Delhi District Court
Gulshan Singh vs Hari Chand (Since Deceased) on 17 November, 2022
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTH
SAKET, NEW DELHI.
CIS RCA No. 8743/16
CNR No. DLST01-000170-2013
GULSHAN SINGH
S/o late Sardar Nazir Singh
R/o 13-I, Humanyunpur
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi - 110 029
...APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HARI CHAND (since deceased)
Represented by:
(a) ANANDI DEVI (since deceased)
Through LRs:
(i) C.P. JAYANT
S/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(ii) B.P. RAJU
S/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(iii) ANIL KUMAR JAYANT
S/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 1 of 19
:: 2 ::
(iv) PRABHA KIRAN
D/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(v) SUMAN
D/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(vi) SUDESH
D/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(vii) MAYANK PRAKASH
S/o late Dharam Prakash
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(viii) NIDHI PRAKASH
D/o late Dharam Prakash
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(b) DHARAM PRAKASH (since deceased)
Through his LRs:
(i) MAYANK PRAKASH
S/o late Dharam Prakash
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(ii) NIDHI PRAKASH
D/o late Dharam Prakash
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur Safdarjung Enclave, ND
RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 2 of 19
:: 3 ::
2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
(Now South Delhi Municipal Corporation)
17th Floor, SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi
... RESPONDENTS/
DEFENDANTS
AND
CIS RCA No. 8745/16
CNR No. DLST01-000170-2013
GULSHAN SINGH
S/o late Sardar Nazir Singh
R/o 13-I, Humanyunpur
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi - 110 029
...APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
(Now South Delhi Municipal Corporation)
17th Floor, SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi
2. ANANDI DEVI (since deceased)
W/o Sh. Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
Through LRs:
(i) C.P. JAYANT
S/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(ii) B.P. RAJU
S/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 3 of 19
:: 4 ::
(iii) ANIL KUMAR JAYANT
S/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(iv) SUMAN
D/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(vi) SUDESH
D/o late Hari Chand
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(vii) MAYANK PRAKASH
S/o late Dharam Prakash
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
(viii) NIDHI PRAKASH
D/o late Dharam Prakash
R/o 13-G, Humayunpur
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110 029
... RESPONDENTS/
DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution (RCA No. 8743/16): 02.12.2013
Date of Institution (RCA No. 8745/16): 02.12.2013
Date of Arguments : 05.11.2022
Judgment announced on : 17.11.2022
Argued by : Sh. O.P. Gupta and Sh. Sunil Gupta, Counsel for
appellant Gulshan Singh.
Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Counsel for LRs of
Hari Chand and Anandi Devi
Sh. Rajiv Bhardwaj, Counsel for respondent MCD.
RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 4 of 19
:: 5 ::
JUDGMENT
17.11.2022 1.1 Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two appeals preferred against judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, SCJ-cum-RC (South), Saket. Appeal no. 8743/16 is also preferred against order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Ms. Surya Malik Grover, SCJcum-RC (South) vide which an addition issue framed by the Ld. Predecessor District & Sessions Judge, was decided.
1.2 Appeals arise out of two cross suits filed by the contesting parties. The suit first in time from which, RCA No. 8743/16 arises was instituted by Gulshan Singh against Hari Chand and MCD. Cross suit, which is later in time from which, RCA No. 8745/16 arises was instituted by Anandi Devi, wife of Hari Chand against MCD and Gulshan Singh. Subject matter of both the suits is the gali/ passage and a house possessed by Gulshan Singh. Facts involved, documents involved, parties involved and evidence being same, the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.
RCA NO. 8743/162.1 Present appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is owner of property, bearing No. 13-I, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "13-I") and respondent no. 1/ defendant no. 1 is owner of adjacent property, bearing No. 13-G, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 5 of 19 :: 6 ::
Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "13-G") 2.2 It is further averred that 13-I is so constituted that it has a three feet wide passage leading to the house at the end of this passage. Defendant's house 13-G adjoins a part of the three feet wide passage. Defendant no. 1 unauthorisedly raised construction on his property no. 13-G in a manner that he fixed window on the wall adjoining the three feet wide passage, in a manner that it obstructed and blocked plaintiff's movement to his house.
Defendant was further raising multi-storeyed building on his plot causing blockage of fresh air and light to the house of plaintiff. Opening of windows in three feet wide passage was prayed to be removed, which were fixed on the wall touching with plaintiff's entrance to passage.
3. Defendant no. 1 in his written statement pleaded that construction on plot no. 13-G existed since very long. Only some repairs were being carried out. It was pleaded that plaintiff was trying to grab the passage which adjoined the house of defendant. It was also pleaded that owner of 13-G is Anandi Devi and not defendant. While replying to plaint on merits, the plaintiff's case that windows sought to be opened were obstructing his movement, was not denied.
4. Plaintiff/ appellant filed replication wherein, he pleaded ownership of the passage. He stated that he had purchased the plot in question from Babu Lal constituted of the passage.
RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 6 of 19:: 7 ::
5. On pleadings of the parties, trial court framed following issues "1.Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the court, if so, what facts? OPD
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, if so, how? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of The DMC Act? OPC
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in the suit? OPP
5. Relief."
6. On the aforesaid issues, parties led evidence. Suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that title documents of plaintiff though, showed presence of gali/ passage; however, did not confer title on the plaintiff qua the passage.
7.1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appeal was preferred by the appellant. In the appeal, the appellate court framed an additional issue, i.e., issue no. 4A and remitted the matter to trial court for recording fresh evidence and findings on the said issue. Issue no. 4A is reproduced herein below.
"Issue No. 4A Whether the plaintiff is the owner of three feet wide passage on the South leading to his property No. 13-I, Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi touching RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 7 of 19 :: 8 ::
the house of Hari Chand, the defendant no. 1? If so to what effect? With onus being laid on the plaintiff."
7.1.1 Onus having been placed on plaintiff to prove issue no. 4A, plaintiff examined Babu Lal as PW-11 from whom he had purchased the suit property. Babu Lal (PW-11) deposed that he had purchased the suit property measuring 75 sq. yards from one Smt. Kiran Devi inclusive of the passage. The three feet wide passage formed a part of the suit property and he had sold to plaintiff, what he had acquired from Kiran Devi. He proved his agreement to sell (Ex.PW9/B) vide which, he had become owner, having purchased the same from Kiran Devi. Plaintiff also examined Rajender Kumar (PW-9), who was the property dealer for sale between Kiran Devi and Babu Lal. Rajender Kumar (PW-9) also confirmed that the suit property measuring 75 sq. yards constituted of gali as well. Plot along with three feet wide passage was sold off by Kiran Devi to Babu Lal (PW-11).
7.2 The court of Ms. Surya Malik Grover, Sr. Civil Judge (South) vide order dated 16.01.2017 decided issue no. 4A in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff. The court took the view that sale documents, i.e., GPA and registered Will (Ex.PW1/D1 and Ex.PW1/D2) transferring title from Babu Lal in favour of plaintiff did not mention the transfer of passage. Consequently, plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership rights over the disputed passage.
8.1 It is pertinent to mention herein that pursuant to order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Ms. Surya Malik Grover, Sr. Civil Judge RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 8 of 19 :: 9 ::
(South) when the matter was again received by the appellate court, factum of death of defendant/ respondent no. 1 Hari Chand was brought to the notice of the court. However, the application seeking impleadment of LRs of defendant was filed at a belated stage. Predecessor of this court, Ms. Asha Menon (as her Lordship then was) vide order dated 14.09.2017 dismissed the application under XXII Rule 4 & 9 CPC and application under Section 5 Limitation Act and the appeal was abated.
8.2 Order dated 14.09.2017 passed by Predecessor of this court, Ms. Asha Menon (as her Lordship then was) was set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 17.08.2018 passed in RSA No. 282/17 and matter was remanded back with directions to be disposed of on merits.
9. Challenge before this court is to judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, Sr. Civil Judge (South) and order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Ms. Surya Malik Grover, Sr. Civil Judge (South).
10.1 Sh. O.P. Gupta, Counsel for appellant has argued that trial court committed a grave error in holding that plaintiff/ appellant did not have exclusive rights over the passage. It is argued that the title which admittedly travelled through Kiran Devi was proved to be inclusive of three feet wide passage. The Will (Ex.PW9/A) and Agreement (Ex.PW9/B) executed by Kiran Devi in favour of Babu Lal specifically mentions three feet wide passage to be part of plot no. 13-I transferred by Kiran Devi in RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 9 of 19 :: 10 ::
favour of Babu Lal. Babu Lal (PW-11) deposed that he had transferred the entire plot inclusive of passage to the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no question for trial court to decline ownership and title rights to plaintiff.
10.2 It is further argued that application under order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC has been filed seeking permission to place on record sale deed dated 29.10.2018 executed by Babu Lal (PW-
11) in favour of present appellant, transferring title of the passage as well in favour of appellant/ plaintiff. It is argued that sale deed having now been executed, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is owner of passage as well.
11. Sh. Arun Yadav, Counsel for respondent/ defendant has argued that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by trial court in its judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 and order dated 16.01.2017 which call for interference. Appellant's title flows through documents executed by Babu Lal (PW-11), i.e., GPA (Ex.PW1/D1) and Will (Ex.PW1/D2) which do not mention of the passage having been sold to the plaintiff. Plaintiff/ appellant thus, cannot claim title over the same. The sale deed having been executed subsequent in time, does not confer any title upon the plaintiff/ appellant, when the said document did not exist at the time of institution of the suit.
12. I have heard Sh. O.P. Gupta & Sh. Sunil Gupta, Counsel for appellant/ plaintiff and Sh. Arun Yadav, Counsel for respondent/ RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 10 of 19 :: 11 ::
defendant. With their assistance, I have perused the trial court record, order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Ms. Surya Malik Grover, Sr. Civil Judge (South); and judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, Sr. Civil Judge (South) as well as documents and evidence on record. I have also gone through sale deed Ex.PX (permitted to be taken on record vide order passed, on application under order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC).
13.1 Controversy in the suit between the parties is regarding a three feet wide passage in the East of property of defendant/ respondent no. 1, leading to built up house of plaintiff/ appellant from the main road. It has been the case of plaintiff/ appellant that he owns the three feet wide passage which leads from main road to his built up portion. Plaintiff/ appellant had sought to restrain the defendant/ respondent from opening windows in the gali, as it obstructed his free passage and were very close to his entrance.
13.2 Respondent/ defendant no. 1 contested the suit on the ground that plaintiff/ appellant did not own the passage. Though, defendant/ respondent did not claim any ownership or even common interest in the passage; however, defendant claimed that he had a right to open window, as the window existed since long and he had only repaired the same.
14. During the pendency of the appeal, predecessor of this court, Ms. Anu Malhotra (as her Lordship then was) directed an RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 11 of 19 :: 12 ::
additional issue to be framed as regards ownership of plaintiff/ appellant. Trial court vide impugned order dated 16.01.2017 decided the issue no. 4A in favour of defendant/ respondent holding that title has not been clearly established. At the time of deciding the additional issue, plaintiff/ appellant had examined his predecessor in interest, who deposed that he had sold off the plot measuring 75 sq. yards plot inclusive of passage. Plaintiff/ appellant's predecessor, Babu Lal also proved sale documents in his favour executed by his predecessor in interest Kiran Devi which specifically mentioned passage to be part of 75 sq. yads sold by her to Babu Lal. Plaintiff/ appellant also examined property dealer, Rajender Kumar (PW-9) who had facilitated the sale between Kiran Devi and Babu Lal. PW-9 also deposed that Kiran Devi had sold off the passage as well to Babu Lal. Nonetheless, trial court did not consider the evidence to be sufficient to confer title on plaintiff/ appellant. This court is of the opinion that order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Ms. Surya Malik Grover, Sr. Civil Judge (South) cannot be sustained. Appellant's buyer has clarified that he had sold off the passage as well. He had sold to plaintiff what he had purchased from his predecessor.
15. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff/ appellant got a fresh sale deed executed by his predecessor in interest, namely, Babu Lal. The sale deed has been take on record as Ex.PX vide separate order passed in application under order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC. A study of recital in the sale deed reveals that appellant's predecessor in interest, Babu Lal, had acquired title in the plot measuring 75 sq. yards inclusive of three feet RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 12 of 19 :: 13 ::
wide passage by way of agreement to sell, receipt, GPA and Will dated 27.11.1987 registered vide document no. 5086 in Book No. 3 Volume No. 424 on 27.11.1987 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The title so acquired has been sold by the sale deed Ex.PX to the plaintiff/ appellant Gulshan Singh and his brother Hazara Singh. Certified copy of registered sale deed having been taken on record; this court is of the opinion that the entire controversy is now set to rest.
16. Plaintiff/ appellant has thus, established himself to be owner of the three feet wide passage, which was flashpoint of dispute between plaintiff and respondent/ defendant. Thus, having established his title, plaintiff/ appellant can successfully seek to restrain defendant/ respondent from opening window(s) and aso seek mandatory injunction for removing any such window, which obstructs the usage of plaintiff/ appellant of his property.
17.1 In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Ms. Surya Malik Grover, Sr. Civil Judge (South); and judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, Sr. Civil Judge (South) cannot be sustained. Same are set aside. Appeal is allowed.
17.2 Appellant/ plaintiff is declared owner of suit property measuring 75 sq. yards consisting of three feet wide passage constituting portion of H. No. 13-I, Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. Respondent/ defendant no. 1 is restrained from opening any window in the property owned by plaintiff/ RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 13 of 19 :: 14 ::
appellant. Further, mandatory injunction is granted directing respondent/ defendant no. 1 to close any such window.RCA NO. 8745/16
18. Present appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, SCJ-cum- RC (South), Saket.
19.1 Facts necessary for disposal of appeal are that respondent no. 2/ plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking to restrain the appellant/ defendant no. 2 Gulshan Singh from carrying out any demolition in the suit property or from stopping the respondent no. 2/ plaintiff in getting the outer wall re-plastered. Mandatory injunction was also sought seeking directions to defendant no. 1 to remove iron pillars, rod and tins fixed in the passage blocking the windows and ventilator to the house of plaintiff.
19.2 Respondent no. 2/ plaintiff Anandi Devi pleaded herself to be owner of 13-G, Village Humayunpur, New Delhi and that defendant no. 2, who owned house no. 13-I, Humayunpur, New Delhi was blocking a common gali leading from the road to the house of appellant/ defendant no. 2 with the intention to grab the gali. It is pleaded that gali lies between the house of plaintiff and one Lalit. Down the lane, one Daulat Ram's house is also adjoining the gali. It is further pleaded that plaintiff's house is very old and had windows opening towards passage since the time of its construction. Likewise, Daulat Ram also has window RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 14 of 19 :: 15 ::
opened in the passage since long. Plaintiff asked the defendant no. 2 to remove iron pillors etc. installed to close plaintiff's windows and openings, with a view to cover the passage and use exclusively for defendant no. 2's individual use.
20. Appellant/ defendant no.2 contested the suit claiming himself to be exclusive owner of gali and denied that any other house has windows opening in the passage. Opening of windows by the plaintiff was stated and pleaded to be unauthorised and illegal. Suit was also sought to be stayed under Section 10 CPC in view of previously instituted suit by defendant no. 2 against present plaintiff's husband.
21. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues :-
"1. Whether the suit of Plaintiff deserves to be stayed in terms of Section 10 of CPC as another suit containing similar subject matter against Defendant is pending where the issue is directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit? OPP
2. Whether Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands as he himself has constructed unauthorizedly his house upto 2nd floor without requisite permission? OPD2
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in para 1 and 2 of prayer clause?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Mandatory injunction as prayed? OP
5. Relief.RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 15 of 19
:: 16 ::
22. To prove its case, plaintiff examined 6 witnesses. Defendant also examined 7 witnesses in support of his case.
23. Trial court after considering the evidence led and documents placed on record, partly decreed the suit directing defendant no. 2 to remove the jaal which was existing adjacent to the window frame of the plaintiff's windows and to remove any obstruction made by him in the passage.
24. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013, appeal was preferred before this Court. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 14.09.2017, Hon'ble predecessor of this Court, Ms. Asha Menon (as her Lordship then was), dismissed the appeal.
25. Thereafter, appellant/ defendant no. 2 preferred regular second appeal against the judgment dated 14.09.2017 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Vide order dated 17.08.2018, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal and judgment dated 14.09.2017 was set aside. Further, matter was remanded back to the court of District Judge (South) for decision afresh. This court is now dealing with the matter on being remanded back.
26.1 Sh. O.P. Gupta, Counsel for appellant/ defendant no. 2 has argued that the suit from which the appeal arises, is a counter blast to the suit previously instituted by the defendant no. 2 against plaintiff/ respondent's husband, namely, Hari Chand. It is RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 16 of 19 :: 17 ::
next argued that trial court committed a grave error in holding that defendant no. 2/ appellant does not have exclusive rights over the passage.
26.2 Sh. Gupta further argued that pursuant to framing of additional issue No. 4A in connected appeal 8743/16, he had led additional evidence and examined Sh. Babu Lal, from whom he had purchased the property (PW-11) and Sh. Rajender Kumar, property dealer (PW-9) It is argued that the title which admittedly travelled through Kiran Devi (from whom he had purchased the property) was proved to be inclusive of three feet wide passage. The Will (Ex.PW9/A; placed in file of RCA No. 8473/16) and Agreement (Ex.PW9/B; placed in file of RCA No. 8473/16) executed by Kiran Devi in favour of Babu Lal specifically mention three feet wide passage to be part of plot no.
13-I transferred by Kiran Devi in favour of Babu Lal. Babu Lal (PW-11) deposed that he had transferred the entire plot inclusive of passage to the plaintiff.
27.1 Sh. Rajeev Bhardwaj, Counsel for MCD has supports the case of appellant and has argued that he is the owner.
27.2 Sh. Yadav, Counsel for the contesting respondent has reiterated the arguments raised in main appeal.
28. This court vide order of even date passed in RCA No. 8743/16 has already held that appellant is the owner of the suit plot inclusive of the three feet wide passage. Being owner RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 17 of 19 :: 18 ::
thereof, appellant has right to use the passage to his own needs and requirements. Being the absolute owner, he cannot be obstructed from its free and peaceful usage. Plaintiff/ respondent, who has no right, title or ownership over the suit passage, cannot seek to restrain the appellant/ defendant no. 2 from blocking any windows etc. or seek restraint on appellant's usage thereof. Opening of the windows by plaintiff amounts to interference in the usage of the defendant no. 2's and also invasion of his privacy. It is not the case of plaintiff that she has no other source of light or air from any other side. In other words, it is not the case of plaintiff that window(s) opening in the gali is/ are the only source of light and air, so as to claim any easement. Plaintiff has also failed to establish that windows existed since very long. Plaintiff/ respondent has also failed to establish that there were windows of others also opening in the passage. Moreover, as said earlier, appellant/ defendant no. 2 being absolute and exclusive owner of the passage cannot be restrained, or his usage of plot cannot be defined.
29. In view of the discussion made above, judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, SCJ-cum- RC (South) cannot be sustained and are set aside. In view of the same, RCA No. 8745/16 stands allowed.
30. Trial court records of both the appeals be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
31. No order as to the costs. Decree sheets be prepared RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 18 of 19 :: 19 ::
separately in both the appeals.
32. Appeal files be consigned to Record Room.
Original signed judgment be placed in file of RCA No. 8743/16 and copy thereof, be placed in file of RCA No. 8745/16.
Digitally signed by NAROTTAM NAROTTAM KAUSHAL Announced in the open Court KAUSHAL Date: 2022.11.17 on this 17th day of November, 2022 15:20:20 +0530 (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) Principal District & Sessions Judge South District: Saket Courts 17.11.2022 (v) RCAs No. 8743/16 & 8745/16 Page No. 19 of 19