Delhi District Court
Shri Girdhari Lal vs Shri Ram on 2 February, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMAI
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - 02 (EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS No. 06/2016
1. Shri Girdhari Lal
S/o late Shri Babu Lal
R/o 124, Guryahi Street,
Shahdara Delhi
2. Shri Amar Singh
3. Shri Pradeep Singh
Both S/o late Shri Babu Lal
R/o 129, Guryahi Street,
Shahdara Delhi
4. Ms. Babli
D/o late Shri Babu Lal
R/o J3/113, Krishan Kunj,
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi110 051 .........Plaintiffs
Versus
Shri Ram
S/o late Shri Mamchand
R/o 130, Guryahi Street,
Shahdara Delhi - 110 032 .......Defendant
Date of institution : 11.8.2009
Date of reserving judgment : 21.1.2019
Date of pronouncement : 02.2.2019
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 1 of 20
JUDGMENT:
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit claiming damages of Rs.5 lacs against the defendant on account of malicious prosecution. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the defendant herein filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction on 05.9.1987 against the father of the plaintiffs alleging that his property was having two gates, one in South and another in West direction. The dispute was in respect of the gate in the South direction. The father of the plaintiffs herein (defendant in the said suit) claimed that there was no gate in the south direction and it was part of his property and he was constructing a latrine which was objected to by the present defendant. An order of status quo was passed in the said suit and thereafter, the defendant herein also filed an application against the father of the plaintiffs for taking action for civil contempt. The said suit remained pending for about 22 years and was ultimately dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dt. 11.7.2008. It has been averred that the defendant, by instituting the said suit, intended to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs knowing that it never belonged to him and thus, misused the legal machinery. It has also been averred that the said suit was filed for collateral purpose as beside harassment, mental torture, agony, loss of reputation, the plaintiffs were also falsely involved in alleged contumacious acts by the defendant. The plaintiffs served a legal notice dt. 03.1.2009 upon the defendant demanding a sum of Rs.10 lacs as damages for his illegal and C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 2 of 20 unwarranted acts which was replied by the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for damages, confining their relief to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs only. It has further been averred that plaintiff No. 1 is a Govt. employee working in AIIMS, while plaintiff No. 2 is working with State Bank of India and plaintiff No. 3 is doing a private job and plaintiff No. 4 is a housewife whose marriage was performed with great difficulty due to pendency of said litigation filed by the defendant.
2. Written statement was filed by the defendant wherein he has taken preliminary objections stating that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the same has been filed to extort money from him. He further took the plea that in the legal notice, the plaintiffs claimed Rs.10 lacs as damages while they filed suit for Rs.5 lacs which carry no basis. On merits, it was submitted that there is a gate, still in existence and the plaintiffs had tried to close it and started raising construction of latrine infront of the gate and they had placed some building material infront of the gate on 04.9.1987 and started construction through a labourer. On 08.9.1987, when it was being constructed, the defendant herein reported the matter to MCD on which Shri DP Sharma - Engineer came and demolished the wall of the latrine. The plaintiffs herein again started construction of the same despite the status quo order of the Court on which the defendant lodged report with PS Farsh Bazaar and the local police had arrested plaintiff No. 1, vide DD No. 21 dt. 08.9.1987 under Section 93/97 of the DP Act. Thus, the defendant submitted that it were the plaintiffs who had tried to close the gate of the defendant and the C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 3 of 20 defendant had never tried to encroach any part of property bearing No. 129 and it was the defendant who suffered mental torture because of the acts of the plaintiffs. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied by the defendant in the written statement.
3. Replication to the written statement was also filed by the plaintiff wherein all the averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed whereas those made in the written statement have been denied. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 06.10.2010 :
ISSUES :
1). Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages as
claimed in the suit? OPP
3) Relief.
4. In order to prove his case, the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and tendered their evidence by way of affidavits Ex.PW1/A and PW2/A, respectively and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW1 relied upon documents, i.e. site plan Ex.PW1/1, legal notice and its postal receipt Ex.PW1/2 and PW1/3 respectively, judgment and decree dt. 11.7.2008 Ex.PW1/4. He further relied upon his identity card Ex.PW1/5, GPF Passbook Ex.PW1/6 which was deexhibited and marked as Mark A and PPF statement Ex.PW1/7 dt. 30.9.2008.
PW2 Shri Amar Singh relied upon his PPF account statement Ex.PW1/7 which was of his account.
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 4 of 205. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A .
He also examined DW2 Shri Sunil Manchanda - Judicial Asst. Record Room (Civil), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi who brought the original judicial record of the previous litigation bearing CS No. 45/2007 titled Sri Ram Vs. Babu Lal. All these witnesses were duly cross examined.
6. I have heard Shri V. Shukla Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff, Shri RR Jangu - Ld. Counsel for the defendant and have gone through the records. My issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 2 :
7. Before proceeding to decide the issue, it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the previous suit between the parties. The said suit was filed by the defendant herein claiming that his father late Shri Mam Chand was the owner of property No. 130, Mohalla Gurhai, Shahdara Delhi, measuring 40 sq. yards, who expired on 30.1.1974 and he being the legal heir inherited the same. He claimed that the said property was having two gates, one in South direction at point A and another in West direction at point B. On 04.9.1987, the father of the plaintiffs herein and defendant in the said suit allegedly started construction of the latrine infront of the South gate. The suit was accordingly filed seeking permanent injunction on 05.9.1987 and on 08.9.1987 the defendants therein fixed a latrine pot and started raising construction of wall around it despite status quo order of the same date.
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 5 of 20The matter was reported to the MCD which demolished the wall but the defendant in the said suit against started construction despite order of the Court. Report to the police was lodged and Shri Girdhari Lal, one of the defendant in the said suit, was arrested under Section 93/97 of the DP Act, but by then the said South gate of the defendant herein was blocked by the building material. It was claimed by the plaintiff in the said suit that the said South gate was being used by him for the last about 20 years which was closed by the defendants by raising a latrine. A prayer was accordingly made for mandatory injunction to demolish the constructed latrine and also for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from raising further construction and closing the gate.
8. In the common written statement filed by the defendants therein the allegations were denied. It was claimed that there was only one gate opening towards the West direction and the latrine infront of the alleged South gate was in existence since the day of construction of the property and was only being renovated. It was also alleged that the plaintiff in the said suit was intending to demolish the wall towards the side of their latrine and to open the passage by fixing a door towards the south side of his plot. They also denied allegations of the violation of the status quo order. Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the counter allegations and reaffirming the contents of the plaint. Following issues were framed by the Court on the basis of the pleadings on 08.2.2001 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief by way of mandatory injunction ? OPP C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 6 of 20
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief by way of permanent injunction ? OPP
3. Relief.
9. The parties led their evidence on the above issues. The plaintiff in the said suit relied upon a site plan Ex.PW1/1, showing two doors, one in the South direction and one in the West direction. He also relied upon the sale deed of his plot No. 130 but it was observed by the Ld. Trial Court that there was no site plan annexed with the said sale deed. PW1 admitted this fact that no site plan was filed with the MCD at the time of construction of the property. It was observed by the Ld. Trial Court that the site plan Ex.PW1/1 relied upon by the plaintiff in the said suit and the defendant herein, was got prepared by a Draughtsman at Tis Hazari Courts. PW1 was confronted with the site plan annexed with the sale deed of the plot of the defendants of the said suit, Ex.DW1/P1 which he admitted being correct and also admitted that the said property was adjacent to his property.
10. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 6 tendered his testimony as DW1 and in the crossexamination deposed that the disputed latrine was a pucca construction raised in the year 1964 but was without any roof or door. He denied the allegations of violation of the orders of the Court.
11. The Ld. Trial Court after evaluating the evidence led by the parties, held that the site plan annexed with the sale deed of the defendants Ex.DW1/P1 was admitted by both the parties and therefore, was an undisputed document. It held that as per the site plan annexed C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 7 of 20 with the said sale deed, the disputed area belonged to the defendants. It was further observed that "A bare look at both the site plans reveal that while in Ex.PW1/1 (site plan of the plaintiff), the area of the house of the defendants has been shown as 25 feet X 18 feet, Ex.DW1/P1 reflects the area of 3 feet X 4 feet leading to the inference that without any shadow of doubt, the said area was under the legal ownership of the defendants". It was also observed that the plaintiff failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence to establish any easementary right of way on the said disputed area of 3 feet X 4 feet. On the basis of the said findings, Ld. Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to establish his legal right with respect to the opening at point B towards South side and accordingly dismissed the suit but with no orders as to costs. The interim order was also vacated. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed against the said order.
12. The plaintiffs in the present suit have claimed that because of the said litigation which lasted for about 21 years, they have not only suffered mentally and financially but there had also been loss of their reputation, without any fault of theirs. They have also claimed that the defendant herein very well knew that the disputed area belonged to the plaintiffs but despite that he instituted a false suit. It has also been claimed that because of the pending litigation, the plaintiffs faced difficulty in finding matrimonial alliance for plaintiff No. 3. It has been claimed that a civil action initiated by the defendant was an abuse of the process of law to grab the property of the plaintiffs and to damage their C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 8 of 20 reputation.
13. Plaintiff No. 1 of the present suit entered the witness box as PW1 and deposed the above facts. In his crossexamination, he deposed that the order of status quo in the present suit was passed on 08.9.1987 and continued till the disposal of the suit. He also deposed that the said order was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court but his petition was dismissed. He denied that any kallandra (under Section 93/97 of the DP Act) was prepared against him. However, he admitted that contempt proceedings were initiated against him in the said suit on 11.9.1987 which were dismissed on 11.7.2008.
14. In further crossexamination, a specific question was put to him as to on what account he had assessed his compensation. PW1 replied that it was because of the frivolous litigation for 21 years, mental agony, problem in the marriage of the sister and because of the inability to use his property. He further deposed that his sister got married after 1987, about 2025 years ago. He also deposed that his brother Pradeep Singh (plaintiff No. 3) got married in the year about 1987. He further deposed that none of the member of his family was medically treated for depression during the pendency of the said litigation.
15. It was again put to this witness as to on what basis the damages of Rs.5 lacs have been calculated by him. He answered that they have been calculated on the basis of mental agony, harassment and frivolous litigation which he suffered on account of defendant.
16. The plaintiffs also examined Shri Amar Singh (plaintiff No. C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 9 of 20
2) as PW2. He also deposed the facts as averred in the plaint. Though he was crossexamined but there was no substantial crossexamination of this witness on the facts deposed by him in his affidavit.
17. The defendant examined only himself as the sole witness and deposed on the lines of the written statement. He deposed that on 24.1.2004, a compromise was effected between him and the plaintiff wherein his statement and that of PW1 Shri Girdhari Lal was recorded and relied upon the said statement as Ex.DW1/1 and DW1/2 and alleged that they have been concealed and suppressed by the plaintiffs. He further deposed that in view of the said compromise, the present suit is not maintainable. However, while tendering his affidavit, the said statements were never placed on record or proved and thus, exhibited. The defendant also examined DW2 from the Record Room (Civil) who produced the complete judicial file of the previous suit between the parties bearing CS No. 45/2007 titled Sri Ram Vs. Babu Lal but he only proved the certified copy of the final judgment as Ex.DW2/1. It was observed by the Court during his testimony that there was no settlement of any nature between the parties to the said suit on record of the said file.
18. The judicial record of the said suit is still with this Court. A perusal of the said record reveals that though it is recorded in the order sheet dt. 24.1.2004 that statement of plaintiff and Mr. Girdhari Lal is recorded and that both parties want to file compromise deed. It was further deposed by him that the previous suit was filed by him on true and correct facts as the plaintiff was adamant not to give him right to passage.
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 10 of 20In the crossexamination, he had admitted that he had not filed any appeal against the judgment dt. 11.8.2007, stating that since a compromise took place between the parties. He denied the other suggestions relating to the plaint in the suit.
19. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment in CB Aggarwal Vs. Smt. P. Krishna Kapoor AIR 1995 Delhi 154. In that case, the tenant had filed a suit for damages against his landlord who had earlier filed two eviction petitions which were dismissed. It was observed in para 20 of the above judgment as under :
"20. ......Certainly, in given facts and circumstances and upon fulfillment of the condition settled by various pronouncements, malicious prosecution as well as any other abuse of legal process which injures the reputation of the party is actionable in Torts. The parties thus suffering can bring a suit for damages in a Court of competent jurisdiction. The settled view appears to be that an ordinary civil action even if decided against a party would not normally give right to an action for a suit on damages for that ground".
20. The Hon'ble Court then referred to the judgment in Mohd. Amin Vs. Jogendra Kumar Banerjee AIR 1947 PC 108, wherein it was held as under :
"The reason why an action does not lie or falsely and maliciously prosecuting an ordinary civil action is that such a case does not necessarily and naturally involve damage to the party sued. A civil action which is false will be dismissed at the hearing. The defendant's reputation will be cleared of any imputations made against him, and he will be indemnified against his expenses by the award of costs against his opponent. The law does not award damages for mental anxiety or for extra costs incurred C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 11 of 20 beyond those imposed on the unsuccessful party. But a criminal charge involving scandal to reputation or to the possible loss of life or liberty to the party charged does not necessarily and naturally involve damage and in such a case, damage to reputation will be presumed".
It was further held in the CB Aggarwal's case (supra) in para 25 that :
"25. That the Tort of abuse of the process of the Court would lie against a plaintiff where it could be shown that he had set proceedings on foot to effect an object or purpose which was not within the scope of the process. The Tort of abuse of the process was distinct from malicious prosecution, and unlike malicious prosecution, did not depend on the plaintiff's proceedings being completed before an action could be brought".
Further, in para 30, the Hon'ble Court, on the basis of various pronouncements of Courts in India and England relating to abuse of process, laid down conditions on which such a suit can be filed as under :
"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 unsuccessful - that is to say, must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff now suing;
5. The legal process was not only without foundation but is used for an improper and collateral purpose. Such orders were not used for a purpose, for which the Court intended to pass the order or the order passed by a Court in a case has been used with ulterior motives to cause damage to the reputation, person or property of the affected party.
The Hon'ble Court proceeded further and held in para 31 that :C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 12 of 20
"31. The probable cause is not the same in as sufficient cause and has to be judged from the standard of reasonable and ordinary prudent man. The plaintiff is obliged to give positive evidence of not only the lack of proper, probable and reasonable cause but also as to the requirements of other conditions, before any relief is granted to him against the defendant".
21. In the instant case, the defendant herein filed a suit on the premise that he was having two openings in his house, one in the West and another in the South direction. It was his case that the plaintiff herein was trying to block his access towards the South direction by erecting a latrine. It is a matter of record and gathered from the Trial Court records that both the plaintiff and the defendants in the initial suit have purchased the respective property from a same person and on the same date. While the plaintiff herein was having a site plan annexed with the sale deed, none was there in the sale deed of the defendant herein. Copies of both the sale deeds are on the Trial Court Record which reveal that each of the party was sold an area of 40 sq. yards. There is no mention in the sale deed about the disputed portion of 3 feet X 4 feet where the plaintiffs herein were intending to construct a latrine but that portion has only been shown in their site plan. There is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiffs herein ever produced or showed their site plan to the defendant herein before the latter initiated the proceedings. The said site plan was confronted with the defendant for the first time during the evidence wherein he admitted it to be correct. Hence, the suit was filed by the defendant under the bonafide belief that the plaintiffs were encroaching upon public land.
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 13 of 2022. There is another aspect of the matter. The defendant herein was not intending to encroach upon any area of the property of the plaintiffs herein but was also only trying to make an opening towards the disputed site.
23. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant placed on record a certified copy of the statement of the defendant herein recorded before the Ld. Trial Court on 24.1.2004, pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties, wherein he stated that he would construct a doortype window from a level of three feet from the floor at the disputed site and that it would not be converted into a door. He also stated that the defendant (plaintiffs herein) would remove the latrine and will not make any construction at the said place in the future. Shri Girdhari Lal, one of the defendants in the said suit (No. 6) and coplaintiff in the present suit, also made a statement on the same date accepting the above statement made by the defendant herein and plaintiff in the said suit. It was also pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that thereafter, Shri V. Shukla - Advocate filed his fresh vakalatnama only on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 6 namely Shri Pradeep Singh and Shri Girdhari Lal and the other defendants stopped appearing. A certified copy of his vakalatnama has also been tendered during arguments. It was submitted that after the said settlement the other defendants lost interest. It is however, observed that the said settlement was not effected as the suit continued and evidence was led by the parties thereafter.
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 14 of 2024. It, however, shows that the litigation initiated by the defendant herein was not without any basis nor was for any collateral purpose nor was an abuse of process of law. It is also to be appreciated that the interim injunction granted by the Ld. Trial Court was upheld even by the Hon'ble High Court. It can also not be said that the defendant herein acted without any reasonable or probable cause or acted maliciously though the suit filed by him was ultimately dismissed since he failed to prove his case.
25. Though it has been pleaded in the present suit that the defendant had filed the said suit for collateral purpose but the plaintiffs have failed to prove it and have failed to show any collateral purpose for which the said suit was filed. It has been averred and also deposed by the witnesses that the marriage of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 was solemnized with great difficulty because of the said litigation. However, in the cross examination it was deposed by PW1 that they both were married in or about the year 1987. Hence, this plea is not tenable and therefore, the damages assessed by the plaintiffs on that ground amounting to Rs.1.5 lacs cannot be awarded. They have further failed to show any loss of reputation because of the said litigation. In fact, no independent evidence was led in that regard.
26. The plaintiffs have assessed the damage in the plaint as well as in the affidavit in evidence. It is stated that they suffered damage of Rs.1.5 lacs because of the said litigation since they lived in a constant fear of alleged disobedience of the court order and whether they were C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 15 of 20 going to be punished or their property would suffer attachment and further they were made to feel guilty in the society being culprits of the defendant.
27. As aforesaid, no evidence has been led regarding damage to their repute in the society because of any interim orders passed against them. Further more, according to Section 95 of the CPC, where in any suit, an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under the last preceding Section and the Court is of the opinion that such arrest or attachment or injunction was applied on insufficient grounds or if the suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable or probable grounds for instituting the same, the defendant may apply to the Court and on such application , the Court can award an amount not exceeding Rs.50,000/ as compensation for expenses or injury including injury to reputation caused to him. Admittedly, no such application was filed by the plaintiffs before the Ld. Trial Court when the suit was dismissed. Hence, the amount so claimed in the present suit, is without any basis.
28. The plaintiffs have further assessed damages of Rs.2 lacs on account of the fact that the litigation continued for about 21 years and during that period they could not enjoy their property freely and with absolute rights. It has already been observed that the interim order passed by the Ld. Trial Court was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Hon'ble High Court without any success. They had never thereafter at any further stage, applied for modification or setting aside the interim order for C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 16 of 20 which the defendant cannot be blamed. Similarly, the defendant alone cannot be blamed for the delayed decision in the matter or for the protracted trial.
29. Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon a judgment in Genu Ganpati Shivale Vs. Bhaichand Jivraj Raisoni & ors. AIR 1981 Bombay 170, wherein para 717 at page 367 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition , Vol. 25 was quoted which is as under :
"The law allows every person to employ its process for the purpose of asserting his rights without subjecting him to any liability other than the liability to pay the costs of the proceedings if unsuccessful".
It was noted that hence one seldom come across an action for malicious abuse of civil proceedings. Further, the Hon'ble Court quoted Salmond on the Law of Torts (117th Edition at Page 420) as under :
"The rule is that no action will lie against any person for procuring an erroneous decision of a Court of justice. This is so even though the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter and although its judgment or order is for that any other reason invalid. A Court of justice is not the agent or servant of the litigant who sets it in motion so as to make that litigant responsible for the errors of law or fact which the Court commits".
30. Thus, no damages can be awarded for any order passed by the Court including the interim injunction and as claimed in the present suit.
31. It is also noteworthy that the Ld. Trial Court while deciding the said suit and dismissing it, in its wisdom did not impose any cost upon the defendant herein who had filed it which shows that it had not C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 17 of 20 considered the litigation to be frivolous or an abuse of process of law. In fact, a close reading of the judgment shows that the suit was decided on merits and since the defendant failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove his case.
32. In Genu Ganpati's case (supra) the Court also held that :
"The first ingredient of the cause of action of malicious abuse of civil proceedings is malice. Malice means an improper or wrong motive other than a desire to vindicate one's own rights or interest. A malicious action is an action undertaken with a desire to injure another person and not to further one's own interest".
It was further held that :
"There must be something more of the nature of an indirect or sinister motive for the prosecution than the mere absence of reasonable and probable cause".
33. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove any malice on part of the defendant in initiating the said litigation. Simply because the defendant filed the said suit under a bonafide belief that the disputed area was a common land and therefore, he could make an opening into the gali at the said point and thus, wanted to restrain the plaintiffs from constructing a latrine, is not sufficient to prove malice on his part. Failing to prove his case is different from initiating an action with malice and without reasonable and probable cause. It is not that in every suit which is dismissed, an action for damages lies. It is only in those special cases where the malice is manifest in the action which is directed to cause harm or damage to the person or property or to the reputation of the opponent. Hence, I do not find any ground for granting damages to the plaintiffs as C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 18 of 20 claimed by them in the present suit. The issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE No. 1 :
34. The defendant has taken an objection at the outset that the suit is barred by limitation. The judgment in the earlier suit which is the subject matter of the present suit, was passed 11.7.2008 whereas the present suit was filed on 10.9.2009. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the limitation for filing the present suit was three years as observed in the judgment relied upon him in CB Aggarwal's case (supra). In the said case, in para 46, it was observed that the said suit for damages was filed within a period of three years and as such was covered under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. I fail to agree with the contention since a close reading of the entire judgment would show that the Hon'ble Court had proceeded on the plea that the said suit was based on general principles of Torts. The present suit is directly based on malicious prosecution for which Article 74 of The Limitation Act provides a limitation of one year and therefore, the suit would be covered under Article 74 and not under Article 113 which provides for limitation for any suit for which no period of limitation is provided in the Schedule. Thus, the present suit having been filed beyond the period of one year is clearly barred by limitation and therefore, not maintainable. This issue is also decided against the plaintiffs.
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 19 of 20ISSUE No. 3/Relief :
35. In view of the findings on the above issues, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. The suit is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SHARMA Location: Delhi Date: 2019.02.02 ON the 2nd day of February 2019 17:16:37 +0530 (SANJAY SHARMAI) Addl. District Judge02 (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
C.S. No. 06/2016 Page 20 of 20