Delhi District Court
Virender Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 31 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; ADJ (CENTRA)17,DELHI
Suit No. 475/09
I. D No. 02401C5044172004
Virender Singh
S/o Sh. Abhey Ram
R/o Dhakla, P.S. Jhajjar
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
Presently R/o D103
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh
Delhi .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate
New Delhi
2. Dy. Commissioner of Police
( Crime)
Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate
New Delhi
3. O.P. Arora
Investigating Officer of the cases
presently, posted as Inspector Ani Corruption
Branch, Civil Lines, Delhi54
4. State of Delhi
through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariate
Indraprastha Estate
Delhi
Suit no. 475/09 Page 1/23
5. Union of India
through its Secretary ( Home)
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi .....Defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 29.03.2004
Date when reserved for orders : 20.05.2010
Date of Decision : 31.05.2010
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment I shall decide the suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 5,00,000/ for malicious prosecution, filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The brief fact necessitating in filing the present suit are given as under:
2 The plaintiff joined Delhi Police on 28.07.1988 as a Constable.
The defendant no. 1 to 4 are the directly responsible for the employment of the plaintiff. In January 1995, the plaintiff was posted as a Constable in NorthWest District, Police Line, Ashok Vihar. During the said period the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 531/1990 directed the respondent, to protect and guard the District Park in Ashok Vihar from unauthorised encroachments by the Jhuggi dwellers. Defendants were the respondents in the said Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court who deployed the police force in and around the said part in order to prevent unauthorised encroachment. The plaintiff alongwith Head Suit no. 475/09 Page 2/23 Const. SI Khushi Ram were also posted in the said park. On 31.01.1995 at about 77.30 a.m some jhuggi dwellers entered in the park who were stopped by the Jawans upon this the jhuggi dwellers started heavy brick attack on the police force which remained continue for a considerable time. Additional force was called by the DCP. It was found that one boy whose name was revealed as Dalip Kumar S/o Shri Malai Ram was found lying in injured condition in the park. He was immediately taken to the hospital by the superior officer of the defendant but unfortunately that boy died.
On 30.01.1995 one Jawahar Mishra lodged a complaint against one Dharmender which culminated into FIR No. 42/1995 under Section 304 IPC , Police Station, Ashok Vihar. The investigation of the said FIR was handed over to Inspector O.P. Arora who without conducted investigation in a proper manner arrested the plaintiff without any basis or incriminating material against him. After the arrest, the plaintiff was suspended due to which the plaintiff was deprived of his due salary and other benefits. The plaintiff had taken up the issue of his false involvement and arrest but defendant no. 1 to 3 had not paid any heed and told the plaintiff that only the court of law would decide about the innocence of the plaintiff. After the completion of the investigation the case was assigned to the then Additional Sessions Judge Sh. Gurdeep Kumar for trial being sessions Suit no. 475/09 Page 3/23 case no. 141/2002. During the trial, the ld. court recorded the evidence of all the witnesses produced by the prosecution, finding no evidence against the plaintiff , the court dispensed with the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and acquitted the plaintiff under Section 304 ( II) IPC vide judgment dated 04.05.2001.
After the acquittal the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of the judgment in the office of defendant no. 1 & 2. A registered notice was also sent to defendant no. 1 to 3 on 10.02.2003 demanding Rs. 10 lacs as damages for false and malicious prosecution. The notice had not been replied so far.
On the basis of the aforesaid the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for seeking recovery against the defendants. 3 In pursuance of the summons the defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objection. It is stated that on 30.01.1995, Shri Jawahar Mishra lodged a complaint at 7.30 a.m that he saw a constable who was forcing a boy to walk in a traditional position called "Murga". The said police constable pushed the boy with his wearing boot, consequently the boy fell down. The said person raised alarm and after seen the mob the police officials ran away from the spot. On the basis of the said statement FIR No. Suit no. 475/09 Page 4/23 42/1995 under Section 304 A IPC was registered and the investigation was handed over to the local police. On the next date the case was transferred to Crime Branch. In the meantime the boy died on 30.01.1995. The SDM conducted inquest proceedings. During the inquest proceedings by SDM, concluded that the boy died due to beating by constable Varinder Singh and recommended suitable action against the erring constable. Therefore, he was arrested in the case and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by Inspector O.P. Arora, Crime Branch.
It is further stated that suit is not maintainable as defendants claim protection under Section 138 of the Delhi Police Act. It is further stated that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It is submitted that leave of the court has not been obtained in this regard, thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit and he has not approached the court with clean hands.
4 The averment on merit have also been denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff was charge sheeted on the basis of the evidence collected by the Inspector Bishan Mohan, statement of PWs SI Khushi Ram, Shri Ayodhya Prashad, Shri Abdul Latif and Sh. Jawahar Mishra Suit no. 475/09 Page 5/23 under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. An enquiry was also conducted by the SDM/Kotwali during inquest proceedings and it revealed that plaintiff had beaten the deceased boy due to which he died.
It is further submitted that the aforesaid PWs made a statement under Section 161 CPC that they had seen the plaintiff beating the deceased boy. It is denied that plaintiff was arrested wrongly. It is submitted that plaintiff was placed under suspension after his arrest in the criminal case. During the suspension period the plaintiff got subsistence allowance as per law. It is further submitted that plaintiff was charge sheeted and prosecuted on the basis of the evidence collected him during the investigation of the case. All other averments have also been denied. It is prayed that suit be dismissed with exemplary cost.
5 The plaintiff has not filed replication to the written statement of the defendants.
6 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties vide order dated 21.03.2005 the following issues were framed for adjudication: Suit no. 475/09 Page 6/23 Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ alongwith costs and interest, as prayed in the plaint, as against all the defendants? OPP Issue no. 2 Whether the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has allegedly concealed and suppressed the material facts? OPD Issue no. 3 Whether the present suit is not maintainable in view of Section 138 of the Delhi Police Act? OPD Issue no. 4 Whether the present suit is not maintainable for want of compliance of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act? OPD Issue no. 5 Whether the suit is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action? OPD Issue no. 6 Relief 7 In order to prove his case the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the averment of the plaint in his examination in chief. Plaintiff has also proved a copy of the judgment dated 04.05.2001 as Ex. PW1/1, notice dated 10.02.2003 as Ex. PW1/2, postal receipt as Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4.
During his crossexamination PW1 deposed that he is matric pass and do not know English properly but he can tell what is written in his affidavit. He admitted that he has seen the judgment Ex. PW1/1 Suit no. 475/09 Page 7/23 in which the name of the accused is Varinder Singh. He was acquited of the charge under Section 304 II IPC. He further admitted that he has read the whole judgment and he is aware of the contents of the Ex. PW1/1. He further stated that none of the five defendants mentioned in the present suit indicted wrongly by the court of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar. He admitted that Inspector O.P. Arora, defendant no. 3 and Inspector Bishan Mohan have conducted investigation in good faith and in discharge of their official duties. He admitted that legal notice was sent to defendant no. 1 & 2 for claiming the damages on 10.03.2003. He further stated that he has served legal notice to defendant no. 3, 4 & 5. He further stated that he does not remember the date when these legal notices were served upon defendant no. 3, 4 & 5. He further, stated that the legal notices sent to the defendant no. 3, 4 & 5 are on record. He has seen the legal notice Ex. PW1/2. He further admitted that legal notice was served to defendant no. 1 & Sh. O.P. Arora, defendant no. 3. He further stated that he does not remember whether legal notice was served to defendant no. 2, 4 & 5. He admitted that legal notice under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act was served upon defendant no. 1 & 3. He does not remember whether the legal notice under Section 140 of D.P. Act was served upon defendant no. 2, 4 & 5. He admitted that in the legal notice he had raised the damages amount of Rs. 10 lacs. He admitted that defendant no. 1 & 2 are liable to pay the damages for malicious and Suit no. 475/09 Page 8/23 wrong prosecution of plaintiff which resulted in loss of reputation, mental agony, harassment and torture to the plaintiff. He remained suspended about two and a half months to three months. He does not remember the date when he had joined his duties again. He further stated that he was suspended and during that time he used to get half of his salary besides which he did not get any other benefits. He denied that he has filed a false suit against the defendants. 8 In order to answer the claim of the plaintiff defendant examined Sh. O.P. Arora, defendant no. 3 as DW1 who reiterated the averment made in the written statement in his examination in chief. During his crossexamination DW1 admitted that on 30.01.1995 one Jawahar Mishra, complainant made a statement against Dharmender and upon which FIR 42/95 under Section 304A IPC, Police Station, Ashok Vihar was registered. He further stated that he has taken training in investigation techniques from Central Detective Training School Chandigarh as well from Police Training School, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. He further stated that inquest proceedings in this case were prepared by the SDM, Kotwali. He recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the report under Section 173 Csr.P.C. He also collected the SDM enquiry report in this case. He admitted that Ex. DW1/1 is the rukka in which the name of the person who allegedly pushed the injured is mentioned as Dharmender. He further admitted Suit no. 475/09 Page 9/23 that DW1/P2 is a report of inquest prepared by the SDM, Kotwali. He admitted that at point A in Ex. DW1/P2 statement of Jawahar Mishra is recorded. He further admitted that at point B1 to B2 in Ex. DW1/P2 the name of the assailant is mentioned as Dharmender. The incident pertain to FIR No. 42/05. He does not remember whether he had filed record of the duty of the police personnel posted at P.S Ashok Vihar. After going through the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C Ex. DW1/P3 the witness admits that there is not mention of filing of record of duty of the police personnel from the district line North West District. He further admitted that report of the deployment of the police personnel from District Line North West District is not on record. He has further stated that he had not pursued the case against the plaintiff because he was transfer from Crime Branch after filing the charge sheet. He admitted that it was under his investigation the challan was prepared and filed against the plaintiff. He admitted that no other investigating officer filed the challan against the plaintiff. He was put a question whether he verify the correctness of the information received by him from three different sources. In response to this question he replied that he did not verify the correctness of these information so received by him because the investigation conducted by other Inspector Bishan Mohan was already on record and other sources was the inquiry report of SDM, Kotwali, which was collected by him from his office. He admitted that it is the Suit no. 475/09 Page 10/23 duty of the investigating officer filing the charge sheet to verify the correctness of the information received by him. He volunteered verification is required if need arise. He admitted that in case investigated by him from the very beginning the accusation were against one Dharamender. He Volunteered that it was only during the investigation found that Varinder and Dharmender were the same person. He admitted that in affidavit Ex. DW1/A it is no where mentioned that Dharmender and Varinder were the same person. He further admitted that in this case he did not conducted the test identification parade to ascertain the identify of the real accused. He denied that he did not conduct investigation fairly. He further denied that he did not ascertain the correctness of the allegations levelled in this case against Dharmender. He further denied that he wrongly challaned the plaintiff in this case. He denied that he is liable to pay th compensation for wrongly prosecution of the plaintiff. 9 I have heard ld. counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the evidence led by both the parties. My issuewise findings is as under: Suit no. 475/09 Page 11/23 Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ alongwith costs and interest, as prayed in the plaint, as against all the defendants? OPP Issue no. 2 Whether the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has allegedly concealed and suppressed the material facts? OPD Issue no. 5 Whether the suit is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action? OPD
10. Issues No. 1, 2 & 5 are taken together as they are inter connected. The onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the plaintiff whereas the onus to prove the issue no. 2 & 5 is on defendant.
The plaintiff has set up a case in the pleadings that defendant has wrongly prosecuted him and registered a false and frivolous FIR No. 42/95 under Section 304A IPC, Police Station Ashok Vihar. The plaintiff has further taken a plea that in the said FIR name of the assailant was mentioned as Dharmender. Defendant deliberately made the plaintiff as a accused and due to which he was suspended and suffered huge mental sufferings and loss of reputation. Ultimately the matter was placed before the then Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Sh. Gurdeep Kumar who after examining all the evidence dispensed with the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and acquitted the plaintiff vide judgment dated 04.05.2001 finding no incriminating evidence against Suit no. 475/09 Page 12/23 him.
On the basis of the above the plaintiff has claimed that all the defendants have maliciously prosecuted him, therefore is liable for compensation for malicious prosecution.
11 On the other hand defendant has set up a case that on 30.01.1995 one Jawahar Mishra son of Sh. Vishwanath Mishra lodged a report that the police station to the effect that one police constable had forced a boy to walk in a traditional position called Murga. The said police constable pushed the boy with his wearing boot consequently boy fell down. On the statement of the Jawahar Mishra the FIR 42/95 under Section 304A IPC was registered and the investigation was handed over to the local police. On the next date the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch. In the mean time the said boy expired on 30.01.1995 and the SDM conducted the inquest proceedings regarding the deceased. During the investigation the SDM found that boy was died due to beating by constable Virender Singh and suitable action against the erring constable was recommended. It was found that Const. Varinder caused injuries to the deceased, consequently he was arrested in the said case and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the court against the plaintiff by defendant no. 3 after getting orders from the hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi to prosecute Varinder Singh, thus the Suit no. 475/09 Page 13/23 defendants had acted in discharge of their official duty in good faith, therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff. 12 Perusal of the plaint clearly shows that not a whisper has been made by the plaintiff regarding the fact as to why he was framed by the defendant. He has not made any averment against any of the defendant for prosecuting him without any reasonable cause.
In the instant case FIR was registered on the complaint of one Jawahar Mishra. During the pendency of the investigation the boy namely, Deepak expired and inquest proceedings were conducted by the SDM, Kotwali whch is Ex. DW1/P2. While concluding the inquest proceedings the SDM concerned mentioned that there are statement of Khushi Ram, SI Incharge guard duty, guards were posted from the district line, Ashok Vihar that it was constable Varinder who beat up the boy Dalip despite the initial confusion about the identity of the constable all available evidence pointed out that deceased Dalip S/o Male Ram, R/o Industrial Area, Ashok Vihjar died about 7.30 a.m on 30.01.1995 because of beating by the police man on guard duty at DDA park. Therefore, suitable action against the erring constable is recommended. On the basis of the inquest report prepared by the SDM Kotwali the plaintiff was made accused and investigation was being carried out. It is, however,. relevant to point out that none of the prosecution witnesses supported their version during the trial, Suit no. 475/09 Page 14/23 consequently the plaintiff was acquitted without recording the statement under Section 313 CR.P.C. The plaintiff has no where attributed in the plaint any motive to implicate him as an accused in the said FIR. On the contrary during his crossexamination PW1 has categorically admitted that none of the five defendants mentioned in the present suit are inducted wrongly by ld. court of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar. He further admitted that Inspector O.P. Arora, defendant no. 3 and Inspector Bishan Mishra have conducted investigation in good faith and in discharge of their official duty.
The aforesaid testimony of PW1 clearly shows that the defendant had no ill will against the plaintiff and simply discharged their duty in good faith thus they cannot be held liable for prosecuting the plaintiff for malicious prosecution.
13 The plaintiff who claims damages for having been made a victim on malicious prosecution must prove that the defendant prosecuted him without reasonable or probable cause and was also acted by malicious. The plausible cause and malicious are two separate ingredients to be proved in every suit for malicious prosecution and the plaintiff will not succeed if he proves. Absence of reasonable cause but not malicious or vice versa. The absence of reasonable and probable cause does not lead to any prosecution that the person in filing the complaint must have acted maliciously. Suit no. 475/09 Page 15/23
It can safely be concluded that civil action which are clearly covered under abuse of process are related to attachment or breach, damages, damages on a person, malicious judicially, withdrawing up proceedings and other proceedings of the court which are abused by a party. Only those case can be considered by the court which satisfies the following ingredients.
1 The proceedings must have been instituted or continued by the defendant 2 He must have acted without reasonable and probable cause 3 He must have acted maliciously 4 The proceedings must have been unsuccessfully i.e to say must have pronounced in favour of the plaintiff in sue 5 The legal process was not only was without foundation but is used for a not proper collateral purposes. Such orders were not be used for the purpose for which the court intended to pass the order or the orders pass by the court in a a cases has been used without ulterior motives to cause damages to the reputation, person or property of the effected party. The probable cause is not the same under as sufficient cause and has to be judge from the stand or reasonable and prudent man. Plaintiff is to give positive evidence of not only the lack of proper probable and reasonable cause but also has to satisfy Suit no. 475/09 Page 16/23 the requirement of other conditions before any relief is granted to him against the defendants.
14 Ld. counsel for the plaintiff contended that defendant have maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff and instituted and continued all the proceedings though without probable cause and was malicious. Even if these be assumed and have been proved the remaining three ingredients have neither been pleaded nor proved as such the plaintiff could not admittedly proved the present suit for damages against the defendants and the net result is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages.
It is also relevant to point out that the plaintiff was acquitted vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2001. The said judgment was not challenged before the Hob'ble High Court by the prosecution thus attained the finality. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 29.03.2004 i.e. after more than three years from the date of acquital. The suit of malicious prosecution is covered by Section 74 of the Limitation Act. which reads as under:
74.For compensation for a malicious prosecution. The period of limitation is one year and the time form which period begins to run when the plaintiff is acquitted for the prosecution is otherwise Suit no. 475/09 Page 17/23 terminated.
15 A perusal of section 74 of the Limitation Act clearly shows that the suit for malicious prosecution can be filed by the plaintiff within a period of one year from the date of acquittal. The Hon'ble High Court in Saritha Rao & others Vs. Bai Ragunath reported as 169 ( 2010) DLT 277 has held that " no doubt that a period of limitation in a case of a suit claiming damages on account of false prosecution is covered under Section 74 of the Limitation Act and is one year. However, the period of limitation has to be counted from the date when its false prosecution ultimately came to an end and the court give final findings that the prosecution was false.
16 In view of the above well settled legal preposition the suit for malicious prosecution if any could have been filed by the plaintiff within a period of one year from the date of his acquital.
Admittedly, the plaintiff was acquitted by the court of the then Sessions Judge Sh. Gurdeep Kumar vide judgement and decree dated 04.05.2001. Consequently the suit could have been filed up till 04.05.2002. However, the present suit has been filed on 29.03.2004 ie. after more than 2 years from the date of expiry of the period of limitation. Same is hopelessly time barred.
Suit no. 475/09 Page 18/23
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to prove on record that he was maliciously prosecution by the defendants. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of issue no. 1, same is accordingly discharged against the plaintiff.
Defendant has not pointed out as to what facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff in the present suit. They have simply mentioned about the suppression of the fact. Therefore defendants have failed to put forth the material facts which according to them have suppressed by the plaintiff. Defendant has thus failed to discharge the onus of issue no. 2, same is accordingly decided against the defendants.
17 In view of Section 74 of the Limitation Act the present suit could have been filed by the plaintiff within a period of one year from the date of acquittal. However the same has not been filed during the period of limitation and have been filed by the plaintiff after the expiry of more than three years from the date of acquittal. Therefore, the plaintiff had no surviving cause of action on the date when the suit was filed. The defendant has thus duly proved the fact that plaintiff has filed the suit without any cause of action. Issue no. 5 is accordingly, decided in favour of the defendant and against the Suit no. 475/09 Page 19/23 plaintiff.
18 Issue no. 3 Whether the present suit is not maintainable in view of Section 138 of the Delhi Police Act? OPD The onus to prove issue no. 3 is upon the defendant. The plea of the defendant is that they have acted in discharged of their official duty thus they claim Immunity from the prosecution as provided under Section 138 of Delhi Police Act which reads as under: No police officer to be liable to penalty or damages for act done in good faith in pursuance of duty No police officer shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of any damages on account of an act done in good faith in pursuance of or purported to be done in pursuance of any duty imposed or any authority conferred on him by any provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any rule, regulation, order or direction made or given thereunder.
A perusal of the Section 138 clearly shows that police officials shall not be liable for any penalty or damages on account of the act done in good faith in discharge of their official duty. 19 In the instant case the defendant has registered a FIR on the complaint of the complainant and carried out the investigation and presented the challan before the competent court of jurisdiction. The plaintiff has simply stated that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and one Dharmender was made accused, however, subsequently the Suit no. 475/09 Page 20/23 plaintiff was made accused without any basis. The defendant on the other hand taken a plea that ld. SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and during the inquest proceedings he concluded that it was the plaintiff who caused injury to the deceased and on the basis of the inquest report they further conducted the investigation and presented the challan. Accordingly to the defendant they acted in good faith in discharge of their official duty, therefore, they cannot be held liable. During the crossexamination PW1 himself has admitted that defendant no. 3 O.P. Arora and Inspt. Bishan Mohan acted in good faith and in discharge of their official duties. The said positive statement made by PW1 during crossexamination demolishes his entire case that defendants prosecuted him maliciously. On the contrary it unambiguously proves on record that defendants had carried out their work in good faith, in discharge their official duty. Thus they are entitled for protection as provided under Section 138 of the Delhi Police Act.
20 In view of the above facts and circumstances , I am of the considered view that defendant has successfully proved on record that they acted in good faith in discharge of their official duty therefore they are entitled for protection as provided under Section 138 of the Delhi Police Act and thus cannot be held liable for any damages. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants and against Suit no. 475/09 Page 21/23 the plaintiff.
21 Issue no. 4Whether the present suit is not maintainable for want of compliance of Section 140 of the Delhi Polcie Act? OPD Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant, The defendant in the written statement has stated that plaintiff has not given any notice under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act before filing the present suit which is mandatory and in the absence of the notice the present suit is not maintainable.
On the other hand plaintiff has taken a plea that he served the notice upon defendant before filing the present suit. The plaintiff has also placed on record the legal notice which is Ex. PW1/2. Perusal of notice Ex. PW1/2 dated 10.02.2003 clearly shows that same was sent to defendant no. 1 & 3 only and no notice was served upon defendant no. 2, 4 & 5 before filing the present suit or thereafter. As the plaintiff has failed to issue any notice as provided under Section 140 of D.P.Act before filing the present suit upon defendant no. 2, 4 & 5 nor sought any leave of the court for the same thus the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 2, 4 & 5 is not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 140 Delhi Police Act, 1978.
In view of the above facts and circumstances the suit filed Suit no. 475/09 Page 22/23 by the plaintiff against defendant no. 2, 4 & 5 is accordingly dismissed for want of statutory notice as provided under Section 140 of the D.P. Act. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided.
22 Relief In view of my aforesaid findings the suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lacs as damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant is dismissed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT)
on 31nd May, 2010 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit no. 475/09 Page 23/23
Suit No. 475/09
31.05.2010
Present; Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
Vide my separate judgment of the date, the suit of the Plaintiff has been dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
( PITAMBER DUTT) ADJ; DELHI 31.05.2010 Suit no. 475/09 Page 24/23 Suit no. 475/09 Page 25/23