Delhi District Court
Pawan Kumar Mehta vs Ajit Kumar Chellani on 7 November, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE - 07, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO. :- 34/2022
IN THE MATTER OF :-
PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA
S/o Shri J.N. Mehta,
R/o 57/22, Second Floor, Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi-110018. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
AJIT KUMAR CHELLANI
S/o. Late Shri Bhagwan Dass,
R/o. 24/4A, First Floor, Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi-110018. ....Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.20,00,000/- (RUPEES
TWENTY LAKH ONLY) ALONGWITH PENDENTELITE
AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 12% P.A. AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
Date of institution of the Suit : 06.01.2022
Date of Judgment was reserved : 16.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 07.11.2024
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.22,00,000/- from the defendant Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 1 of 42 2 alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 12% p.a. and a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to return the cheque bearing no.589964 in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT The necessary facts for the adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under :
2.1. The plaintiff is residing at 57/22, Second Floor, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018 and is in the business of sale and purchase of properties and construction for the last many years.
2.2. The defendant and Smt. Sarita Kamra were the owners of First Floor with roof rights and Ground Floor respectively at property bearing no.24/4A, Tehar-II, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018.
2.3. The defendant entered into a collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019 with plaintiff regarding property bearing no. 24/4A, Tehar-II, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018 which was duly acknowledged by Smt. Sarita Kamra also, wherein defendant claimed himself to be the absolute owner of first floor with roof rights at the Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 2 of 42 3 aforesaid property and the plaintiff executed the said collaboration agreement on behalf of Smt. Sarita Kamra and as per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff had to demolish the old structure of the property and to rebuild the new structure according to the agreed design and specifications at his own cost and expenses. The plaintiff had to build / raise the Upper Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor, three BHK units on each floor except the ground floor and the possession of the old structure was handed over to him on 23.06.2019 and the construction was supposed to be completed within 15 months from the said date.
2.4. It was agreed between the parties to the suit vide agreement dated 09.05.2019 that upon the completion of construction, the plaintiff would become the absolute owner of entire second floor and third floor (with roof rights) alongwith 1/2th undivided share in stilt floor with common use of stairs and lift and would be entitled to enjoy the peaceful possession or sell the same as per his own wish.
2.5. It was further agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- in three instalments to the defendant besides handing over the possession of Upper Ground Floor, first Rs.20,00,000/- at the time of signing of the collaboration agreement dated Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 3 of 42 4 09.05.2019; second payment of Rs.20,00,000/- at the time of execution of sale deed in respect of any one floor i.e. second floor or third floor (with roof rights) of the said property as the case may be and third payment of Rs.20,00,000/- at the time of execution of sale deed in respect of the remaining floor.
2.6. The defendant created hurdles in the construction work and due to which the construction work was adversely affected and it got delayed.
2.7. Despite the completion of 90% construction work of the suit property, the defendant was not coming forward to perform his part of contract and neglected to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff or his nominee with respect to Second and Third Floor, which was the share of plaintiff under the collaboration agreement and upon this, the plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 18.07.2020 to the defendant which was replied by him vide legal reply dated 06.08.2020.
2.8. Thereafter. the plaintiff filed a civil suit No.322/2021 seeking the relief of Specific Performance of Contract and Injunction against the defendant and Smt. Sarita Kamra before the Court of Ld. ADJ, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and during the pendency of the said suit, the defendant amicably settled all the disputes with Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 4 of 42 5 him and the said civil suit was withdrawn, being compromised.
2.9. However, the defendant did not mend his ways and exert undue pressure upon the plaintiff and demanded unreasonable amount from him and for avoiding any kind of dispute, the plaintiff agreed to pay an extra amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to defendant as compensation towards all his claims, grievances, disputes, rental amount, delay in construction / handing over the possession of the said property and for deficiency in the construction work of the first floor of the defendant and the same was accepted by him and it was decided that Rs.13,00,000/- would be paid in two equal installments of Rs.6,50,000/- each to defendant before the execution of respective sale deeds of the second and third floor and after receipt of Rs.60,00,000/- which is the total sale consideration amount of second and third floor with roof rights, defendant would return the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which was handed over to him initially at the time of execution of collaboration agreement and the said return of payment of Rs.20,00,000/- shall be in form of Demand Draft.
2.10. The defendant also pressurized the plaintiff in issuing a security cheque bearing no.589964 in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi and it was agreed between them that Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 5 of 42 6 the same would be returned after the completion of the minor construction work pending at the time of the handing over of the possession of the first floor of the property in question to the defendant.
2.11. A receipt dated 09.09.2021 was executed by both the parties to the suit which recorded the fact that an additional sum of Rs.13,00,000/- was also agreed to be paid to the defendant in addition to its entitlement of Rs.60,00,000/- in terms of the original collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019. The aforesaid additional sum of Rs.13,00,000/- was to be paid to the defendant in two instalments, first instalment on 09.09.2021 of Rs.6,50,000/- and second instalment of the even amount on 31.10.2021. The defendant also received the consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/- each for the sale of second and third floor, from the nominees of the plaintiff and in total, the defendant received a sum of Rs.93,00,000/-.
2.12. The defendant served the plaintiff with a legal notice dated 09.12.2021 for the dishonour of the security cheque which was handed over to him at the time of delivery of the possession of the first floor, despite the fact that the aforesaid cheque was only a security cheque and was not meant to be presented for encashment, in view of the fact that the defendant had already received a sum of Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 6 of 42 7 Rs.13,00,000/- for the satisfaction of all his claims against the plaintiff.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant on 06.01.2022 and defendant put his appearance on 08.03.2022 and filed his written statement on 19.04.2022.
4. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT.
4.1. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel as provided under Section 115 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4.2. The plaintiff acted in the dual capacity of a builder and an agent of Smt. Sarita Kamra, owner of ground floor at property bearing no.24/4A, Tihar II, Ashok Nagar and represented himself to be fully authorised by her to deal with the ground floor of the property on her behalf on the basis of an affidavit dated 09.04.2019.
4.3. The plaintiff has intentionally not placed on record the annexures of the collaboration agreement, which provides the specifications about the quality of construction which was supposed to be carried out by him, to conceal his shortcomings in the construction and the breach of terms and conditions of the collaboration agreement committed by him. Most importantly, the plaintiff failed to complete the construction of the property Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 7 of 42 8 in question within the specified period i.e. 15 months from the date of delivery of the possession of the property.
4.4. The plaintiff also failed to pay the agreed rent with penalty thereon for the delayed period in handing over possession of the floor of the defendant and he deliberately neglected the construction on the upper ground floor and first floor of the property and took interest only in the completion of the second floor and third floor, which were allotted to him.
4.5. The construction of the upper ground floor is still lying incomplete and the finishing work at the first floor is being completed by the defendant himself.
4.6. The plaintiff requested the defendant to take possession of the first floor of the property instead of upper ground floor and agreed to pay the difference in the price as per the market value of the same and it was decided between them that the entire amount of Rs.20,00,000/- paid to him on 09.05.2019 at the time of execution of collaboration agreement would be adjusted / appropriated as a full and final settlement towards the aforesaid difference in market value of the first floor and upper ground floor alongwith the outstanding liability of the plaintiff to pay the rent and penalty thereon for the Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 8 of 42 9 delay in handing over the possession of the first floor of the property.
4.7. The plaintiff also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- in two installments as a consideration for transfer of roof rights of the third floor and for not adhering to the specifications of standard and quality of material agreed to be used in the construction of the property in question as provided in the annexures as per the collaboration agreement. The plaintiff agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.33,00,000/- over and above the amount of Rs.60,00,000/-, as originally agreed between them vide collaboration agreement dated 9th May, 2019.
4.8. The defendant has been residing in the rented accommodation at WZ-692A, 1st Floor, Shiv Nagar Extension, Near Jail Road, New Delhi-58 and not on the first floor of the property of which the possession was handed over to him as the same is in unfinished and incomplete condition and the defendant is in the process of getting the finishing work completed all by himself.
4.9. The demand drafts for Rs.20,00,000/- were got prepared by defendant at the request and instance of plaintiff in the month of September, 2021 at the time of amicable settlement between the parties as the plaintiff requested him that he was in need of bank entries as the Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 9 of 42 10 entire sale consideration of about more than Rupees Two Crores qua second floor and third floor would come to him in cash and he agreed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to defendant in cash in lieu of the demand drafts and the defendant in good faith agreed to accommodate and a copy of demand drafts was sent to the plaintiff on his whatsapp, however, later on the demand drafts were got cancelled by defendant on 2 nd November, 2021 at the instance of plaintiff only and now plaintiff is taking undue advantage of the photocopies of demand drafts sent to him on his whatsapp.
5. No replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant.
6. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings, the following issues were being framed on 19.05.2022:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree, as prayed? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP.
(iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Plea of Estopple? OPD.
(v) Relief.Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 10 of 42 11
7. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
7.1. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 in his examination-in-chief.
7.2. In his evidence, the plaintiff / PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. The photocopy of collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019 as Ex.PW-1/A;
B. The photocopy of affidavit dated 09.04.2019 executed by Smt. Sarita Kamra as Ex.PW-1/B; C. The photocopy of possession letters dated 09.05.2019 and 23.06.2019 as Ex.PW-1/C (colly);
D. The photocopy of receipt of payment of Rs.20,00,000/- dated 09.05.2019 duly acknowledged by the defendant as Ex.PW-1/D;
E. The photocopy of the legal demand notice dated 18.07.2020 alongwith its postal receipts as Ex.PW- 1/E;
F. The photocopy of legal reply dated 06.08.2020 as Ex.PW-1/F;
G. The photocopy of the legal notices dated 11.12.2020 send to plaintiff and defendant by Smt. Sarita Kamra as Ex.PW-1/G (colly);
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 11 of 42 12H. The photocopy of the legal notice dated 16.01.2020 sent to plaintiff by Smt. Sarita Kamra as Ex.PW-1/H (Colly);
I. The photocopy of receipt dated 09.09.2021 as Ex.PW-1/I;
J. The photocopy of receipt dated 31.10.2021 as Ex.PW-1/J;
K. The photocopy of the two demand drafts as Ex.PW-
1/K;
L. The photocopy of possession letter dated 10.09.2021 as Ex.PW-1/L;
M. The photocopy of the legal notice dated 15.11.2021 served upon the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/M;
N. The photocopy of the letter addressed to bank by plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/N (OSR);
O. The photocopy of the legal reply dated 01.12.2021 sent by the plaintiff to defendant alongwith its postal receipts as Ex.PW-1/O;
P. The photocopy of legal notice dated 09.12.2021 served upon the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/P; and Q. The photocopy of legal reply dated 22.12.2021 alongwith its postal receipts as Ex.PW-1/Q.
8. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff, and vide separate statement of plaintiff, plaintiff evidence was closed.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 12 of 42 139. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
9.1. In support of his case, defendant examined himself as DW-1 and Sh.Inder Preet Singh, Reader-cum-Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Vaibhav Partap Singh, MM, NI Act, Digital Courts-02, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and Sh. Brijesh Chellani as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively. DW-1 and DW- 3 tendered their evidence affidavits Ex.DW-1/A and Ex.DW-3/A in their examination-in-chief.
9.2. In his evidence, the defendant / DW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. The certified copy of plaint of the civil suit no.322/2021 titled as Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani and Anr. as Ex.DW-1/1;
B. The certified copy of written statement filed in the aforesaid case by the defendant alongwith its annexures as Ex.DW-1/2 (colly);
C. The photocopy of the complaint filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as Mark A (colly);
D. The photocopy of reply dated 13.01.2021 of the defendant to the legal notice of plaintiff dated 11.12.2020 as Ex.DW-1/4;
E. The legal notice dated 15.11.2021 sent by the defendant to plaintiff as Ex.DW-1/5;
F. The certified copy of application dated 11.11.2021 filed by the defendant in Civil Suit No.322/2021 Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 13 of 42 14 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC alongwith its annexures as Ex.DW-1/6;
G. The certified copy of ordersheet dated 23.11.2021 as Ex.DW-1/7; and H. The certified copies of statement of plaintiff and defendant in the aforesaid suit, dated 23.11.2021 as Ex.DW-1/8 and Ex.DW-1/9.
9.3. In his evidence, the DW-2 has relied upon the following documents:
A. The photocopy of the original complaint of CC No.328/2022, titled as Ajit Kumar Chellani Vs. Pawan Kumar Mehta as Ex.DW-2/1 (OSR);
B. The photocopy of original cheque bearing no.589964 as Ex.DW-2/2 (OSR); and C. The photocopy of cheque return memo as Ex.DW-
2/3 (OSR).
10. No other witness was examined by the defendant, accordingly defence evidence was closed.
11. Besides the aforesaid documents, the following documents have also been brought on record during the respective cross examination of plaintiff and defendant:
A. Annexures of collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019 as Ex.PW-1/D1;Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 14 of 42 15
B. The photocopy of printouts of whatsapp messages as Ex.PW-1/D2;
C. Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex.PW-
1/D3;
D. Part payment receipt / addendum agreement dated 09.02.2021 as Ex.PW-1/D4 (Ex.PW-1/I);
E. Receipt dated 31.10.2021 as Ex.PW-1/D5; F. Possession letter dated 10.09.2021 as Ex.PW-1/D6; G. Letter to Bank Manager for stoppage of payment of cheque in question as Ex.PW-1/D7;
H. Affidavit of plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/D8; I. A document in the handwriting of defendant dated 03.10.2021 as Ex.PW-1/D9; and J. The bills brought on record by the defendant as Ex.DW-1/PX1 (colly-60 pages);
12. I have heard Ld. counsels for plaintiff and defendant. I have also gone through material on record.
13. My findings on the issues are as follows:-
14.ISSUE No.1:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree, as prayed? OPP.
14.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff / Sh. Pawan Kumar Mehta stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that he is a builder by Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 15 of 42 16 profession and entered into a collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019 with the defendant, Sh.Ajit Kumar Chellani for raising construction at the property bearing no.24/4A, Tehar-II, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018 and it was agreed between them that the plaintiff would built four floors including upper ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor, each 3 BHK Units with lift and in pursuance thereof, on 23.06.2019, the possession of the aforesaid property consisting of two floors was handed over to him for demolishing the already existing structure and raising new construction as per the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 deposed that the suit property jointly belonged to defendant and one Smt. Sarita Kamra, who executed an affidavit Ex.PW-1/B in his favour and he entered into the collaboration agreement as the attorney-cum-builder with the defendant and as per the agreement, he was supposed to make the payment of Rs.60,00,000/- to the defendant in three instalments of Rs.20,00,000/- each i.e. first at the time of the signing of the collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019, second instalment at the time of the execution of the sale documents of the second floor and third instalment at the time of execution of sale documents of the third floor and it was decided between them that the defendant would also get one floor in the newly constructed building besides the aforesaid Rs.60,00,000/- and one floor was earmarked for Smt. Sarita Kamra and the remaining two floors were Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 16 of 42 17 allotted to the plaintiff. PW-1 further deposed that after the completion of 90% work of the overall construction at the suit property, he requested the defendant to come forward and execute the sale deed of one of the floors which were earmarked for him, in favour of his nominee, however, the defendant relented and upon this he was constrained to send a legal notice to him and also initiated a civil suit no.322/2021 seeking specific performance of the collaboration agreement against the defendant and Smt. Sarita Kamra and after some deliberation on 09.09.2021, they entered into a settlement agreement Ex.PW-1/I whereby the plaintiff undertook to pay an additional sum of Rs.13,00,000/- to the defendant and the total amount which was to be paid to the defendant was hiked to Rs.73,00,000/- from the original amount of Rs.60,00,000/-
and thereupon on 10.09.2021, the defendant executed the sale deed of second floor in favour of the nominee of plaintiff and on receipt of the remaining part payment of Rs.6,50,000/- vide receipt Ex.PW-1/J dated 31.10.2021, the defendant executed the sale deed of the third floor as well in the favour of the nominee of plaintiff on 01.11.2021. PW-1 further deposed that he has made an additional payment of Rs.13,00,000/- to the defendant, who has also received the sale consideration amount of Rs.60,00,000/- from the buyers of the aforesaid two floors, each floor for Rs.30,00,000/- besides Rs.20,00,000/- which were paid to him on 09.05.2019 at the time of the Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 17 of 42 18 execution of the collaboration agreement. PW-1 has also deposed that on 10.09.2021, the possession of the first floor of the suit property was handed over to the defendant and at that time, a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- was also given to him as security, which was not supposed to be encashed by the defendant.
14.2. PW-1 has pleaded that defendant is required to refund the surplus / balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to him and he has calculated the said amount in the following manner :
Total amount payable to the defendant :
Rs.73,00,000/- (Originally Rs.60,00,000/- as per the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A and vide the addendum agreement dated 09.09.2021, it was agreed that an additional sum of Rs.13,00,000/- would also be paid to the defendant, out of which Rs.6,50,000/- were paid on the same day and the remaining amount on 31.10.2021). Total amount actually received by the defendant : Rs.93,00,000/- (Rs.20,00,000/- on 09.05.2019 vide receipt Ex.PW-1/D + Rs.30,00,000/- on 10.09.2019 at the time of the execution of sale deed of second floor + Rs.30,00,000/- on 01.11.2021 at the time of the execution of sale deed of third floor + Rs.13,00,000/- in two instalments of Rs.6,50,000/- each vide receipt Ex.PW-1/I dated 09.09.2021 and receipt Ex.PW-1/J dated 31.10.2021).Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 18 of 42 19
14.3. In rebuttal, the defendant himself entered into the witness box as DW-1 and deposed that the plaintiff has stated incorrect facts in his evidence and he is not liable to refund any amount to him as the additional sum of Rs.13,00,000/- were paid to him for the transfer of roof rights of the third floor of the property in question and for compensating him for the deficiencies in the construction.
DW-1 has further deposed that as far as the adjustment of the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- given to him at the time of the execution of the collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019 is concerned, it was mutually agreed between him and plaintiff that the same would be adjusted / appropriated as a full and final settlement amount in lieu of pending rent and accepting the first floor of the property instead of the upper ground floor and in pursuance of their understanding, a receipt dated 31.10.2021 Ex.PW-1/D5 was also executed. DW-1 has further deposed that the plaintiff has not complied with the terms of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A and handed over the possession of the first floor in an unfinished condition and the cheque issued by him in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of handing over of the possession of the first floor, for the discharge of his liability towards the incomplete work therein, also got dishonoured upon presentation.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 19 of 42 2014.4. The defendant also examined DW-3 Sh. Brijesh Challani for corroborating his plea about the execution of the receipt dated 31.10.2021 Ex.PW-1/D5.
14.5. To put it briefly, the controversy involved in the present suit lies within a narrow compass as the plaintiff has sought the recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- from the defendant, who admittedly received the said amount over and above the agreed amount of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.73,00,000/- in terms of agreement Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/D4 respectively, however, has taken the plea that the aforesaid additional amount has been adjusted in terms of receipt Ex.PW-1/D5 for compensating him for the loss suffered by him owing to exchange of floor and the arrears of rent.
14.6. In the present case, the following facts are not in dispute:
A. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a collaboration agreement dated 09.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/A; B. As per collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A, the defendant was entitled to get upper ground floor in the newly constructed building alongwith a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- from the plaintiff;
C. The construction of the property in question could not be completed within the prescribed period as provided in the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A;Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 20 of 42 21
D. On 09.09.2021, the parties to the suit entered into a fresh arrangement and executed an addendum agreement Ex.PW-1/I thereby raising the original sum of Rs.60,00,000/- payable to the defendant to Rs.73,00,000/-; E. On 10.09.2021, the possession of the first floor of the property in question was handed over to the defendant; F. The defendant received Rs.20,00,000/- on 09.05.2019, Rs.6,50,000/- on 09.09.2021, Rs.6,50,000/- on 31.10.2021, Rs.30,00,000/- on 10.09.2021, at the time of execution of the Sale Deed of the second floor of the property and Rs.30,00,000/- on 01.11.2021 at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed of the third floor of the property in question, the defendant received a total sum of Rs.93,00,000/- under the transaction in question.
G. The defendant received Rs.20,00,000/- in surplus of the agreed amount of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.73,00,000/- in terms of Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/I / Ex.PW-1/D4 respectively;
14.7. In a nutshell, the defendant has admitted that he has received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in addition to his share which he was supposed to get in terms of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A and the subsequent agreement Ex.PW-1/D4, however, his only plea is to the effect that the aforesaid additional amount has been adjusted / appropriated for the exchange of floor i.e. first floor instead of upper ground floor and the payment of the rent Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 21 of 42 22 which was due upon the plaintiff as a liability in terms of Clause 16 of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A. 14.8. So, in the present suit, this Court only needs to answer the question as to whether it was agreed between the parties to the suit that the sum of aforesaid Rs.20,00,000/- would be appropriated as per the plea of defendant or not?
14.9. In support of his aforesaid assertion, the defendant has referred to a document Ex.PW-1/D5, which is a receipt and it records that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- received by the defendant on 09.05.2019 from the plaintiff is being adjusted as a full and final settlement in favour of the defendant, in lieu of pending rent and for exchanging the upper ground floor for the first floor and the same is witnessed by two witnesses namely, Sh. Vijay Chugh and Sh. Brijesh Chellani. At this stage, it is relevant to highlight that Ex.PW-1/D5 is the only document, the execution of which is in dispute, otherwise all the remaining documents brought on record by either of the parties to the suit are admitted by the opposite party.
14.10. So before getting into any discussion of the material relied upon by the parties to the suit, this Court deems it fit to scrutinize Ex.PW-1/D5 at the very outset, which is the foundation of the case set up by the defendant.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 22 of 42 2314.11. It is a matter of record that the defendant has placed on record the photocopy of Ex.PW-1/D5 and has pleaded that original of the same is in the possession of the plaintiff, who has not produced it despite the service of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC and as a result of which, an adverse inference should be drawn against him and the said document be read as an admitted document on the part of the plaintiff.
14.12. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that Ex.PW-1/D5 is a forged and fabricated document and a false story has been narrated by the defendant about its execution and no such document ever existed or executed in his presence, accordingly, he does not have the custody of the same and the provision of Order XII Rule 8 CPC has no application in the present case.
14.13. In Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain, RFA No. 4/2008 dated 19.11.2008, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that before a presumption can be drawn against a party under Order XII Rule 8 CPC who has been called upon to produce a document, it has to be proved that the document production whereof is sought is in the possession of the party concerned and without establishing the physical custody of the said document with the party from whom the production has been sought, no adverse inference could be drawn against him / her.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 23 of 42 2414.14. A reference to the aforesaid proposition of law is apposite at this stage, as in the present case, the defendant has not brought on record any material for establishing the fact that the original of Ex.PW-1/D5 is in the custody of the plaintiff and the said omission gains importance in view of the fact that the plaintiff has unequivocally denied the existence or execution of any such document ever.
14.15. Moreover, Ex.PW-1/D5 is a photocopy, which is per se inadmissible in law unless the propounder / defendant satisfies the requisites of Section 65 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it is a matter of record that apart from taking a plea of serving the plaintiff with a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, the defendant has not brought on record any material for establishing that the original of the same is in the possession of the plaintiff nor the defendant has taken any other plea which could bring his case within the other categories of cases provided under Section 65 The Indian Evidence Act, in which secondary evidence of a document is prescribed / admissible. At this stage, it is also relevant to highlight that at the time of exhibition of Ex.PW-1/D5 at the instance of defendant during the cross examination of the plaintiff, an objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiff to its exhibition.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 24 of 42 2514.16. So, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the receipt dated 31.10.2021 Ex.PW- 1/D5 has not been duly proved as per the requirements of law and cannot be read in evidence for establishing the case set up by the defendant.
14.17. Apart from the aforesaid discussion, it is explicit from the contents of Ex.PW-1/D5 that it does not bear the signatures of plaintiff and the same is a receipt executed by the defendant at the time of alleged adjustment of Rs.20,00,000/- in the name of full and final settlement, the amount which was supposed to be returned / refunded to the plaintiff. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to give any weightage to the contents of the document Ex.PW-1/D5 for the simple reason that it is a self serving document brought on record on behalf of the defendant and the same cannot be read against the plaintiff unless his participation in the preparation of the said document is established.
14.18. For proving the aforesaid document, the defendant has examined DW-3 Sh. Brijesh Chellani, who deposed during his examination-in-chief that the document Ex.PW- 1/D5 was prepared in his presence and during his cross examination, he admitted that defendant is his paternal uncle (Chacha) and he is in the business of Real Estate for the last ten years. However, the testimony of DW-3 Sh.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 25 of 42 26Brijesh Chellani does not inspire much confidence as firstly, he is not an independent witness as he himself admitted that he is the nephew of the defendant, Sh. Ajit Kumar Chellani and secondly, in his cross examination, it has come out that he is having the knowledge of the entire facts and circumstances constituting the controversy involved in the present suit, from the date of execution of collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A to the preparation of the demand drafts in the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- at the instance of the defendant. So, it indicates that DW-3 Sh. Brijesh Chellani is either a tutored and planted witness or having some hidden interest in the transaction in question. In a nutshell, DW-3 does not come out as an independent and truthful witness.
14.19. Even otherwise, the execution of the document Ex.PW-1/D5 dated 31.10.2021 appears / becomes doubtful, when its contents are viewed in conjunction with the contents of an admitted document Ex.PW-1/D9 dated 03.10.2021 which records that apart from the balance rent of Rs.6,50,000/-, the defendant had no other monetary claim against the plaintiff with respect to the transaction in question as on the date. This Court is of the opinion that the document Ex.PW-1/D9, which is an admitted document, is in the form of a full and final settlement and had there been any question of adjustment of Rs.20,00,000/- between the parties to the suit, as alleged Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 26 of 42 27 by the defendant, the same would have been mentioned therein. Moreover, Ex.PW-1/D9 recorded that no claim of defendant was left against the plaintiff on the date of its execution i.e. 03.10.2021 except first floor of the property, withdrawal of the previous suit and the outstanding rent of Rs.6,50,000/-.
14.20. Moreover, the plea of the defendant about the execution and contents of Ex.PW-1/D5 does not appear conscionable as it is an admitted fact that the defendant took the possession of the first floor on 10.09.2021, after the execution of addendum agreement Ex.PW-1/D4 on 09.09.2021, and there is no whisper of any adjustment / appropriation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the exchange of floor, as alleged by the defendant, in the possession letter Ex.PW-1/D6, which was the relevant stage / occasion for recording the said adjustment of Rs.20,00,000/-, if any.
14.21. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the receipt Ex.PW-1/D5 is a manufactured document, prepared by the defendant on his own for corroborating his plea about the adjustment of Rs.20,00,000/- and there was no participation of the plaintiff in the preparation of the same.
14.22. Now, coming to the dual plea taken by the defendant to the effect that the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 27 of 42 28 question was adjusted / appropriated for compensating him for the exchange of floor and the outstanding liability of the plaintiff for the rent and penalty in terms of Clause 16 of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A. 14.23. So far as, the plea of exchange of floor taken by the defendant is concerned, the defendant has taken the plea that in terms of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A, he was supposed to get the possession of upper ground floor of the property in question, however, the plaintiff delivered him the first floor and for compensating the loss suffered by him due to the aforesaid exchange of floors, the plaintiff agreed to the adjustment of the part of sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in question. During his cross examination, the defendant has stated that as per the settlement, he received / appropriated Rs.12,50,000/- for the exchange of floors, out of the total sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.
14.24. In rebuttal, the plaintiff has taken the plea that he did not play any role in the exchange of floors as it took place exclusively between the defendant and Smt. Sarita Kamra, who was also one of the beneficiaries under the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A. So, there was no occasion for him to compensate the defendant for the said exchange.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 28 of 42 2914.25. At the very outset, it is pertinent to highlight that the defendant has not brought on record any material which could suggest that he suffered any kind of monetary loss for taking the possession of first floor instead of upper ground floor.
14.26. Moreover, the plea of the defendant that as per the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A, he was supposed to get the upper ground floor of the newly constructed building is not even disputed by the plaintiff and the only plea taken by him is that the exchange took place between the defendant and Smt. Sarita Kamra. The perusal of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A reveals that in terms of the same, it was agreed that the defendant would get the entire upper ground floor in the newly constructed building. However, at the same time, a reference to Clause 4 is also expedient as it provides as under :
"That as per the Will of first party, the first party shall have full rights to get transfer/exchange his first floor without roof rights, with the owner of Ground Floor and first party shall also execute the necessary documents in favour of second party or his nominee/s. That all expenses for registration of documents shall be paid by the parties as per their share."
14.27. As per the understanding of this Court, Clause 4 of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A categorically Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 29 of 42 30 empowered the first party i.e. the defendant, Sh. Ajit Kumar Chellani to get transfer / exchange his first floor (without roof rights), with the owner of the ground floor and the implication of aforesaid clause needs to be understood in the light of the fact that the property in question originally consisted of the ground floor and the first floor owned by Smt. Sarita Kamra and the defendant Sh. Ajit Kumar Chellani, respectively and as per the collaboration agreement, the plaintiff was required to raise construction of stilt floor, upper ground floor, first floor, second floor and the third floor after demolishing the original structure. So, this Court is of the opinion that Clause 4 of the collaboration agreement gave a right to the defendant to exchange his floor with Smt. Sarita Kamra and the said interpretation is in consonance with the plea of the plaintiff that the exchange of floors took place inter se between the defendant and Smt. Sarita Kamra and he had not played any role whatsoever in the same. In the opinion of this Court, the use of word 'exchange' is very material and grants the liberty to the first party / defendant to swap his floor with the owner of the ground floor i.e. Smt. Sarita Kamra.
14.28. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that vide possession letter dated 10.09.2021, Ex.PW-1/D6, the possession of the first floor of the property in question was handed over to the defendant and perusal of the said Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 30 of 42 31 document reveals that the defendant received the possession without recording any formal protest or objection. The said absence of any protest or objection on the part of the defendant is relevant and his conduct indicates that he took the possession of the first floor as per his choice.
14.29. It is also important to note down that the record of the present suit reflects that both the parties to the suit have dealt in a very professional manner while conducting their business regarding the transaction in question and every minor detail or dealing between them was reduced to writing. So, the absence of any document reflecting the factum of compensating the defendant for the exchange of floors, especially at the time of the handing over of the possession of the first floor on 10.09.2021 is quite abnormal and in a way weakens the plea of the defendant.
14.30. Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff filed the civil suit bearing no.322/2021 titled as "Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar & Anr. " seeking Specific Performance of the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A and relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant and Smt. Sarita Kamra and the perusal of the prayer clause of the plaint Ex.DW-1/2 reveals that the plaintiff sought a direction to the defendant, Sh. Ajit Kumar Chellani for taking the physical possession of the Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 31 of 42 32 first floor in the suit property and Smt. Sarita Kamra to take the possession of upper ground floor. However, in the opinion of this Court, the relevant thing is that in his written statement Ex.DW-1/2, the defendant did not take the stand that he was supposed to get the possession of the upper ground floor and not the first floor of the suit property, as alleged by him in the present suit and in his written statement in the aforesaid case, he impliedly admitted the case of the plaintiff to the extent that the first floor of the suit property was allotted to him and not the upper ground floor.
14.31. On the similar lines, the contents of reply Ex.DW- 1/4 dated 13.01.2021 sent by the defendant to the legal notice of Smt. Sarita Kamra also runs counter to his defence in the present case and are in the form of an admission on his part regarding the identity of the floor allocated to him in the suit property as in para 6 of the said reply, he has specifically stated that Smt. Sarita Kamra would be entitled for the upper ground floor in the property in question after the reconstruction and the same is reproduced herein below for better appreciation:
"That the contents of para 6 of your notice are admitted to the extent that your client is owner of Govt. Built property bearing No.24/4, situated on the ground floor of Double Storey, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-
110018, which will become Upper Ground Floor of Property No. 24/4, Double Storeys, Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 32 of 42 33 Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018 after reconstruction of the above two properties, and she has no claim or right over any other portion of properties over the same, which fall within the exclusive right and domain of my client, and he is fully entitled to deal with the same, without interference by her".
14.32. So, it is clear from the reply sent by the defendant himself that he admitted that from the very beginning the upper ground floor belonged to Smt. Sarita Kamra and he was entitled to the first floor of the property.
14.33. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plea taken by the defendant by making reference to Ex.PW-1/D5 about the adjustment of Rs.20,00,000/- for the exchange of floors is not tenable and deserves rejection.
14.34. Now, coming to the plea taken by the defendant that a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- out of Rs.20,00,000/- was adjusted towards the liability of the plaintiff for the payment of the pending / outstanding rent.
14.35. It is an admitted fact that vide the collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A, the plaintiff was supposed to complete the construction of the property within 15 months from the date of receiving the possession of the property in question i.e. 23.06.2019 and he failed to meet Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 33 of 42 34 the said deadline and the possession of the first floor of the suit property was handed over to the defendant on 10.09.2021 and as per Clause 16 of the collaboration agreement, the plaintiff was liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as rent alongwith penalty of Rs.30,000/- per month to the defendant, in case the construction was not completed within the stipulated period of 15 months and on 09.09.2021, the parties to the suit entered into an additional agreement and it was agreed between them that the plaintiff would pay an additional sum of Rs.13,00,000/- over and above of Rs.60,00,000/- which were to be paid to the defendant as per Ex.PW-1/A and on that day vide Ex.PW-1/D4, a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid to the defendant.
14.36. For appreciating the issue of balance rent involved in the present suit, the contents of document Ex.PW-1/D4 dated 09.09.2021 needs to be conjointly read with Ex.PW- 1/D9 dated 03.10.2021 which records that on that day there was an existing liability of Rs.6,50,000/- upon the plaintiff towards the defendant for the balance rent and it is a matter of record that on 31.10.2021, the said balance payment of Rs.6,50,000/- was received by the defendant from Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gulati, nominee of the plaintiff, Sh. Pawan Kumar Mehta and the said part payment is duly recorded in Ex.PW-1/J. Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 34 of 42 35 14.37. In view of the aforesaid facts recorded in the admitted documents, it is clear that the liability of the plaintiff for the rent and penalty in terms of Clause 16 of Ex.PW-1/A was part of Rs.13,00,000/- which were paid to the defendant in addition to the originally agreed amount of Rs.60,00,000/-.
14.38. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not in agreement with the averment of the defendant that Rs.20,00,000/- were adjusted by him towards the liability of the plaintiff for the outstanding rent and the exchange of floors.
14.39. For the sake of completeness, it needs to be noted that the defendant has taken the plea that the additional sum of Rs.13,00,000/- received by him from the plaintiff vide Ex.PW-1/D4 and Ex.PW-1/J was for compensating him for the defects in the construction quality and transfer of roof rights. However, the aforesaid plea prima facie appear hollow and meritless as it is explicit from Clause 4 and 23 of collaboration agreement Ex.PW-1/A that defendant did not have roof rights of the property in question except to the extent of visiting the terrace for maintenance of water tank and dish antenna etc and for the defects in construction, he himself has pleaded that the cheque bearing no.589964 was handed over to him at the time of the delivery of the possession of the first floor.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 35 of 42 3614.40. Besides the foregoing analysis and findings, there is an important facet of the present case which clearly indicates about the liability of the defendant to make a payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the plaintiff and most importantly, the said part of the transaction in question is not even disputed by the defendant. In the present case, it is a matter of record that the defendant got prepared two demand drafts of Rs.10,00,000/- each dated 17.09.2021 as Ex.PW-1/K in the name of the plaintiff and it is an admitted fact on the part of the defendant that both the aforesaid demand drafts were prepared in pursuance of the transaction in question for delivering the same to the plaintiff. However, the defendant has taken the plea that the demand drafts were prepared at the request of plaintiff for the purpose of legitimising the cash flow in his bank account which occurred due to the huge amount received by him in cash from the sale of second and third floor of the suit property and not for refunding the additional sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff.
14.41. This Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid plea taken by the defendant deserves outright rejection as the plea is not only illegal but also unbelievable as the facts of the present case reflects that there has been a very formal relation between the parties to the suit and they are not having any kind of family relation or friendship which could explain the alleged proactive Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 36 of 42 37 step of the defendant in helping the plaintiff to convert his black money into white money. Moreover, Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act provides that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him and the illustration (a) further provides that when a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. So, in the present case, the defendant has failed to discharge his burden of proof of proving the reason assigned by him behind the preparation of the demand drafts Ex.PW-1/K, as when the demand drafts and their amount is seen in the context of facts of the present case, it simply suggests that the demand drafts were prepared for making the payment of surplus amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the plaintiff.
14.42. In view of the entire foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant is liable to make a payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
15. ISSUE No.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP.Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 37 of 42 38
15.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff has only sought pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum upon the aforesaid amount and has not made any claim for the pre suit interest. Moreover, no material has been brought on record on his behalf for assisting this Court in determining the rate of interest.
15.2. It is a well settled position of law that in case of determining the rate of interest, pendente lite and future interest, Section 34 of CPC is applicable. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that there is no reference to any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the rate of interest or any usage having the force of law regarding payment of interest.
15.3. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the interest of justice, the plaintiff is held entitled for 6% pendente lite and 10% future interest per annum upon the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,00,000/- till the date of realization of the decreetal amount. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16. ISSUE No.3:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP.Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 38 of 42 39
16.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to return the original cheque Ex.DW-2/2 bearing no.589964 in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was handed over to him at the time of the delivery of the possession of the first floor of the property on 10.09.2021 vide Ex.PW-1/L as a security for the unfinished work at the aforesaid floor.
16.2. PW-1 has deposed that he was assured by the defendant that the aforesaid security cheque would be returned after the receipt of entire sum of Rs.13,00,000/- as agreed between them vide addendum agreement Ex.PW- 1/D4 and as the defendant has admitted that he has already received the entire payment of Rs.13,00,000/- so he is legally bound to return the aforesaid security cheque.
16.3. This Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the plaintiff itself is in violation of law and is barred by Section 41 (b) and (d) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 as directing the defendant to return the cheque in question would have the effect of denying him the right to initiate action under the provisions of NI Act for the dishonour of cheque or taking any other legal recourse on the basis of the said cheque, which is impermissible in law. At this stage, it is relevant to highlight that the cheque in question Ex.DW-2/2 was dishonoured upon presentation and a Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 39 of 42 40 criminal complaint bearing no.328/2022 titled as Ajit Kumar Chellani Vs. Pawan Kumar Mehta is pending adjudication before the Court of Ld. MM, NI Act upon the basis of the aforesaid cheque and the copy of the original complaint has been brought on record at the instance of defendant as Ex.DW-2/1.
16.4. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that Section 41(d) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes it very clear that a Civil Court will not grant any injunction thereby restraining any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a criminal matter and 41 (b) provides that no injunction would be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court not subordinate to that Court from which the injunction is sought.
16.5. Moreover, in M/s. Frost International Limited Vs. M/s. Milan Developers and Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 1689/2022 dated 01.04.2022, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that no plaintiff can be permitted to seek relief in a suit which would frustrate the defendant from initiating a prosecution against plaintiff or seeking any other remedy available in law.
16.6. In a nutshell, access to the justice cannot be allowed to be hampered even at the hands of judiciary.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 40 of 42 4116.7. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that this Court cannot grant mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff thereby directing the defendant to return him the cheque Ex.DW-2/2 qua which a criminal complaint is already pending adjudication. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
17. ISSUE No.4:-
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Plea of Estopple? OPD.
17.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant.
The defendant entered into the witness box as DW-1 and did not aver a single word upon the aspect as to how the present suit is barred by the Law of Estopple. Even otherwise, there is no evidence on record which suggests that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by the principle of estopple.
17.2. Accordingly, in light of absence of any material on record which could indicate as to how the present suit is barred by Law of Estopple, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
18. Relief.
18.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 41 of 42 42 defendant alongwith 6% pendente lite and 10% future interest per annum upon the aforesaid amount till the date of realization of the decreetal amount. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed.
19. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by MANOJ MANOJ KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2024.11.07
Announced in the Open Court SHARMA 15:35:32 +0530
on 7th NOVEMBER, 2024. (MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) DJ-07 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Pawan Kumar Mehta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chellani Page 42 of 42