petition filed by plaintiffs against defendant and his brother in the court of Ld. Additional Rent Controller is pending adjudication. None amongst the parties has filed nor proved the pleadings of said eviction petition so as to prove that the suit property described herein above was part and parcel of the prayer in the eviction petition for getting defendant evicted from there. Onus to prove this issue was on defendant. No cogent, oral or documentary evidence has been led by defendant on this count. Defendant has failed to prove that the claim of plaintiffs with respect to passing of decree of possession in their favour and against the defendant in respect of the afore elicited suit property had earlier been directly and substantially in issue in the afore elicited eviction petition before the Court of Additional Rent Controller for getting this matter stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC). Issue no 4 is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiffs.
Findings on Issues No(5) & (6)
5) Whether the plaint is bad due to nonfiling of supporting affidavit as prescribed in Order 6 of CPC? If so, its effects. OPD CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 19 of 43
6) Whether the plaint is not properly verified as per the provisions of CPC? If so, its effect.
OPD
13. Amended plaint bearing date 01.09.2008 is accompanied by affidavit of plaintiff no1 of 01.09.2008 and the plaint also bears the verification at the foot of it. Though, in the verification the month of August 2008 is mentioned and no date is mentioned but aforesaid amended plaint and the verification is signed by both plaintiffs. The verification aforesaid bears the averments that contents of paras1 to 11 of plaint were true and correct to the knowledge of signatories and those of para12 to 14 were true on legal information received and believed to be correct by the signatories, whereas the last para was a prayer to this court. Accordingly, defendant has failed to prove of the plaint to be bad either due to nonfiling of supporting affidavit or non proper verification. Issues no. 5 and 6 are accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiffs.
CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 20 of 43 Findings on Issues No(2), (3) & (7)
2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
3) Whether this court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession for the suit property? OPP
14. It is admitted case of the parties that defendant was inducted as tenant by Sh. Virender Kumar Saksena in year 1975. Plaintiffs allege that said tenancy was in writing vide rent deed dated 27.11.1975 setting out terms and conditions mentioned therein, more specifically shown in green colour in site plan Ex PW1/1. PW1 also alleged vide affidavit Ex P1 that on 03.01.2005 he came to know that defendant had illegally, unlawfully and without permission or knowledge of plaintiffs removed the intervening wall between office/store of shop No. HS19/1 and small store measuring 8' X 10', located with gate in the residential portion of plaintiffs, more specifically shown in yellow colour in the site plan Ex CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 21 of 43 PW1/1. DW1 alleged that the aforesaid small store, the suit property was part of oral tenancy in his favour and he was inducted as tenant by landlord Sh. Virender Kumar Saksena in the year 1975 and he never trespassed in said portion nor held it unauthorizedly. DW1 also claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/ per month for entire tenancy premises including the green colour portion and the yellow colour portion shown in site plan Ex PW1/1. DW1 in the written statement in preliminary objection no2 stated that he was in possession of the suit property in dispute since the inception of tenancy i.e. since about 34 years and suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. In reply to para3 of plaint in written statement, defendant has categorically denied of being inducted as a tenant in tenanted premises vide rent deed dated 27.11.1975 as alleged by plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant has disputed at the outset in the written statement with respect to description of the premises under tenancy. In this fact of the matter it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to prove the alleged rent deed dated 27.11.1975, alleged to have been entered into between Sh. Virender Kumar Saksena and defendant. Photocopy of said deed was placed on record by plaintiff and in affidavit Ex P1 referred as Ex PW1/2 which during the course of testimony of PW1 was CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 22 of 43 objected to for exhibition by counsel for defendant, as is borne out of testimony of PW1 recorded before my Ld. Predecessor. The said objection was previously not decided but with regard to the same it has been so argued at the stage of final arguments. Aforesaid copy of the rent deed Ex PW1/2 runs into four sheets and the first sheet bears the impression of stamp paper of Rs. 40/. Overleaf the said first page of the copy of rent deed, there is no impression to depict as to which stamp vendor had issued the said stamp paper and to whom and when. The said copy of the rent deed depicts the execution of rent deed by Sh. Virender Kumar Saksena on 27.11.1975 in favour of defendant and below the purported signatures of lessor and lessee there are signatures and particulars of two witnesses each, meaning thereby that there are four witnesses of the said deed, of which name and particulars of one witness are written in Urdu and name and particulars of the remaining three witnesses are written in English of which two are of Kailash Colony and one of Greater Kailash. In the course of his crossexamination as DW1, defendant categorically denied signatures at portion X, Y, Z and Z1 on said copy of rent deed given Ex PW1/2 to be belonging to him. In the written statement, also defendant had denied of execution of any written CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 23 of 43 lease deed of date 27.11.1975. In the course of plaintiff evidence, no efforts have been made by plaintiffs to summon or examine any of the stated four witnesses of the copy of rent deed given Ex PW1/2. The aforesaid rent deed of date 27.11.1975 was not a registered document.
15. Relying upon the case of Shail Kumari (supra), Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that it had been the practice of court in exhibiting document when it is 30 years old and by virtue of Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short IEA), where any document purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. With respect to the phrase 'proper custody', the explanation of Section 90 IEA makes it clear that documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be.
CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 24 of 43
16. Rent deed copy Ex PW1/2 purportedly executed by lessor Sh. Virender Kumar Saksena in favour of defendant was expected to be in proper custody of the lessor. There is no whisper in oral or documentary evidence on record as to when either of plaintiffs came in custody of the copy of rent deed Ex PW1/2 dated 27.11.1975. As per plaintiffs including PW1, they had bequeathed the right and title over suit property by virtue of registered will of Smt. Sona Devi of date 25.10.1996 consequent upon demise of said Smt. Sona Devi on 03.12.1998. Plaintiffs' evidence led on record is conspicuously silent of obtainment of custody of original of rent deed, copy Ex PW1/2 by plaintiffs including PW1. There is no oral or documentary evidence proved on record that Sh. V.K. Saksena had delivered any original or copy of rent deed executed by him in favour of defendant to Smt. Sona Devi on 02.06.1994 or later after execution of any sale deed with respect to property in question. Even otherwise, none amongst the four witnesses of the stated rent deed, copy Ex PW1/2 was got summoned and examined as a plaintiff witness. In the case of Mohmedbhai Rasulbhai Malek & Ors. Vs. Amirbhai Rahimbhai Malek, 2000 SCC Online Guj 200, it was CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 25 of 43 inter alia held that the contention that since the document was more than 30 years old and it came from proper custody, a presumption would arise that the document was genuine and the contents thereof were correct under Section 90 of IEA has no substance as Section 90 of IEA provides that the document of 30 years old coming from proper custody prove themselves i.e., no evidence need in general be given. The presumption permissible relates to the signature, execution or attestation of a document i.e., to its genuineness but it does not involve any presumption of correctness of every statement in it which may contain narratives of past events or that the contents of the document are true or that it has been acted upon. That must be proved like any other fact. Similarly in case of Mohinuddin (supra) it was interalia held that even if a thirty years old document comes from proper custody, there would be no presumption that contents of the same are true. It has not been proved that said copy of rent deed came from proper custody. Accordingly in the fact of the matter, the copy Ex PW1/2 of the rent deed neither has been proved on record nor its contents including the schedule can be looked into.
CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 26 of 43
17. Smt. Sona Devi, grand mother of plaintiffs is alleged to have purchased House No. HS19, Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048 on 02.06.1994 for consideration from Smt. Parmodini Saksena, wife of Sh. V.K. Saksena; Sh. Sharad Kant Saksena and Sh. Shri Kant Saksena, both sons of late Sh. V.K. Saksena vide sale deeds dated 02.06.1994, as is borne out of para2 of amended plaint. It is fact of the matter that neither plaintiffs filed before conclusion of evidence of parties nor exhibited in plaintiff evidence the original sale deeds aforesaid in favour of their grand mother Smt. Sona Devi. On change of counsel by plaintiff no2 in year 2014, four applications were preferred by plaintiff no2 viz., first application u/o XVI Rule 1 (3)/1 (1) CPC; second and third applications u/o XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and fourth application u/o VII Rule 14 (3) CPC before my Ld. Predecessor, which were disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2014 by my Ld. Predecessor declining the prayers of plaintiffs inter alia to take on record the copy of sale deed dated 02.06.1994 in favour of Smt. Sona Devi. Vide order dated 30.04.2015 of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta in CM (M) 79/15 and CM (M) 1561/15 (Stay), the above referred order dated 26.11.2014 of my Ld. Predecessor was modified to the extent that plaintiffs were permitted to file the (i) CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 27 of 43 certified copy of Will dated 25.10.1996; (ii) original death certificate of Mrs. Sona; (iii) certified copy of lease deed of Mrs. Pista Gupta measne profits/market rent; and (iv) copy of sale deed dated 02.06.1994 in favour of Smt. Sona Devi and it was also directed that if legally permissible the Trial Court may take judicial notice of these documents.
18. The copy of sale deed dated 02.06.1994 filed by plaintiffs on record is a photocopy of certified copy of said sale deed and not the certified copy itself. In the course of plaintiffs' evidence neither the original sale deed was filed nor proved. The above referred copy of sale deed dated 02.06.1994 is purported to be executed by Smt. Parmodini Saksena only, as vendor in favour of Smt. Sona Devi as vendee, with respect to 1/3 rd undivided share in property no. HS19, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, measuring about 236.1/5 sq. yds. against consideration of Rs. 9 Lakh. Though, in the amended plaint it has been averred in para2 as elicited above that Smt. Sona Devi had purchased the property no. House No. HS19 Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048 vide sale deeds dated 02.06.1994 from (i) Smt. Parmodini Saksena, wife of late Sh. V.K. Saksena; (2) Sh. Sharad Kant Saksena; and (3) Sh. Shri Kant Saksena, CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 28 of 43 both sons of late Sh. V.K. Saksena, but copies/originals of alleged sale deeds dated 02.06.1994 executed by Sh. Sharad Kant Saksena and Sh. Shri Kant Saksena, both sons of Sh. V.K. Saksena have not been placed on record nor have been proved.
19. Reliance of Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs on the law laid in the cases (i) Jaswant Singh (supra); (ii) Ram Dass, Chela of Late Mahant Net Ram (supra); (iii) Gurcharan Kaur & Anr. (supra); and (iv) State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (supra) is apparently fallacious as in the case in hand neither original sale deeds aforesaid nor certified copies of aforesaid sale deeds have been brought on record to take judicial notice laying down the premise of not needing to prove them by calling the witness. Photocopy of a certified copy of sale deed of date 02.06.1994 laid on record is per se inadmissible in evidence since its judicial notice cannot be taken in consonance with Section 74 of IEA.
20. With respect to the suit premises i.e. "small store measuring 8' X 10' ", it is the case of plaintiffs that it was not forming part of tenanted premises of defendant but the defendant had trespassed upon CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 29 of 43 such portion and was in its unauthorized occupation and on 03.01.2005, the plaintiffs became aware of said fact. On the other hand, at the outset defendant claimed to be tenant with respect to portion in green and yellow in site plan Ex PW1/1 under the landlordship of Sh. V.K. Saksena. Defendant/DW1 contended that he never paid Rs. 3,000/ to Smt. Sona Devi towards rent of month of July 1994 nor any agreement was ever entered into for payment of rent @ Rs. 3,000/ per month as alleged by plaintiffs. DW1 alleged to have paid rent to Sh. Virender Kumar, his landlord up to June 1994 and thereafter Smt. Sona Devi represented to defendant that she had purchased the property upon which defendant/DW1 sent a cheque of Rs. 8,100/ towards rent @ Rs. 3,000/ per month for the period 01.07.1994 to 30.07.1996, which Smt. Sona Devi did not accept, so as such no rent was ever paid to Smt. Sona Devi, the grand mother of plaintiffs.
21. It is borne out of order of High Court of Delhi dated 30.04.2015 in CM (M) 79/15 that the respondent therein i.e. defendant had no objection for placing on record of the original death certificate of Mrs. Sona Devi submitting it being per se admissible in evidence. The CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 30 of 43 death certificate of Smt. Sona Devi, issued by SubRegistrar of Birth & Death, South Zone, Green Park, bears mention of fact of death of said Smt. Sona Devi on 03.12.1998, whose judicial notice is taken.
22. In terms of plaint and affidavit Ex P1, it was also the averment of PW1 that there existed a Will of date 25.10.1996, executed by Smt. Sona Devi and registered with SubRegistrarV, Mehrauli, New Delhi, bequeathing property no. HS19, Greater Kailash Market, PartI, New Delhi, including suit property in favour of plaintiffs.
23. In view of Sections 52 and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, the only duty cast on the registering authority to endorse on the will is to endorse the admission or execution by the person who presented the document for registration. The compliance with that provision leads to the legal presumption that the document was registered and nothing else. If an authority in performance of a statutory duty signs a document, he does not become an attesting witness within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act. To "attest" is to bear witness to a fact. The essential conditions of valid CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 31 of 43 attestation are (i) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument; (ii) each of them has signed the instrument in presence of the executant. "Animus attestandi" is a necessary ingredient for proving the attestation.
24. Execution of a Will must confirm to the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act, in terms whereof a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses. Execution of a Will, however, can only be proved in terms of Section 68 IEA. In terms of the said provision at least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove the execution of a Will.
25. Section 71 of IEA provides for one of the exceptions where it is not possible to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 68 of IEA. Sections 69, 70 and 71 of IEA are exceptions to Section 68 of IEA. Section 69 of IEA provides for proof of a document where no attesting witness is found. Section 70 of IEA provides for admission of execution by party to the attested document. Section 71 of IEA deals with a situation where the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 32 of 43 execution of the document and only in that eventuality the document's execution may be proved by other evidence.
26. Execution of the Will by Smt. Sona Devi was sought to be proved by plaintiffs by producing a certified copy thereof. In the case of Benga Behera & Anr. Vs. Braja Kishore Nanda & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 728, the Supreme Court held in para40 as : "40. It is now well settled that requirement of the proof of execution of a will is the same as in case of certain other documents, for example gift or mortgage. The law requires that the proof of execution of a will has to be attested at least by two witnesses. At least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove execution and attestation of the will. Further, it is to be proved that the executant had signed and/or given his thumb impression in presence of at least two attesting witnesses and the attesting witnesses had put their signatures in presence of the executant. (See Modhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, (2002) 2 SCC 85; Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91; and Bhagat Ram Vs. Suresh, (2003) 12 SCC 35;"
27. In the case of Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi Vs. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, (2006) 13 SCC 433, it was held that : CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 33 of 43 "32. Section 63 of the Succession Act lays down the mode and manner of execution of an unprivileged will. Section 68 of the Evidence Act postulates the mode and manner of proof of execution of document which is required by law to be attested. It in unequivocal terms states that execution of will must be proved at least by one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. A will is to prove what is loosely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. Unlike other documents, proof of execution of any other document under the Act would not be sufficient as in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witnesses. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable.
33. The burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 34 of 43 the burden would be on the caveator. (See Modhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Abad Shedage, (2002) 2 SCC 85; and Shridevi Vs. Jayaraja Shetty, (2005) 2 SCC 784). Subject to above, proof of a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document."
28. In the case of Gopal Dass & Anr. Vs. Sri Thakurji & Ors., AIR 1943 PC 83, it was held that an instrument which is registered but the original of which has to be returned to the party under Section 61 (2) of the Registration Act is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74 (2) of The Evidence Act and a certified copy of the instrument is not admissible without sufficient foundation being laid for its admission as secondary evidence.
29. In the case of Parsa Singh (supra) relying upon law laid in case of Gopal Dass (supra) it was held that an original will even after registration does not become a public document and does not fall under Section 65 (e) or (f) and certified copy of will is admissible only for proving the contents of original and is not sufficient to dispense with the production and proof of the original and cannot be produced to prove the original document without proving loss of the original. CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 35 of 43
30. It is own case of plaintiffs' that defendant was unauthorized occupant with respect to suit property which did not form part of his tenancy and by virtue of the Will in their favour they had bequeathed the rights and title of the suit property in exclusion to remaining legal heirs of Smt. Sona Devi. In this fact of the matter in the backdrop of the law laid in the case of Benga Behra & Anr. (supra); Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi (supra); Gopal Dass (supra); and Parsa Singh (supra), as elicited herein before, the burden of proof that the Will in question had been validly executed and was a genuine document was on propounder plaintiffs. In the course of plaintiffs' evidence said burden was not discharged. No witness to the attesting will was summoned nor examined in plaintiffs' evidence. In the case of Sampat Singh Vs. Bhagwanti & Ors., 2010 SCC Online P&H 3805, it was inter alia held that certified copy of the Will is not a public document within the meaning of 74 of IEA and is not admissible per se in evidence. So was held in case of Parsa Singh (supra). Also, precedents relied upon by plaintiffs' counsel inclusive of the cases of (i) Ramesh Kumar (supra);
(ii) Sudarshan Kumar Jain & Anr. (supra); (iii) D.N. Singhal & Ors. CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 36 of 43 (supra); (iv) Plastic Chemicals Company (supra); (v) Jaswant Singh (supra); (vi) Gurcharan Kaur & Anr. (supra); and (vii) State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (supra) are of no help to plaintiffs accordingly to make the certified copy of the Will per se admissible in evidence as a public document. So, no judicial notice of certified copy of the Will dated 25.10.1996 of Smt. Sona Devi on record of the case can be taken, it being not a public document. Aforesaid certified copy of the will stands not proved on record for want of testimony of any attesting witness and nonproduction of its original whose loss has neither been alleged nor proved. Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they only were beneficiaries of estate of late Smt. Sona Devi consequent upon her demise to exclusion of other class one legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act. Suit is accordingly bad for nonjoinder of other legal heirs of Smt. Sona Devi, the necessary parties. Also, plaintiffs have failed to prove to have become owner of suit property for want of cogent evidence on that count.
31. PW1 in Ex P1 relied upon site plan Ex PW1/1. In the course of crossexamination, PW1 admitted that Ex PW1/D1 was the certified copy of the plan filed by him and his brother in eviction petition CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 37 of 43 against defendant pending before the Court of Additional Rent Controller. PW1 also elicited in crossexamination that said plan Ex PW1/D1 was correct according to the spot. Ex PW1/D1 reveals that in the store shown in yellow, i.e., the suit property herein, there is no door shown towards West i.e., adjacent to 'Remaining Portion of House No. HS19' and towards the road, whereas in Ex PW1/1 a door is so shown at portionA towards the West side. Careful perusal of site plan Ex PW1/D1 also reveals of the nonexistence of a wall between the yellow coloured store and adjacent store of 14' X 13'. The only entry available to reach yellow coloured portion store in Ex PW1/D1 was from inside of shop no1 and adjacent store 14' X 13'. Ex PW1/D1 was filed by plaintiffs in the eviction petition before Additional Rent Controller against the defendant. Site plan Ex PW1/1 accordingly is per contra to the plan Ex PW1/D1. The site plans Ex PW1/1 and PW1/D1 are the two site plans of the plaintiffs and from them only the defendant through counsel has carved out the wrong and the anomaly. In the case of Satish Kumar (supra), the petitioners/tenants neither had pointed out any wrong in the site plan of landlord nor chose to file own plan, so it was held that if tenant does not file his site plan, showing that the plans filed by the CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 38 of 43 owner are incorrect then the site plan filed by the owner would be assumed to be correct in view of the law laid in the case of R.K. Bhatnagar (supra). Facts of the matter are at complete variance to elicited facts of the cases of Satish Kumar (supra) and R.K. Bhatnagar (supra), so are of no help to plaintiffs. Not only defendant/DW1 has pointed out the wrong in the site plan Ex PW1/1 but in fact has proved it from own site plan Ex PW1/D1 of plaintiffs filed before the Court of Additional Rent Controller in eviction petition filed by plaintiffs against defendant. When there is no other way to access the store in yellow in Ex PW1/D1 except to access it from inside the tenancy premises of defendant, the sole presumption would arise of such store as shown in yellow colour portion in Ex PW1/D1 and/or Ex PW1/1 to be under use of defendant/DW1.
32. PW1 claimed to have taken photographs Ex PW1/9 (colly) on digital camera and having got developed them from one shop at Kalkaji. No cash memo for developing said photographs has been filed nor proved. Even such photographer, who developed/printed said photographs has not been examined in plaintiffs' evidence. Primary CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 39 of 43 evidence in form of electronic device which digitally stored said photographs has not been filed nor proved. DW1 claimed of photographs Ex PW1/9 (colly) to be not of site nor of suit property but instead having been manipulated by PW1/plaintiffs. No certificate under Section 65B of IEA containing prerequisites of subsections (2) and (4) of Section 65B of IEA is accompanying photographs Ex PW1/9 (colly) to make the said secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record admissible in absence of primary evidence, in terms of law laid in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473. Per se photographs Ex PW1/9 (colly) are inadmissible in evidence.
33. It is own case of plaintiffs that consequent upon alleged purchase of property No. HS19, Kailsh Colony, New Delhi, in year 1994 they were residing with their families and parents there since June 1994. In Ex P1 averment of PW1 is of plaintiffs having come to know on 03.01.2005 that defendant had illegally, unlawfully, without their permission and knowledge removed the intervening wall between office/store of shop no HS19/1 and small store measuring 8' X 10' i.e., the suit property shown in yellow colour in Ex PW1/1. PW1 asserts of CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 40 of 43 gaining of such knowledge on 03.01.2005 but it is no where mentioned as to, on which date, which month or which year, as per plaintiffs, such alleged illegal act was so done by defendant. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they were residents of a distant place. Plaintiffs were residing in the same property and any such aforesaid alleged illegal act cannot escape from their attention or notice. It remains unexplained what prevented plaintiffs from lodging requisite complaint for such illegal act before competent authorities including police and Courts of criminal jurisdiction to seek redressel of their grievances for such criminal acts. Nonadvertance of plaintiff for seeking redressel of such criminal acts before competent forum strengthens plea of defendant put forth of suit premises forming part of his tenancy since inception since 1975, which defendant has been able to establish and prove by preponderance of probabilities in the fact of the matter in view of the elicited oral and documentary evidence led. It is proved on record that not only the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation having been preferred later to 12 years of dispossession and/or defendant had protection for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and consequent thereto plaintiffs are not entitled for decree of possession of the suit property. Issues no. 2, 3 and CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 41 of 43 7 are decided against plaintiffs and in favour of defendant accordingly.
Findings on Issue No(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for payment of damages? If so, at what rate and for what period. OPP
34. No cogent evidence has been led on record as to what would have been the appropriate market value with respect to use and occupation charges for suit property for the period in question.
35. The plaintiffs' witnesses in their evidence did not whisper of any similarities of conditions in the suit property and the property so depicted in the certified copy of the lease deed of Mrs. Pista Gupta. Even otherwise in view of the findings on issues no. 2, 3 and 7, plaintiffs are not entitled for any sum towards payment of damages as claimed. The relied upon precedents i.e., (i) Praveen Davar, Retd. Capt. and Anr. (supra); (ii) Grander Kirti Rani Tandon (supra); (iii) Harish Chander Malik (supra); (iv) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (supra); and (v) CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 42 of 43 Magunta Kota Reddy (died) & Ors. (supra) are of no help to plaintiffs in the fact of the matter. Issue no8 is decided against plaintiffs and in favour of defendant.
RELIEF
36. In view of my findings with respect to issues no. 2, 3, 7 and 8, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) on 18th Day of August, 2015. Addl. Distt. Judge01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(AD) CS347/2009 Sh. Puneet Prakash & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal Page 43 of 43