Bangalore District Court
Sri. Deepankar Agarwal vs Wg. Cdr Ravindra Vasant Parasnis (Retd) on 21 March, 2022
1 O.S.No.25138/2014
Govt. Of Katakana
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title sheet for AT MAYOHALL UNIT, (CCH-29) BANGALORE.
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
Present: Sri. K.M. Rajashekar, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Dated: This the 21st day of March 2022
Original suit No.25318/2014
Plaintiff:- Sri. Deepankar Agarwal,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Gopal Das Agarwala,
Residing at Flat No.478,
Jalavayu Vihar,
Kamanahalli Main Road,
Bangalore-560 043.
(By Pleader : Smt. Nirmala Suresh)
V/s
Defendants: 1. Wg. Cdr Ravindra Vasant Parasnis (Retd),
S/o Late Mr. Vasant Narkar Parasnis,
R/o Apartment No.44,
Jalavayu Vihar,
Kamanahalli Main Road,
Bangalore-560 043.
2. Mr. Abhijit Ravindra Parasnis,
S/o Wg. Cdr. Ravindra Vasant Parasnis (Retd),
R/o 7, Abhiman Apartments,
Prabhat Road,
Lane No.5,
Pune-411004,
2 O.S.No.25138/2014
Represented by his
General Power of Attorney Holder,
Mr. Wg. Cdr. Ravindra Vasant Parasnis.
(Pleader by: Mrs. Rajeshwari Reddy)
Date of Institution of the suit 19.2.2014
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for Specific
injunction, etc.) Performance
Date of the commencement of 14.6.2017
recording of the Evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 21.3.2022
pronounced
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 08 01 02
JUDGMENT
The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants to direct the Defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.52.50 Lakhs from the Plaintiff and to execute the Sale Deed in his favour in respect of the Suit Schedule Property and in the event of failure on their part to execute the Sale Deed, to execute 3 O.S.No.25138/2014 the Sale Deed through the process of Court in favour of the Plaintiff at his cost and for costs of the suit.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that, the Defendants are the joint owners of the Suit Schedule Property and they want to sell the same. During August 2013 the Plaintiff approached the Defendants and negotiated with the Defendants for purchase of the said Apartment. On 7.9.2013 the Defendants have agreed to sell the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- and paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the Defendants as advance sale consideration during September 2013 and the Defendants have acknowledged this amount and issued receipts to the Plaintiff. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.52.50 Lakhs was to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants at the time of execution of Sale Deed on or before 31.10.2013. The Defendant No.1 has handed over the keys and laminated documents to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Defendants have left for Pune to attend his mother's 4 O.S.No.25138/2014 operation. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has arranged the balance sale consideration of Rs.52.50 Lakhs through HDFC Limited, Bangalore and requested the Defendants to execute the Sale Deed. The Defendants have never expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. Instead the 1st Defendant filed false complaint against the Plaintiff and his wife and on 23.10.2013 the Banaswadi Police have called them, there the 1st Defendant admitted the receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. In the Police Station, the Plaintiff handed over the keys and laminated documents to the 1st Defendant and the 1st Defendant issued a note admitting the payment of advance towards the sale consideration of the Suit Schedule Property. Thereafter, on 5.11.2013 the Plaintiff got issued Legal Notice calling upon the Defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed or refund Rs.25 Lakhs i.e., double the advance amount of Rs.12.50 Lakhs along with the interest at 18% per annum with effect from 27.9.2013 till the date of actual payment. The 5 O.S.No.25138/2014 Defendants have acknowledged the legal notice, but have not complied with the same nor send any reply. Thereafter, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendants are trying to sell the Suit Schedule Property to third parties. On 11.12.2013 the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the President Jalavayu Vihar Housing Society not to issue NOC in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract by arranging balance sale consideration of Rs.52.50 Lakhs. But, the Defendants are not ready and willing to perform their part. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
3. In response to suit summons, the Defendant Nos.1 who is also the Power of Attorney Holder of Defendant No.2 has appeared before the Court through his Counsel and filed his written statement.
4. The Defendant No.1 in his written statement specially denied the plaint averments and admitted the sale transaction between the Plaintiff and him and receipt of Rs.12.50 Lakhs as advance sale consideration. The 6 O.S.No.25138/2014 Defendant has contended that the Plaintiff has agreed for purchase of 'B' Schedule Property for a sum of Rs.1.32 Crore and failed to arrange the said consideration amount and postponed to sign on the Agreement of Sale for one or the other reason. The Plaintiff by fraud has received the keys of the said Apartment and has not handed over the same to the Defendant, for that reason the Defendant has filed complaint and received back his keys from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has failed to arrange the loan amount towards sale consideration and he was never ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract on or before 31.10.2013. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that Defendant had agreed to sell the Plaint Schedule Property for the total sale consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- on 07.09.2013? 7 O.S.No.25138/2014
2. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that he has paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- towards the advance sale consideration?
3. Whether the Defendant No.1 proves that there is no concluded contract and therefore the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable?
4. Whether the Defendant No.1 further proves that the total sale consideration agreed is Rs. 1,32,00,000/-?
5. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
7. What order or decree?
6. To prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. The Defendant No.1 got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13 documents and closed his side.
8 O.S.No.25138/2014
7. Heard both the sides. The Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants filed their written arguments and the same are taken into consideration.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative. Issue No.3 : Infructuous.
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative. Issue No.5 : In the Negative.
Issue No.6 : In the Negative.
Issue No.7 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Issues No.1, 2 and 4:- These issues are inter- related, hence, answered in common, in order to avoid repetition of facts.
10. The nutshell of the case of the Plaintiff is that, during August 2013 the Plaintiff negotiated with the 9 O.S.No.25138/2014 Defendants for purchase of the Suit Apartment. On 7.9.2013 the Defendants have agreed to sell it for Rs.65,00,000/- and received Rs.12,50,000/- as advance and handed over the keys and laminated documents to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has arranged the balance sale consideration of Rs.52.5 Lakh and requested the Defendants to execute the Sale Deed. Instead of executing the Sale Deed, the 1 st Defendant filed false complaint against the Plaintiff and in the Police Station the Plaintiff handed over the keys and documents to the 1st Defendant. Thereafter, on 5.11.2013 the Plaintiff got issued Legal Notice calling upon Defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the Sale Deed or refund Rs.25 Lakhs. The Defendants have acknowledged the legal notice. The Plaintiff claimed that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract by arranging balance sale consideration of Rs.52.50 Lakhs. Hence, prayed to decree the suit. To prove his case, the Plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. Looking at the 10 O.S.No.25138/2014 documents of the plaintiff, it indicates that the Plaintiff got placed Receipts, Police Complaints, Office copy of Legal Notice, Acknowledgement, Letter addressed to Jalvayu Vihar Housing Society, Documents relating to Savings Bank Account Number, Fixed Deposit Account, Securities and copy of the ongoing market value in 2013 issued by the Office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar, Kacharkanahalli.
11. On the other hand the Defendants do admitted the sale transaction and receipt of Rs.12.50 Lakhs as advance sale consideration. The Defendants' specific stand is that the Plaintiff has agreed to purchase the 'B' Schedule Property for a sum of Rs.132 lakhs and failed to arrange the said consideration amount and postponed to sign on the Agreement of Sale for one or the other reason. The Plaintiff by fraud has received the keys of the said Apartment and has not handed over to the Defendant, for that reason the Defendant has filed complaint and received back his keys from the Plaintiff. 11 O.S.No.25138/2014 The Plaintiff was never ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract on or before 31.10.2013 etc. To prove his case the Defendant No.1 got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13 documents which are, GPA, Copy of Complaint, Copy of Notice, Postal Receipts, Unserved Postal Cover, E-Mails & Certificate U/Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act etc.
12. Upon careful going through the materials available on record, it indicates that absolutely there are no dispute relating to ownership of the Defendant over the Suit Schedule Property is concerned. Admittedly, the Defendant who is the Retired Wing Commander has purchased the Suit Property from Air Force Naval Housing Board in the year 1993. It is also equally undisputed fact that, to clear his outstanding debt Defendant No.1 intends to sell the Suit Property and put it for sale. The Plaintiff herein showed interest in purchasing this Suit Property, had approached the Defendant and paid advance of Rs.12.5 Lakhs in installments. The crux of real dispute 12 O.S.No.25138/2014 between both the parties is, according to the Plaintiff the sale price was only Rs.65 Lakhs and he had paid Rs.12.5 Lakhs. Hence, he has sought for decree for specific performance on payment of balance of Rs.52.5 Lakhs. On the other had, the Defendant even though admits oral Sale Agreement and receipt of advance amount of Rs.12.5 Lakhs, but the specific contention of the Defendant is that the sale price was Rs.1,32,00,000/-. However, case papers also reveals the fact that, at the time of negotiation, the Defendant had already handed over the keys and some documents to the Plaintiff herein. But, got it back by the Defendant in the Police Station by filing written complaint. However, as far as the dispute in this case is concerned, the main dispute which is under consideration is, as to whether the Sale Price is Rs.65 Lakhs as claimed by the Plaintiff or Rs.1.32 Crore as claimed by the Defendant No.1.
13. In support of his case, the Plaintiff has relied upon his oral testimony as PW.1 which is nothing but 13 O.S.No.25138/2014 reiteration of the plaint averments on oath and 21 documents. Looking at the documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff, it is seen that Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 are the receipts issued by the Defendant for having accepted advance amount of Rs.12.5 Lakhs on various dates with different denominations. This fact is not at all in dispute. Then remains the Police complaint filed by the 1st Defendant on 20th October 2013. It is significant here to note that before institution of this suit, Defendant while lodging complaint before the Police specifically mentioned that the agreed sale price of his Apartment was Rs.1.32 Crore and he has already accepted advance of Rs.12.5 Lakhs. However, the complaint is lodged for recovery of keys and documents handed over to the Plaintiff. Ex.P.8 indicates that the Plaintiff herein has handed over the keys and house documents. It is interesting here to note that on 25.10.2013 the Plaintiff herein has executed a letter before the Police while handing over the keys and documents wherein he claims that he has paid advance amount of Rs.12.5 Lakhs. But absolutely, there is no 14 O.S.No.25138/2014 mention about the quantum of sale consideration in the said letter. Apart from that, on the same day, the Defendant No.1 also executed the document before the Police wherein he has claimed that they are going to settle the dispute by talking across the table. Then remains the legal notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant claiming that the purchase money was Rs.65 Lakhs. The Plaintiff also relied upon some E-Mails. But, E- Mails does not throw light on the real dispute, as to what is the agreed amount for purchase of the Suit Property. However, some xerox copies of unsigned documents styled as Agreement of Sale mentioning the names of both Plaintiff and Defendants indicates that the sale price was Rs.1.32 Crore. The said document marked for identification purpose as Ex.P.I-2 through PW.1 himself, which is an admitted document. The Plaintiff also relied upon the Bank Statement and claimed that he had sufficient balance in his account to pay the balance sale consideration. However, the account extract discloses that at the relevant point of time around 27 + Lakhs 15 O.S.No.25138/2014 Rupees is available in the balance account. At this juncture, it is relevant to look at the admissions of the Plaintiff in the cross-examination, wherein Plaintiff categorically admitted that:
It is false to suggest that there was an understanding between the parties that an agreement in writing should be entered into evidence in the transaction. It is true that there was an exchange of the emails between us regarding this transaction. It is false to suggest that I have sent one email canceling the sale transaction. It is true that I have replied to the email sent by the Defendant.
It is true that as per Ex.P-7 the Police Complaint was lodged by the Defendant against me but it is a false complaint. It is true that as per Ex P-8 in the police station there was 16 O.S.No.25138/2014 a settlement and I have handed over the keys and the original documents given to me by the Defendant No.1 to the Defendant No.1. I Know the contents of Ex.P-7. It is true that I have handed over the documents to the Defendant No.1 after the filing of the complaint and intervention of the police. It is false to suggest that the keys of the building were given to me only for the purpose of inspection by the Bank Officials.
It is true that in Ex.P-7 the Defendant has mentioned the sale consideration as 1 Crore 32 lakhs. The witness states that there is only an imaginary sum. I have not stated in Ex.P-8 and before the Police that the sale consideration agreed was only Rs.65.00 lakhs. It is false to suggest that I have not stated 17 O.S.No.25138/2014 before Ex.P-11 that the sale consideration was Rs.65.00 lakhs .
The market price of the similar apartment was Rs.65.00 lakhs.
It is false to suggest that I have avoided and evaded the agreement in order to cheat the Defendant of the sale consideration. I had applied for the loan of about 72.00 lakhs from the Bank. It is false to suggest that I have sent an email to the Defendant asking him to refund the advance with penalty of double the amount. The witness further states that he has responded to the email sent by the Defendant No.1 that if he is not giving me the clear papers he has to refund the amount.
I have not written any letter or
sent an email to the Defendant that I
am ready to get the sale deed
18 O.S.No.25138/2014
registered before 31-10-2013 but I
have informed him orally over
telephone.
14. On the other hand, in support of their
contention, the Defendant No.1 has relied upon his own evidence as DW.1 and got marked 13 documents in his favour. Looking at the 'D' series documents relied by the Defendant, it indicates that Defendant got placed GPA of his son and the very same complaint which is already got marked by the Plaintiff as Ex.P.7. The Defendant also got placed Ex.D.4 which is the Reply Notice sent to the Advocate of Plaintiff wherein it is categorically asserted that the sale price was Rs.1.32 Crore and not Rs.65 Lakhs as claimed by the Plaintiff, some Postal Acknowledgements, E-Mails and Notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is also got placed by the Defendant. Upon careful going through materials available on record, as mentioned above, the transaction between the parties regarding purchase of Suit Property is 19 O.S.No.25138/2014 not at all in dispute. The Defendant in his cross- examination categorically made statement that:
In the year 2013 I put it for sale. Since I intended shift to Pune. I wanted to sell it. I offered it for 1.5 Crore. Many approached me showing interest. 3 persons negotiated with me. Since the sale price was not matching it was not materialized.
During 2013 the original documents of my property is with Vijaya Bank. I have taken 5 to 6 lakhs loan for renovation. During 2013 about 1 lakh was outstanding due.
It is true that 2013 I did not had cash to clear the loan and get back the original documents.
It is false to suggest that in contravention to the oral agreement I have wrongly mentioned 1 crore 32 20 O.S.No.25138/2014 lakhs in the document. It is true that the draft sale deed is never entered into between myself and the Plaintiff.
15. In this background, if we analyze the case on hand, it indicates that absolutely there are no written agreement or documents regarding the transaction of Agreement of Sale between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Admittedly, the Agreement of Sale is at the oral understanding itself and not reduced into writing.
Even though, the materials on record indicates that some efforts were made by both the parties to reduce it into writing, in the meantime this dispute reached the Police Station and it was not materialized. As mentioned above, the real dispute between the parties is regarding the quantum of sale price. According to the Plaintiff, it is Rs.65 Lakhs and he has already paid Rs.12.5 Lakhs advance and only Rs.52.5 Lakhs is the balance sale consideration. On the other hand, according to the 21 O.S.No.25138/2014 Defendant it is Rs.1.32 Crore and as the Defendant has already received Rs.12.5 Lakhs and the balance of sale consideration is Rs.1,19,50,000/-. It is significant here to note that since Plaintiff approached the Court based on oral Agreement of Sale, the heavy burden is on him to prove the oral transaction to the hilt. It is interesting here to note that, the Plaintiff did not relied upon any witnesses nor it is his case that the said oral agreement was entered into between them in the presence of any witnesses. Hence, the only option kept open to the Plaintiff is to prove the transaction through his own statement and documentary evidence. But, as mentioned above, except his self-serving oral testimony, absolutely no supportive evidence is available on record to accept that the sale price was Rs.65 Lakhs and not Rs.1.32 Crore. On the other hand, the Defendant consistently asserted that it is Rs.1.32 Crore and Rs.65 Lakhs. In support of this fact, in the Police complaint placed before the Jurisdictional Police, the Defendant herein has categorically mentioned that the sale price was Rs.1.32 22 O.S.No.25138/2014 Crore. This fact was not denied by the Plaintiff while executing an undertaking letter before the Police. Hence, that strengthen the contention of the Defendant and gives more probability to his case. Apart from that, in the Reply to the Legal Notice also the Defendant has categorically mentioned that the sale price was Rs.1.32 Crore. In addition to it, the documents produced by the Plaintiff, which is marked as Ex.I.1 appears to be an unsigned Agreement of Sale also indicates that the sale price was Rs.1.32 Crore. This fact adds strength to the case of the Defendant. As mentioned above, since the Plaintiff has approached the Court for the relief of specific performance of contract, there is heavy burden is on him to prove his contention to the hilt. But, unfortunately, except the self-serving testimony, that too, uncorroborated one, absolutely, no acceptable materials placed by the Plaintiff to accept his contention that the sale price was Rs.65 Lakhs. Basing on the materials available on record and preponderance of probability, I am of the opinion that the documentary evidence coupled 23 O.S.No.25138/2014 with regard to assertion, the Defendant probabilizes the case that the sale price was Rs.1.32 Crore and not Rs.65 Lakhs as claimed by the Plaintiff. Hence, I find no hesitation to answer Issue No.1 in the Negative, Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
16. As mentioned above, absolutely, there are no dispute between the parties regarding payment of advance sale consideration of Rs.12.5 Lakhs. Hence, there are no hurdles to answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
17. Issue No.3 and 5:- Upon going through the claim of the Defendant, it indicates that according to him there was no concluded contract, hence the suit is not maintainable. But the materials on record indicates that, except the dispute regarding the quantum of sale price, absolutely, it appears nothing has left between the parties regarding contract. The Defendant has already received part sale consideration of Rs.12.5 Lakhs. However, for the reasons mentioned in the above paragraphs as the very quantum of sale consideration as claimed by the Plaintiff 24 O.S.No.25138/2014 is not established. Hence, this Issue No.3 becomes infructutious.
18. In addition to that even though Plaintiff claimed that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But, documentary evidence produced by him indicates that he was not having sufficient amount in his ready disposal for payment of balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,19,50,000/-. However, his Bank transaction shows that he had ready money of Rs.30 Lakhs nearing. Apart from that, it is admitted by the Plaintiff in his cross-examination that he had applied for Bank loan for Rs.72 Lakhs. Hence, as rightly argued by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, when the balance of sale consideration is only Rs.52 Lakhs, what was the necessity for the Plaintiff to go for Rs.72 Lakhs loan, that too when Rs.30 Lakhs cash is already available with him, is the question not properly answered by the Plaintiff. Hence, this fact also strengthen the case of the Defendant, that Plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence, Issue No.5 is 25 O.S.No.25138/2014 answered in the Negative.
19. Issue No.6:- In view of the above discussions made above, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the plaint. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Negative.
20. Issue No.7:- In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of March 2022].
[K.M. Rajashekar], XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.26 O.S.No.25138/2014
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of land / premises comprised in survey No.16/1, 16/2, 16/3, 12/1, 18/3, 18/4, 18/5, 19/2, 19/3, 19/4, 20/1, 20/2, 20/3, 20/4, 27/1, 27/2, 28, part of 26/1 and 26/3 situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk, allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority in favour of the Air Force Naval Housing Board under Sale Deed Registered as Document No.198 of 1986-87 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, admeasuring 20 acres and 34 guntas, together with all rights, appurtenances whatsoever whether underneath or above the surface and bounded on the:
East by : 80 Feet Road.
West by : 40 Feet Road.
North by : 60 Feet Road.
South by : Survey No.29/1 and 40 feet Road.
27 O.S.No.25138/2014
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY
An undivided share of the Schedule 'A' Property admeasuring 81.21 square meters, and Apartment with a super built up area of 134.65 square meters inclusive of 14.25 square meters garage, and numbered as Apartment No.44, Jalvayu Vihar, Kamanahalli Main Road, Bangalore- 560 043 on the Ground Floor and bounded on the:
East by : Restricted common area (Driveway) West by : Unrestricted common area. North by : Unrestricted common area. South by : Apartment No.43.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff:-
P.W.1 : Sri. Deepankar Agarwal. 2. List of documents marked:- Ex.P. 1 to 6 : Receipts. Ex.P. 7 to : Certified copies of Police Complaints. 10 28 O.S.No.25138/2014
Ex.P. 11 : Office copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P. 12 : Acknowledgement from Postal Department.
Ex.P. 13 : Letter addressed to Jalvayu Vihar Housing Society.
Ex.P. 14 : State of HDFC Bank -Savings Bank Account Number ending with 6055.
Ex.P. 15 : Statement of HDFC Bank Savings Bank Account Number ending with 4967.
Ex.P. 16 : Statement of HDFC Bank Fixed Deposit Account Number ending with 6120.
Ex.P. 17 : Statement of HDFC Bank, Fixed Deposit Account Number ending with 2424.
Ex.P. 18 : State of Securities as on 31-10-2013 held with HDFC Securities Ltd Client ending 9602, DP Account 350513.
Ex.P. 19 : Statement of ICICI Bank - Saving Bank Account Number ending with 6294.
Ex.P. 20 : Statement of Citi Bank NA, NRE account number ending with 9229.
Ex.P. 21 : Certified extract copy of the ongoing market value in 2013 issued by the Office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar, Kacharkanahalli.
29 O.S.No.25138/2014
3. List of witnesses examined for the Defendant:-
DW.1 : Wing Commander Ravindra Vasant Parasnis (Retd.)
4. List of documents marked:-
Ex.D. 1 : GPA. Ex.D. 2 & : Copy of Complaint. 3 Ex.D. 4 : Copy of Notice. Ex.D. 5 & : Postal Receipts. 6 Ex.D. 7 : Unserved Postal Cover. Ex.D. 7(a) : Notice inside unserved Postal Cover. Ex.D. 8 : Copy of Notice. Ex.D. 9 : E-Mail dtd: 11.9.2013. Ex.D. 10 : E-Mail dtd: 21.10.2013. Ex.D. 11 : E-Mail dtd: 22.10.2013. Ex.D. 12 : Certificate U/Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act. Ex.D. 13 : Copy of Notice. [K.M. Rajashekar],
XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.
30 O.S.No.25138/2014Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate Judgment:-
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[K.M. Rajashekar], XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.