Delhi District Court
Ved Prakash Sharma Anr. vs . Prem Das Mehta on 14 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEELAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE - 02 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET COURTS COMPLEX: NEW
DELHI
CS No. 95/14 7185/16
Ved Prakash Sharma Anr. Vs. Prem Das Mehta
1. Ved Prakash Sharma
aged about 68 years
S/o Late Sh. Pt. M.P. Sharma
2. Usha Devi Sharma
aged about 63 years
W/o Ved Prakash Sharma
Both R/o:
Second Floor, K1,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048
............. Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Prem Das Mehta
S/o Late Sh. B. R. Mehta
R/o First Floor, K1
Kailash Colony New Delhi110048
............ Defendants
Date of Institution : 26.07.2017
Arguments concluded : 14.02.2020
Date of decision : 14.02.2020
Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff for malicious prosecution and liquidated damages. It is submitted that plaintiffs are the peace loving and law abiding senior citizens. Plaintiff no. 2 is the wife of plaintiff no. 1 and both are residing at K1, second floor Kailash colony, New Delhi. The defendant Premdas Mehta is a resident of K1, first Floor, Kailash Colony and is a property dealer by profession.
2. It is submitted that in the year 1997, the defendant filed a frivolous suit and sued the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction vide suit no. 256/97. It is submitted that during the recording of evidence, while the defendant was being cross examined, he admitted that his shop at ground floor of K1, Kailash Colony is unauthorized and in these circumstances the suit was compromised between the defendant and the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs agreed to compromise just to by peace and the suit was thereafter disposed of being compromised vide order dated 16.12.2006.
3. It is further submitted that even thereafter defendant had filed a number of false and frivolous civil and criminal cases against the plaintiff and the number of suits are still pending adjudication in the Saket Court. It is submitted that the defendant intentionally and knowingly instituted false, frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings in order to cause injuries to the Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 2 of 17 plaintiff.
4. It is submitted that in doing so defendant with his such criminal malafide knowledge and intention to harass and to cause injury to the plaintiffs, instituted criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs and acted maliciously and without any reasonable and plauseable cause.
5. It is submitted that on 08.08.2013, Ld. Civil Judge West Tis Hazari dismissed the charges and application of the defendant and discharged the plaintiff. It is submitted that many persons whose names are not known to the plaintiffs, supposing the plaintiffs being criminal and supposing the plaintiffs have disregard to the system, have ceased to talk with the plaintiffs and started looking at them with hatred and the plaintiffs got continuously harassed from the period since the date of receipt of summons till the application of the defendant was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/.
6. It is submitted that in consequence of malicious prosecution by the defendant, the plaintiffs suffered immense pain of body , mind and reputation and were injured in their credit and incurred expenses in defending themselves against the said complaint of contempt of court and contesting the said malacious prosecution of contempt of court and accordingly the present suit has been filed for damages to the tune of Rs.17 lacs.
7. Defendant has contested the present suit by filing his written statement and disputed the contentions in the plaint. It is submitted that a suit before the court at Tis Hazari was culminated into compromise but the shop Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 3 of 17 in question was not unauthorized. It is submitted in the written statement that all the allegations in the plaint leveled against the defendant are false and frivolous as the plaintiff is in habit of telling lies before the court and making false allegations against the defendant.
8. It is further submitted that defendant filed a contempt petition before the Court of Sh. Rohit Gulia, Ld. CJ, Tis Hazari Court and the same was dismissed but the court had fully compensated the plaintiff by levying a cost of Rs.5000/ being the dismissal cost and the same has been duly received by the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that acquitting or convicting is a matter rest with the court. It is further submitted that the contempt litigation was initiated with the bonafide intention and mind that a wrong has been done to defendant by violating the orders of the court and is not a malicious prosecution. Finally it is submitted that the suit is misconceived and liable to be dismissed on merits.
9. Plaintiff has filed his replication denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the facts of his case.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 16.10.2013:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damges to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/ as prayed for? OPP.
2. Relief
11. In support of his case plaintiff Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma has Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 4 of 17 examined himself by way of affidavit reiterated the facts of his case. He has relied upon copy of crossexamination statement of the defendant Ex.PW 1/P1, the order wherein the suit was disposed of being compromised vide order dated 16.12.2014 as Ex.PW1/P2, copy of summons received by him in the contempt application Ex.PW1/P3, the order in the contempt application passed on 08.08.2013 by Ld. Civil Judge Tis Hazari Ex.PW1/6. The witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant and the relevant extract of his crossexamination are as under: "I know English Language. I purchased the suit property on 26.07.1991 in the name of my wife Smt. Usha Sharma. It is correct that earlier I was tenant in the suit property. The suit property has been purchased from Sh. K. K. chopra. It is correct that at the time of registration of sale deed of suit property there was a site plan which was also got registered. In the site plan, dimensions of the rooms were not given. It is correct that suit property was mortgaged with the ICICI Bank against the loan. I have not deposited the site plan with the ICIC Bank while submitting the sale deed of the suit property. I have original of the site plant which was registered with the sale deed at home. I can produce the same. I do not know from where the water was being Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 5 of 17 supplied to the defendant.
It is wrong to suggest that after completion of second floor structure, I had started constructing third floor without approval of requisite site plan. It is wrong to suggest that third floor construction was demolished by the MCD on orders of the Civil Court, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. (Vol. It was demolished on the complaint of the defendant Suresh Mehta s/o Sh. PD Mehta and Chander Praksh Kumar S/o Sh. H.N. Kumra).
It is wrong to suggest that I am in habit of making unlawful construction. It is wrong to suggest that LRs of KK Chopra, the original owners of the suit property had filed a suit against me constructing on third floor, which was not sold to me.
It do not remember, whether I had filed a writ petition (Civil) in the Delhi High Court, seeking damages of Rs.17 Lacs against MCD. I do not remember whether I had received cost of Rs.5000/ from the defendant, after the contempt petition filed by the defendant was dismissed. I also do not remener whether I had filed an application u/s 340 Cr.PC Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 6 of 17 against the defendant after dismissal of aforesaid contempt petition. I also do not remember whether I had filed a Criminal Misc. petition no. 301/2014 before the Delhi High Court. The suit bearing no. 256/1997 entitled Prem Das Mehta Vs. Usha Sharma was compromised on 16.12.2004.
Since the defendant herein had admitted in his cross examination that his shop in the aforesaid suit No. 256/97 was unauthorized and illegal hence, I had entered into a compromise in the said suit to buy peace. The admission of the defendant herein regarding his shop being illegally constructed is mentioned at encircle portion from A to A on Ex.PW1/D1, cross examination dated 16.12.2004 in suit no. 256/97, which is already exhibited as PW1/3.
I do not remember the details of criminal cases filed against me by the defendant herein. I do not know the meaning of criminal contempt. I do not know whether the contempt application filed by the defendant was civil or criminal in nature. I do not remember the meaning of criminal malafide knowledge and same is my reply regarding malicious prosecution. I do not Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 7 of 17 remember whether any person supposed me to be criminal due to the contempt application filed by defendant.
I will give the details of the monetary loss suffered by me due to the contempt application filed by the defendant after the court passes the decree in the present suit.
The area of my portion in property bearing no. K1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is 900 sq. ft. It is wrong to suggest that the actual area of my property is 400 sq feet and not 900 sq feet (Vol. MR. Suresh Mehta S/o Sh. P D Mehta and Sh. Chander Prakash, S/o H.N. Kumra who has also purchased one room adjacent to MR. P D Mehta they both have changed the area from 900 sq feet to 400 sq feet in my sale deed and an FIR no. 56/16 PS Greater Kailash I against defendant and his son has been registered in this regard on the orders of Ld. MM.). It is wrong to suggest that I am harassing the defendant. (Vol. I am being harassed by defendant since 1994). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
12. Per contra, defendant Sh. Prem Das Mehta has examined himself Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 8 of 17 by way of affidavit reiterated the facts of his case. The witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant and the relevant extract of his crossexamination are as under: I do not remember when did I file first suit against the plaintiffs.
Q. Is it correct that you filed a suit no 348/2000 against the plaintiffs for recovery and permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed by the court vide judgment dated 10.07.2002?
A. It is not in my knowledge.
Q. Witness is shown photocopy of certified copy of
judgment in suit no. 348/2000 which is mark DW1/X and is asked to refresh his memory and tell as to whether the said suit was filed by him against the plaintiffs?
A. It is correct that the said judgment bears my name as well as names of plaintiffs but I do not recollect that the said suit was filed by me against the plaintiffs.
Q. Have you not signed the plaint and affidavit in suit no. 348/2000?
A. I have already stated that it is not in my
Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 9 of 17
knowledge.
Q. Is it correct that you filed a suit no. 821/1994
against the plaintiff no. 1 who was defendant no. 3 in the said suit for permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed by the court vide judgment dated 12.01.2001?
A. It is not in my knowledge.
Q. Witness I shown photocopy of certified copy of
judgment in suit no. 821/1994 which is mark DW1/Y and is asked to refresh his memory and tell as to whether the said suit was filed by him against plaintiff no. 1 herein?
A. It is correct that the said judgment bears my name as well as name of plaintiff no. 1 herein but I do not recollect that the said suit was filed by me against plaintiff no. 1.
It is correct that I had filed suit bearing no. 256/1997 before the Court of Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, who was the then Civil Judge, Tis Hazari courts. The same was disposed off as compromised. Q. I put it to you that your shop at ground floor of K1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi has been constructed Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 10 of 17 unauthorizedly?
A. It is wrong. (Vol. I was in occupation of the said shop as a tenant prior to 1962 and I purchased the same in the year 1988).
Q. Is it correct that in suit no. 256/1997 in your evidence Ex.PW1/3 (at page no. 3) you have stated on oath that the ground floor shop at K1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi has been constructed unauthorizedly? Attention of the witness in drawn to the Ex.PW1/3. A. Yes, I have stated so. ( Vol. Through no shop number has been mentioned but it pertains to ground floor Shop at K1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi).
I do not know whether any demolition order has been passed by MCD with respect to my ground floor shop at K1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. I have given application for regularization with regard to above said shop to SDMC. (Vol. I have given joint application alongwith occupants / owners of K1, Kailash Colony).
It is correct that I have received notice from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP Criminal MP no. 11760/15 in the matter of Ved Prakash Sharma Vs,. GNCTD & Anr. I have not filed any appeal against the Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 11 of 17 order dated 08.08.2013 passed on contempt application M.No. 75/2010 passed by Sh. Rohit Gulia, CJ, West. As on date two civil suits are pending against the plaintiffs which have been filed by me. One of the suit number filed byme against plaintiff no. 2 is 256/2011 which was filed in 2007 pending before the court of Ms. Pooja Talwar, SCJ.
I am not known by name of Mr. P.N. Mehta (Vol. I am listening this name for the first time.) My date of birth is 05.05.1943.
Q. Where you were born?
(Objected to by counsel for defendant on the
ground of relevency)
Court observation: Present suit has been filed by plaintiffs for malicious prosection and liquidated damages and as such prima facie, the question does not appear to be relevant and hence disallowed.) It is correcxt that I have filed contempt application Ex.Pw1/P5 dated 20.12.2020 in suit no. 256/1997 before the court of Sh. Gopal Singh Chauhan, Ld. Civil Judge. It is correct tat I have filed affidavit dated 20.12.2020 with my aforesaid contempt Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 12 of 17 application and admitted signatures on second page of the affidavit i.e. page 11 of Ex.PW1/P5. The contents of the aforesaid application are correct. I do not remember as to what statement was made by me before the court of Sh. Lokesh Sharma, the then Ld. Civil Judge on 16.12.2004. At this stage, the witness is shown the aforesaid statement eyesight he cannot read the contents. I do not remember if signatures at point A to A are mine.
Q. Whether the order dated 08.08.2013 Ex.PW 1/P6 passed by Sh. Rohit Gulia is correct or wrong? Question disallowed being irrelevant.
It is correct that I have not mentioned about the order dated 08.08.2013 Ex.PW/P6 passed by Sh. Rohit Gulia in my affidavit. It is wrong to suggest that I have intentionally and willingly filed the contempt petition against the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that I am liable to compensate the plaintiff for initiating false contempt petition. It is wrong to suggest that the case for damages as filed by the plaintiff is correct and justified. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 13 of 17
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
14. On the basis of material available on record, my issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE No. 1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/ as prayed for? OPP.
15. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant filed criminal proceedings against the plaintiff which has been resulted in causing mental agony, bodily pain, injuring his reputation and harassment. In support of his case, plaintiff has placed on record copy of crossexamination Ex.PW1/P1 (Colly), compromise order Ex.PW1/P2, summons served upon the plaintiff Ex.PW1/P3.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the said criminal proceedings filed by the defendant against the plaintiff has been dismissed by the court with the cost of Rs.5000/ to be paid to the plaintiff and hence, the proceedings were malice in nature and resulted in loss of reputation of the plaintiff.
On the other hand it is the case of the defendant that no criminal proceedings have been instituted against the plaintiff. It is submitted by the defendant that an application u/s 11 and 12 for the contempt of court has been filed for breach of undertaking given by the plaintiff but the application was Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 14 of 17 dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2013 with the observation " Moreover, if any illegal construction will be raised by the respondent (THE PLAINTIFF NO. 2 HEREIN) the applicant (THE DEFENDANT HEREIN) will be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum subject to his statement given before this court on 16.12.2004."
It is the case of the defendant that he has moved the contempt application under a bonafide belief that there was a breach or order passed by the Hon'ble Court by the plaintiff. It is submitted by the defendant that while dismissing his application on 08.08.2013, Rs.5000/ was awarded to the plaintiff which has been duly paid to the plaintiff and this fact has been duly admitted. It is further submitted that plaintiff has also filed an application u/s 340 Cr.PC against the defendant raising allegations of perjury and his application was dismissed by the trial court, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and even by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Delhi vide order dated 23.01.2015.
It is further submitted by the defendant that no criminal proceedings has been initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff and even the contempt proceedings has been initiated under the bonafide belief.
It is further submitted that nothing has been placed on record by the defendant in order to show the damages caused as a result the contempt proceedings. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have neither explained any damages nor substantiated the quantum of loss suffered. No evidence has been lead by the plaintiff in any manner to support the case of the defendant.
Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 15 of 17 I have gone through the affidavit in chief filed on behalf of plaintiff and his cross examination conducted on various dates. Nothing has been placed on record by the plaintiff to substantiate the factum of his suffering a loss to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/ plaintiff has not even mentioned the name of neighbours in whose eyes he was feeling ashamed. Admittedly, the proceedings in question are civil in nature. No medical record has been placed on record by the plaintiff to support his averment that he was physically suffering due to the application filed by the defendant. In the crossexamination plaintiff has not given true answer about the fact that he has also filed an application u/s 340 Cr.PC which was dismissed by the Trial court, by Hon'ble High Court and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The cost of Rs.5000/ has been received by the plaintiff as damages awarded by the court while dismissing the application of the defendant but even this fact has not been admitted by the plaintiff in his crossexamination.
In these facts and circumstances, the claim of the plaintiff as damages for Rs.17 Lacs cannot be admitted, even on preponderance of probability the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. The claim is rejected for want of evidence. Thus, the issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Relief :
16. In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 16 of 17
17. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to Records after due compliance.
Announced & dictated in (Neelam Singh) the Open Court on 14.02.2020 ADJ02/SE/Saket Courts/Delhi Suit no. 7185/16 Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Prem Das Mehta page no. 17 of 17