Delhi District Court
Gurdeep Singh Dang vs Raj Kumar Kohli on 18 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DHARMENDER SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
Civ DJ No. 9951/16
1. Gurdeep Singh Dang (Since Deceased Through LRs)
(a) Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur Dang
W/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang
(b) Ms. Jasneet Nirman
D/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang
(c) Mr. Dipin Jeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang
(d) Ms. Damandeep Kaur Dang
D/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang
All R/o
G-76 A, Mansarovar Garden, Delhi-110015
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Raj Kumar Kohli
S/o Not known
R/o G-228, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by
DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER SINGH
SINGH
Date:
2024.05.18
16:32:15 +0530
Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 1/17
2. Smt. Neelam Gandhi
W/o Sh. Darshan Gandhi
R/o 47/15, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
3. Sh. Sunil Bhasin
S/o Sh. Inder Sain
R/o Block O-49, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
... Defendants
Date of Institution : 07.11.1997
Date of Reserving Judgment : 20.04.2024
Date of Judgment : 18.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff against defendants seeking the cancellation of two sale deeds dated 09.01.1997 executed in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 and relief of permanent injunction. Said sale deeds are in respect of basement and first floor of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi.
2. As per case of plaintiff, he was having business in the name and style of M/S Harrymen's Wear and in the course of said business, he took the loan of Rs. 4,10,000/- from defendant no. 1. It is submitted that on 07.12.1996, defendant no. 1 lodged a false complaint against plaintiff and his wife and Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:32:23 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 2/17 case was registered against plaintiff and his wife at PS Kirti Nagar.
3. It is submitted that plaintiff was also liable to pay some money to S. Bhupinder Singh and said Sh. S. Bhupinder Singh threatened the plaintiff and in pursuance of the same, case u/s 107/151 CrPC was registered against plaintiff and S. Bhupinder Singh. It is submitted that said case was fixed for hearing on 09.01.1997 before ACP (SEM). It is submitted that on that day, defendant no. 1 and husband of defendant no. 2 threatened the plaintiff and forcibly took him to the office of Sub-registrar, Janakpuri and under coercion got registered some documents in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3. It is submitted that plaintiff was forced to sign said documents and he was not aware of the contents of the same and even was not permitted to peruse the said documents.
4. It is submitted that later plaintiff came to know that two sale deeds were got executed from him in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3. It is submitted that said sale deeds were got executed without any consideration and plaintiff did not receive even a penny for the same. It is submitted that plaintiff has not delivered the vacant and peaceful possession of said properties and still in the possession of the same.
5. It is submitted that after came to know about the execution of sale deeds, plaintiff requested the defendants to cancel the said sale deeds but they avoided the matter on one or other pretext. It is submitted that plaintiff was not competent to execute the sale deeds as property was owned by two Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:32:31 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 3/17 persons.
6. By way of present suit, plaintiff is challenging the said sale deeds as same were got executed under threat and without any consideration. It is specifically prayed that sale deed registered vide registration no. 296, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 125-131 in respect of first floor of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 2 and sale deed registered vide registration no. 297, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 132-139 in respect of basement of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 3 be declared as null and void. It is also prayed that defendants be also restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi.
7. In pursuance of the suit, summons were issued to defendants. Defendant no. 1 did not appear in Court despite service, so he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16.04.2012.
8. Appearance was made on behalf of defendant no. 2 and 3 and joint written statement was filed on their behalf. In said written statement, defendant no. 2 and 3 have denied the case of plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit. It is submitted that plaintiff sold the first floor and basement of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi to defendant no. 2 and 3 after receipt of consideration amount and as per his free will.
Digitally signed by DHARMENDERDHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:32:39 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 4/17
9. It is submitted that plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court. It is submitted that suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant no. 1 and non-joinder of husband of defendant no. 2. It is submitted that plaintiff represented himself as the absolute owner of said properties and delivered the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to defendant no. 2 and 3. Request has been made for dismissal of the present suit.
10. Plaintiff filed the replication to the written statement of defendant no. 1 and 2 and reiterated the same case as mentioned in the plaint.
11. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration qua sale deed registered in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 with Sub-
registrar by registration no. 296, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 125-131 and other sale deed bearing registration no. 297, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 132-139 to be declared as null and void? OPP (this issue is reframed issue as per order dated 05.04.2019).
(2) Whether plaintiff was not competent to execute the sale deeds?
OPP (3) Whether the sale deeds as abovementioned are liable to be set aside and declared void? OPP (4) Whether plaintiff is in possession of the suit property? OPP (5) Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:32:47 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 5/17 (6) Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant no. 1 and non-
joinder of Sh. Darshan Gandhi? OPD
(7) Whether plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts? OPD
(8) Relief
12. During proceedings of the case, plaintiff passed away and his legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs.
13. After framing of issues, PE was led by plaintiff, in which three witnesses were examined.
14. PW-1 is Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur Dang (wife of initial plaintiff Sh.
Gurdeep Sigh Dang). Her affidavit of examination in chief is Ex.PW1/1, in which she deposed in terms of the facts mentioned in the plaint. She relied upon following documents i.e.:-
1. Ex.PW1/A i.e. Original Sale Deed dated 09.01.1997, executed in favour of defendant no. 2.
2. Mark-A i.e. Photocopy of Sale deed dated 09.01.1997 executed in favour of defendant no. 3.
3. Mark B i.e. Photocopy of FIR bearing no. 553/96 dated 07.12.1996 PS Kirti Nagar vide DD no. 14A.
4. Mark C i.e. Photocopy of Bail application filed by the plaintiff before the court of Sh. D.S. Sidhu, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Mark D i.e. Photocopy of Bail order of plaintiff (since deceased) dated 21.12.1996 passed by the court of Sh. D.S. Sidhu, Ld. Metropolitan Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:32:57 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 6/17 Magistrate.
6. Mark E i.e. Photocopy of Bail order dated 11.04.1997 passed by the Hon'ble Court.
7. Mark F i.e. Photocopy of anticipatory bail application of deponent.
15. This witness was cross-examined by ld. counsels for defendant no. 2 and 3.
16. PW-2 Devender Kumar, Junior Assistant from the office of sub- registrar II, Basaidarapur, Delhi. PW-2 was summoned witness and brought the following records:-
(a). Sale deed dated 09.01.1997 bearing registration No. 297 in Book No. I, Volume 8651 on page Nos. 132 to 139 executed by Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang in favour of Sh. Sunil Bhasin is Ex.PW2/1.
(b). Sale deed dated 28.07.2012 bearing registration No. 18652 in Book No. I, Volume No. 20122 on page Nos. 51 to 59 executed by Smt. Sapna Arora in favour of Smt. Simmi Gupta and Smt. Chetna Gupta is Ex. PW2/2.
17. This witness was cross-examined by ld. counsel for defendant no. 2.
18. PW-3 Sh. Rajesh Popli, Dealing Clerk, Record Room, THC, Delhi. This witness was also a summoned witness and brought the following record:-
(a). FIR bearing no. 553/96 dated 07.12.1996 PS Kirti Nagar vide DD no.14A is Ex.PW3/1 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:33:05 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 7/17
(b). Bail application filed by the plaintiff before the court of Sh. D.S. Sidhu, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is Ex.PW3/2
(c). Bail order of plaintiff (since deceased) dated 21.12.1996 passed by the court of Sh. D.S. Sidhu, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is Ex.PW3/3
(d). Bail order dated 11.04.1997 passed by the Hon'ble Court is Ex.PW3/4
(e). Anticipatory bail application of PW-1 is Ex.PW3/5
19. This witness was also cross-examined by ld. counsel for defendant no.
2.
20. After PE, DE was led by defendant no. 3.
21. During proceedings of the case, matter was settled between plaintiff and defendant no. 2 on 09.02.2024.
22. In DE by defendant no. 3, only one witness i.e. defendant no. 3 himself/DW-3 was examined. His affidavit of examination in chief is Ex.DW3/A, in which he deposed in terms of the facts stated in the written statement. He did not rely upon any document. This witness was cross- examined by ld. counsel for plaintiff.
23. After DE, final arguments were heard.
24. The issue-wise findings of this Court are as follows:-
Issue No. (1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:33:14 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 8/17 declaration qua sale deed registered in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 with Sub-registrar by registration no. 296, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 125-131 and other sale deed bearing registration no. 297, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 132-139 to be declared as null and void? OPP (this issue is reframed issue as per order dated 05.04.2019).
& Issue No. (3) Whether the sale deeds as abovementioned are liable to be set aside and declared void? OPP This Court shall deal with issue no. 1 and 3 together as both are of same nature. The onus to prove these two issues was upon plaintiff. As per plaintiff, on 09.01.1997, defendant no. 1 and husband of defendant no. 2 threatened the plaintiff and forcibly took him to the office of Sub-registrar, Janakpuri and under coercion got registered some documents in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3. It is submitted that plaintiff was forced to sign said documents and he was not aware of the contents of the same and even was not permitted to peruse the said documents. It is submitted that later plaintiff came to know that two sale deeds were got executed from him in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3. It is submitted that said sale deeds were got executed without any consideration and plaintiff did not receive even a penny for the same. It is specifically prayed that sale deed registered vide registration no. 296, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 125-131 in respect of first floor of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 2 and sale deed registered vide registration no. 297, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 132-139 in respect of basement of Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:33:22 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 9/17 property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 3 be declared as null and void.
25. On the other hand, defendant no. 2 and 3 have taken the plea that plaintiff sold the first floor and basement of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi to defendant no. 2 and 3 after receipt of consideration amount and as per his free will.
26. This Court is of the considered view that so far sale deed registered vide registration no. 296, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 125-131 in respect of first floor of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 2 (Ex.PW1/A) is concerned, plaintiff and defendant no. 2 have settled the matter on 09.02.2024 and in regard to the same, they moved application u/o 23 Rule 3 CPC Ex.C1 and filed on record compromised deed/MOU dated 27.01.2024 Ex.C2 and their statement were recorded. So, the issue regarding the sale deed Ex.PW1/A was resolved by parties themselves.
27. Now the Court has to decide the issue regarding sale deed registered vide registration no. 297, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 132-139 in respect of basement of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 3 (Ex.PW2/1). The relevant provision regarding cancellation of written instrument is mentioned in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As per Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963:-
31. When cancellation may be ordered.-- Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:33:30 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 10/17 (1)Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2)If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
28. As per case of plaintiff, sale deed Ex.PW2/1 was got executed from him under coercion. As per Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 "when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused". This Court is of the considered view that the relevant witness to prove said coercion was the person whose consent was taken under coercion or before whom said coercion took place, however, no such person has been examined in the present matter. As per case of plaintiff, consent of initial plaintiff Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang was taken under coercion, however, Gurdeep Singh Dang was not examined as PW. Before commencement of PE, Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang passed away and his LRs were brought on record.
29. His LR no. (a) Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur Dang (wife of Sh. Gurdeep Singh Dang) was examined as PW-1, however, she has not supported the case of plaintiff. Although, in his affidavit of examination in chief Ex.PW1/1, she Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:33:38 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 11/17 has deposed in terms of the facts mentioned in plaint, however, in cross- examination, she admitted that she has no personal knowledge regarding the facts deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 regarding the execution of the sale deed in question and transaction took place between her husband and defendant no. 3 and said facts were told to her by her husband. In view of above testimony of PW-1, it is clear that she was not witness of coercion and she became aware of the facts as have been told by her husband. It means her evidence is hearsay evidence.
30. No other witness was examined in PE, in whose presence such coercion took place. It is also relevant fact that sale deed in question i.e. Ex.PW2/1 is a registered document, which gives some amount of authenticity to said document. This Court is also of the view that said document was executed in the office of Sub-registrar, Janakpuri, Delhi which is a public office and during office hours, number of government official/officers and general public remain present there and in such circumstances, it is highly improbable that a person can be compelled or coerced to sign a document. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, plaintiff has failed to prove that sale deed registered vide registration no. 297, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 132-139 in respect of basement of property bearing no. G- 76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 3 (Ex.PW2/1) was got executed under coercion. Accordingly, issue no. 1 and 3 are decided in favour of defendant no. 3 and against plaintiff.
31. Issue No. (2) Whether plaintiff was not competent to execute the Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:33:46 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 12/17 sale deeds? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff as plaintiff has taken the plea that he was not competent to execute the sale deeds as property was owned by two persons. This Court is of the considered view that plaintiff has not filed on record any document to show that properties in question were owned by two persons. Although, during cross-examination dated 21.05.2022, one document i.e. Receipt regarding payment issued by the colonizer, was filed on record and same is Ex.PW1/DX3. As per said document, payment regarding purchase of property in question was made by initial plaintiff Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Sh. Paramjit Singh, however, this document was not filed on record at the time of filing of the suit and even same was not taken on record as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC as no leave of the Court was obtained for placing the said document on record and at the time when same was placed on record during cross-
examination, same was objected by ld. counsel for defendant no. 3. Even otherwise, if it is admitted that property in question is owned by two persons including initial plaintiff, the share of initial plaintiff will be bound by sale deed, if same has been duly executed by him. Accordingly, this issue is decided in above terms.
32. Issue No. (4) Whether plaintiff is in possession of the suit property? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff as in his plaint he has stated that he did not deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of properties in question and still in the possession of the same. This Court is of the Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:33:58 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 13/17 considered view that in his cross-examination, defendant no. 3/DW-3 has admitted that possession of the property in question i.e. basement was with initial plaintiff Gurdeep Singh in 1997 and now the same is with the LRs of initial plaintiff. In view of the same, it is clear that plaintiff is in possession of property in question i.e. basement. So far the first floor of the property is concerned, sale deed qua the same was executed in favour of defendant no. 2 and during the proceedings of the present suit, plaintiff and defendant no. 2 settled the matter. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
33. Issue No. (5) Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon defendants as in written statement, plea has been taken that plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit. It is submitted that plaintiff sold the property after receipt of consideration amount and as per his free will. This Court is of the considered view that qua sale deed Ex.PW1/A, matter has been settled between plaintiff and defendant no. 2. So far the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 3 Ex.PW2/1 is concerned, said document mentions that Rs. 1 Lac were paid as consideration amount by defendant no. 3 and in view of discussion in issue no. 1 and 3, it has been proved that no coercion was exercised upon initial plaintiff no. 1 Gurdeep Singh Dang for execution of said document and he executed the same as per his free will. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no. 3 and against plaintiff.
Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.05.18 16:34:06 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 14/17
34. Issue No. (6) Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no. 1 and non-joinder of Sh. Darshan Gandhi? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon defendants as in written statement, plea has been taken that suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no. 1 and non-joinder of husband of defendant no. 2/Sh. Darshan Gandhi. Now we will see that what is the effect of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The relevant provision in this regard is mentioned in Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. As per Order 1 Rule 9 CPC "No suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it:
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party".
35. This Court is of the considered view that in view of above provision, it is clear that a suit is not defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of a party unless and until said party is a necessary party. In number of cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has interpreted the term "necessary party". In case titled "Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 384, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "a necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court". In view of this Court, in the present matter relief is being sought qua sale deeds executed in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3. This Court is of the considered view that defendant no. 1 and husband of defendant no. 2 are not the Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:34:15 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 15/17 necessary party as no relief is being sought against them, so their mis-joinder or non-joinder does not defeat the suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
36. Issue No. (7) Whether plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon defendants. In written statement, it is submitted that plaintiff has concealed the material facts. In view of the discussion in issue no. 1 and 3, it is clear that plaintiff has not revealed the truth before the Court. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of defendant no. 3 and against plaintiff.
37. Relief In view of aforementioned discussion, qua sale deed registered vide registration no. 296, addl. book no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 125-131 in respect of first floor of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 2 (Ex.PW1/A), plaintiff and defendant no. 2 have settled the matter on 09.02.2024. So, the issue regarding the sale deed Ex.PW1/A was resolved by parties themselves. Accordingly, qua said sale deed, compromise decree be drawn. Application under order 23 Rule 3 CPC Ex.C1, compromise deed/MOU dated 27.01.2024 Ex.C2 and statement of parties and their counsel recorded on 09.02.2024 shall form part of the said compromise decree.
38. In respect of sale deed registered vide registration no. 297, addl. book Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:34:23 +0530 Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 16/17 no. 1, vol. no. 8651 at page no. 132-139 in respect of basement of property bearing no. G-76A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 3 (Ex.PW2/1), plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and accordingly, qua said sale deed, suit is dismissed with no order as to cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.05.18 16:34:31 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Dharmender Singh) on this 18th day of May, 2024. District Judge-01, (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Civ DJ 9951/16 Gurdeep Singh Dang Vs. Raj Kumar Kohli 17/17