Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal (Deceased Through ... vs Digitally on 18 July, 2018
In the court of Sh. Munish Markan, Additional District Judge01,
(South) District Courts, Saket, New Delhi
CS no.208843/16
CNR no.DLST010039852016
1.Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal (Deceased through his LRs)
(a) Mrs. Veena Mittal (Widow)
(b) Mr. Saumitra Mittal (Son)
(c) Mr. Debu Mittal (Son) All heirs of Late Sh. Ram
(d) Mrs. Sonal Mittal (Daughter) Kumar Mittal Wife of Sh. Saurabh Gupta All residents of: A25, East of Kailash, New Delhi110065 ..... Plaintiffs Versus Digitally signed by
1. Union of India MUNISH Through its Secretary MUNISH MARKAN Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, MARKAN Date:
2018.07.20 Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi11001 17:07:18 +0530
2. M/s. India Oil Corporation Through its General Manager 10C, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi
3. M/s. Qutub Service Station (Erstwhile M/s. Mittal Service Station) Through Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain Opposite STC and MMTC Housing Colony, Near Adhchini Village, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi110017 CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 1 of 33
4. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain Of M/s. Qutub Service Station (Erstwhile M/s. Mittal Service Station) Opposite STC and MMTC Housing Colony, Near Adhchini Village, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi110017 ........... Defendants Date of institution : 12.08.2002 Date reserved for judgment : 31.05.2018 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.07.2018 Decision : Dismissed Suit for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and for rendition of accounts in respect of partnership firm M/s. Qutab Service Station (Erstwhile Mittal Service Station)/ defendant no.3 in which the plaintiff claims to be partner alongwith defendant no.4 and the said partnership carried out the business of running a petrol pump allotted by defendant no.2/ Indian Oil Corporation.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that in the year 1971, he alongwith his late brother Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal were allotted a petrol pump in the name of their partnership firm known as M/s. Mittal Service Station, by the defendant no.2/ Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) on leased premises at Mehrauli Road, New Delhi under the unemployed Engineers Scheme enforcement. Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal died on 28.07.1972 and on CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 2 of 33 his death, said partnership firm stood dissolved and to get the dealership/distributorship continued, there was need to form a new partnership firm and at the instance of then officer of defendant no.2/ IOC, defendant no.4 was reluctantly inducted as a new partner in the firm, though defendant no.4 was not known to the plaintiff prior to his inclusion as partner. New partnership deed was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 and a new agreement was also executed with defendant no.2 as well.
3. Plaintiff further stated that after some time, the defendant no.4 started playing fraud upon the plaintiff in clandestine manner and at one time, the plaintiff was physically ousted from the petrol pump premises flouting the terms of the agreement with defendant no.2/ IOCL. Plaintiff made several complaints to the concerned police station on account of threat received from the defendant no.4. The plaintiff asked for rendition of accounts for the same and to withdraw his share of the profits but defendant no.4 failed to do same.
4. Plaintiff further stated that after induction of the defendant no.4 as a new partner, defendant no.4 under duress got the some blank papers signed from the plaintiff which were never signed by him under good conscience but the plaintiff continued to remain a partner in the firm for 50% share till date. After some time, plaintiff was physically ousted by defendant no.4, and in connivance with the officials of defendant no.2, defendant no.4 changed the name of the firm to M/s. Qutab Service Station. Plaintiff never signed any papers for change of the name of the firm and apprehends the use of said blank papers by the defendant no.4. Plaintiff CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 3 of 33 sent several letters and reminders to defendants and notices but to no avail. The firm i.e. defendant no.3 was required to comply with all the regulations and was required to perform all the directions/ rules of the defendant no.2 but the same were flouted by defendant no.4 in connivance with the officials of defendant no.2. Defendant no.4 also changed the display exhibits committing breach of the dealer agreement dated 02.04.1979. Since the distributorship of the outlet was to a partnership firm, it could never be changed to partnership and such change done by the defendants is illegal.
5. Plaintiff further stated that the defendant no.1 and 2 were under legal obligation to follow the policy and other procedures for doing the change in the constitution of the allotted dealership but it was not done. The officials of defendant no.2 are continuously supplying the goods to the outlet in connivance with defendant no.4. Plaintiff served notices dated 11.06.2001, 03.09.2001 and 24.01.2002 upon the defendants which were replied by defendant no.2 to 4 who filed flimsy replies relying on forged and fabricated documents. The plaintiff never signed any document to change the constitution of the firm or name of the firm or to withdraw from the firm. Plaintiff has 50% share in the property and profits which is not less than Rs.25 Lacs for which the defendant no.3 and 4 are liable to render the accounts alongwith interest @24% p.a.. The cause of action is accruing on daily basis.
6. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and prayed for final decree to direct the defendants to make the payment of ascertained amount alongwith interest. The plaintiff CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 4 of 33 also prayed for directing the defendant no.2 to accept him as partner of the firm and deal with him at par in all affairs and functioning of the firm and also prayed for decree against defendant no.4 to allow the plaintiff to associate with the functioning of the firm i.e. defendant no.3 and to visit the site sit, work and look after the affairs of the firm. Plaintiff also prayed for decree to direct defendant no.2 to furnish the supplies of the petroleum products to defendant no.3 & 4 only when the plaintiff too assents and is associated in the functioning of the firm and to look after. Plaintiff prayed for decree to restrain the defendants or anybody on their behalf from breaching the terms and directing them to strictly act in accordance with the provisions of the law. During pendency of suit plaintiff was died and suit continued through his LRs.
7. Defendant no.1 did not file any written statement and did not contest the suit.
8. Defendant no.3 and 4 who are the main contesting defendants filed the written statement wherein they stated that plaintiff has deliberately kept the plaint vague and evasive in respect of the material particulars and relevant dates. The plot of land on which the petrol pump is situated is owned/ leased by defendant no.2 /Indian Oil Corporation. They admitted that originally M/s Mittal Service Station comprised plaintiff and his brother Sh.R. S. Mittal who were granted a retail dealership to run the business of retail and sale of the petroleum products. They also admitted that Sh.R. S. Mittal died in the year 1972 and vide letter dated 09.09.1974, plaintiff requested the defendant no.2/IOC for reconstitution of the partnership firm with defendant no.4 as a 50% partner which request was CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 5 of 33 acceded by the defendant no.2/IOC vide letter dated 17.02.1975. Pursuant thereto, a fresh retail outlet dealership agreement dated 02.04.1979 was executed on the one hand, by the IOC and on the other, by the plaintiff and defendant no.4 who became equal partners of M/s Mittal Service Station.
9. Defendants no.3 and 4 further stated that in the year 1983/84, differences arose between the plaintiff and defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 decided to voluntarily retire from the partnership firm and which fact was confirmed by the plaintiff and defendant no.4 to the IOC/defendant no.2 vide letter dated 20.02.1984. Plaintiff reiterated the fact of his retirement in his communication to IOC on 22.02.1984. Therefore, a request was made to IOC to reconstitute/ dissolution of the dealership. Defendant no.2/ IOC vide letter dated 08.05.1984 asked the plaintiff and defendant no.4 to meet DGM (Sales) Sh.K. K. Mishra in this regard and accordingly, they met Sh.Mishra. On 06.08.1984, the IOC communicated its approval for the re constitution subject to fulfilment of the formalities namely the Dissolution Deed, Indemnity Bond and fresh agreement being executed. Plaintiff signed the Deed of Dissolution dated 07.08.1984 and also executed the Indemnity Bond dated 08.08.1984 to which brotherinlaw of plaintiff signed as a witness and dissolution was acknowledged and approved by IOC/ defendant no.2 vide letter dated 31.08.1984. Vide said Deed of Dissolution, the plaintiff not only resigned as the dealer of IOC but also surrendered all his rights in the affairs of the M/s Mittal Service Station and retired from the partnership firm and also received full and final payment of all his balance in capital and other accounts in the firm and no amount was due and payable to him pursuant to the dissolution. Plaintiff CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 6 of 33 relinquished all his rights and interests in respect of the dealership in favour of defendant no.4 and thereafter defendant no.4 was at liberty to carry out the business of the dealership of Indian Oil at the same premises, under whatever name and had taken over all the assets and rights of dissolved firm.
10. Defendants further stated that subsequently, a fresh dealership agreement dated 27.08.1984 was executed between the defendant no.2 IOC and defendant no.4 for running of the service station which was confirmed by the IOC vide letter dated 31.08.1984. Defendant no.4 got changed the name of the firm to M/s Qutab Service Station after approval from IOC and again fresh dealership agreement dated 09.11.1984 was executed between the IOC and M/s Qutab Service Station through defendant no.4 which was confirmed vide letter dated 12.11.1984 of the IOC. A public notice dated 29.11.1984, as desired by the IOC vide letter dated 12.11.1984, was also issued regarding renaming of the service station.
11. Defendant no.3 and 4 further stated that in the year 1995, plaintiff wanted to induct his wife Ms. Rekha Jain as 35% partner and requested to IOC for reconstitution of proprietorship firm into a partnership which was acceded by IOC vide letter dated 08.05.1995 and a fresh retail outlet dealership agreement dated 08.05.1995 was executed on the one hand by the IOC, and on the other, between defendant no.4 and his wife Ms.Rekha Jain who became the partners. Plaintiff had deliberately omitted to mention these facts and suit has been filed after expiry of period of limitation as the same is not maintainable as filed after a period of 18 years just to harass the defendants as the cause of action would have arisen CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 7 of 33 on the dissolution of the firm in the year 1984 whereas the present suit has been filed in the year 2002 and it is for this reason that the material pleadings were kept vague by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and concealed the material facts that in the year 1983, in respect of the same subject matter, plaintiff had filed another suit No.145/10 for permanent injunction against defendant no.4 which was unconditionally withdrawn on 01.02.1984 and this fact was acknowledged by the plaintiff in a communication sent by him to the IOC dated 22.02.1984 and therefore, the plaintiff is barred from seeking the similar relief in respect of the same subject matter. Suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Defendants denied that plaintiff was ever physically ousted from the premises of the petrol pump or defendant no.4 flouted the terms of the agreement. They further denied that certain blank papers were signed from the plaintiff under duress. They denied any connivance with the officer of defendant no.2/IOC in changing the name.
12. Defendants no.3 and 4 admitted the receipt of notices dated 11.06.1002 and 24.01.2002 sent by the plaintiff which were replied by the defendant no.4 vide reply dated 20.06.2002 and 22.03.2002. Defendant no.4 has not received any other communication from the plaintiff subsequent to his retirement from partnership firm. After dissolution of the firm and retirement of the plaintiff, defendant no.4 became the sole proprietor of the said firm as the plaintiff had ceased to be a partner of the firm. Defendants always complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement with defendant no.2 and the rules and regulations thereunder in CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 8 of 33 carrying out the business of the dealership. The name of the partnership firm was changed in the year 1984 after the plaintiff ceased to be a partner and therefore there is no possibility of any collusion. Defendant no.4 is a qualified engineer. Defendant no.4 and defendant no.2 entered into dealership agreement on 27.08.1984 and 09.11.1984 and subsequently dealership agreement dated 08.05.1995 was executed between defendant no.4 and his wife and defendant no.2 /IOC after fulfilling all the necessary formalities. The defendants have not received any notice dated 03.09.2001. Therefore, the defendants stated that no question arises to render any account or to share any profits with the plaintiff and the plaintiff does not have any right to visit and to lookafter the affairs of defendant no.3 & 4 and no case is made out for restraining the defendants as plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. The plaintiff has filed the present suit only to harass the defendant and to extort money. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
13. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant no.3 & 4 and reiterated his case as made out in the plaint. Plaintiff stated that he never sought any appointment nor met any DGM K.K. Mishra as alleged by IOC. Plaintiff was not paid any amount and never agreed to relinquish his rights in the partnership firm and no dealership dated 27.08.1984 binds the plaintiff. Defendant no.4 got the signatures from brotherinlaw of the plaintiff namely Sh.Ramesh Chand Gupta as a witness as he knows that plaintiff was not in talking terms with his brotherinlaw. Earlier the suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendant no.4 from forcibly taking the possession of the petrol pump or to CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 9 of 33 forcibly oust the plaintiff from the business and not to interfere in the running of the business and there is no bar from filing of present suit. The deed of dissolution, indemnity bond etc. were got signed by defendant no.4 in duress and threat of dire consequences as the plaintiff never signed the same except the blank papers.
14. Written statement filed by defendant no.2/ Indian Oil Corporation of India. Defendant no.2 stated that the suit is not maintainable and defendant no.2 is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and the plaintiff does not have any cause of action against the defendant no.2 and the suit is barred by time and the plaintiff concealed the material facts. It admitted allotment of the dealership to the plaintiff and Sh. R.S. Mittal on 27.04.1971 under the name and style of M/s Mittal Service Station partnership firm under the Unemployed Graduate Scheme. It denied that defendant no.4 was inducted as a new partner at the instance of then official of defendant no.2 and was reluctantly inducted as a new partner. After the death of Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal on 28.07.1972, reconstitution request dated 09.09.1974 was received from the plaintiff which the plaintiff submitted. The plaintiff and defendant no.4 had also given an affidavit dated 18.09.1975 to reflect that the partnership between them was executed at their own accord and without any influence or interference whatsoever.
15. Defendant no.2 admitted dealership agreement dated 02.04.1979. It further stated that legal notice dated 21.04.1983 was received by defendant no.2/ IOC from defendant no.4 informing about the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 including filing of the suit by the plaintiff against defendant no.4. This was replied by defendant no.2/ CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 10 of 33 IOC vide letter dated 05.05.1983. Later on, IOC got the information vide letter dated 20.02.1984 that the suit was withdrawn and the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to retire from the dealership in favour of defendant no.4. Plaintiff wrote letters dated 20.02.1984 and 22.02.1984 and voluntarily retired from the partnership firm and the deed of dissolution of partnership dated 07.08.1984 was submitted to the defendant IOC. Subsequently, fresh dealership deed was executed between the defendant No.2/ IOC and the defendant no.4. At the request of defendant no.4, name of firm was changed to M/s. Qutab Service Station vide approval letter dated 12.11.1984. Defendant no.2 denied any connivance and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
16. Plaintiff filed Replication to the written statement of defendant no.2 and reiterated his stand as made out in the plaint and further stated that defendant no.4 made the plaintiff to believe that the dispute will be referred to the arbitrator and for this reason, the plaintiff withdrew the said suit for perpetual injunction. Further the letter dated 20.02.1984 is not free from coercion, duress or any influence and the letter does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff and the same is false and fabricated document. The plaintiff denied that he wrote letter dated 20.02.1984 and 22.02.1984 to defendant no.2. He denied that deed of dissolution dated 07.08.1984 or any other document was submitted to defendant no.2/IOC. The defendant no.4 filed those documents and the plaintiff never signed any such document with his consent and therefore plaintiff remains as a partner in the firm with his 50% shares. Plaintiff further stated that he had filed the suit after gap of 18 years as he has been CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 11 of 33 requesting for his 50% shares from the defendant no.4 and the defendant no.4 himself requested to refer the matter to the arbitration. Plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit. Defendant no.4 forced the plaintiff to sign some blank papers and used them for plaintiff's voluntarily retirement, dissolution of partnership etc. The defendant cannot change the constitution of the firm from partnership to dealership as the Unemployed Graduate Engineers Partnership scheme is still in force.
17. During admission/denial of documents, plaintiff admitted four documents filed by the defendant which were exhibited as follows (later on vide order dated 03.12.2005, two of the said documents Ex.D3/1 and Ex.D3/2 were deexhibited):
I) Ex.D2/1 Letter dated 09.09.1974 written by plaintiff to defendant no.2/IOC.
ii) Ex.D2/2 - Partnership deed dated 25.10.1974 between plaintiff and defendant no.4.
iii) Ex.D2/3 - Indemnity Bond executed by M/s Mittal Service Station in favour of defendant no.2 IOC.
iv) Ex.D3/3 - Letter dated 09.09.1974 written by plaintiff to defendant no.2 IOC regarding reconstitution of the firm to include defendant no.4.
Defendant no.3 and 4 admitted following 8 documents of defendant no.2, apart from Ex.P2 to Ex.P6.
Ex.D2/1 Letter dated 09.09.1974 sent by plaintiff to IOC. Ex.D2/2 Partnership Deed dated 25.10.1974 between plaintiff and defendant no.4.
Ex.D2/3 Indemnity Bond given by M/s Mittal Service Station to CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 12 of 33 defendant no.2 IOC.
Ex.D2/4 Letter dated 21.04.1983 written by defendant no.4 to defendant no.2 IOC complaining about filing of suit.
Ex.D2/5 Letter dated 27.02.1984 written defendant no.4 to defendant no.2 regarding retirement of plaintiff.
Ex.D2/6 Dissolution Deed dated 07.08.1984. Ex.D2/7 Affidavit of plaintiff dated 22.09.1975. Ex.D2/8 Indemnity Bond given by plaintiff and defendant no.4 to
defendant no.2 on retirement and Dissolution of firm.
18. Defendant no.2 admitted the following 5 documents filed by plaintiff which are as under:
Ex.P1 Interview letter dated 20.02.1971,
Ex.P2 Partnership Deed dated 25.10.1974 between plaintiff
and defendant no.4.
Ex.P3 Tripartite Agreement dated 02.04.1979 between
plaintiff, defendant no.4 and defendant no.2 IOC.
Ex.P6 Legal notice dated 24.01.2001 sent by the plaintiff to all
the 4 defendants.
19. Defendant no.2 also admitted the following 4 documents of defendants no.3 and 4:
Ex.D3/4 Letter dated 08.05.1984 written by defendant no.2 IOC to the plaintiff and defendant no.4 to meet its official Sh.K. K. Mishra. Ex.D3/5 Letter dated 06.08.1984 written by IOC to M/s Mittal Service Station regarding approval for reconstitution.CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 13 of 33
Ex.D3/6 Letter dated 31.08.1984 written by defendant no.2 IOC to M/s Mittal Service Station regarding change in constitution. Ex.D3/7 Memorandum of Agreement dated 27.08.1984 between defendant no.4 and defendant no.2 IOC.
20. Defendant no.3 and 4 admitted Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P6 and also admitted following documents:
1.Ex.P4 Notice dated 11.06.2001 sent by plaintiff to defendant no.4 (Ex.PW1/5).
2.Ex.P5 Reply dated 20.06.2001 sent by defendant no.4 to plaintiff counsel (Ex.DW3/9 and Ex.PW1/11).
Ex.P1 is the Interview Letter dated 20.02.1971.
Ex.P2 is the Partnership Deed dated 25.10.1974 between the plaintiff and defendant no.4.
Ex.P3 is the memorandum of agreement dated 02.04.1979 executed between the plaintiff, defendant no.4 and the officials of defendant no.2.
Ex.D3/1 is the memorandum of agreement dated 01.02.1972 executed between the plaintiff and his brother Sh.Radhey Shyam Mittal on one hand and IOC on the other hand and also another letter dated 17.02.1975 written by the defendant no.2 IOC to M/s Mittal Service Station conveying its approval in the change in the constitution of the firm.
Ex.D3/2 is the Deed of Dissolution dated 07.08.1984 executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 (Ex.D2/6).
21. From the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed. ISSUES CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 14 of 33
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD
3. Whether the suit for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction is maintainable against the defendant no.2. OPD2
4. Whether the defendants are liable to render the accounts as prayed for by the plaintiff? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction and other reliefs? OPP
6. Relief.
22. During plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff examined 7 witnesses. PW1 Sh.Ram Kumar Mittal tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW 1/13.
Ex.PW1/1 is the letter dated 22.09.1975 written by the plaintiff to the defendant no.2 regarding reconstitution of the dealership.
Ex.PW1/2 is the affidavit of plaintiff.
Ex.PW1/3 (colly) are the letters dated 25.03.1983, 02.04.1983 and 24.11.1983 written by plaintiff to the officials of defendant no.2 IOC. It also includes the letters dated 07.07.1983 written by the plaintiff to the defendant no.4 and includes the postal receipts and AD cards.
Ex.PW1/4 (colly) are the letters written by the plaintiff to Minister of State, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India received on 28.10.2000, letter dated 27.10.2000 sent to defendant no.2 and received on 28.10.2000, another letter dated 28.10.2000 sent to defendant no.2 and received on 23.11.2000, another letter received by defendant no.2 on 13.12.2000, other two letters received by defendant no.2 on 15.02.2001 CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 15 of 33 and 19.03.2001 both sent by the plaintiff.
Ex.PW1/5 is the legal notice dated 11.06.2001 sent by the plaintiff counsel to the defendant no.4 which is also Ex.P4.
Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 are the copies of the forwarding letter and the present plaint sent by the plaintiff through her counsel to defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 on 05.09.2001 and Ex.PW1/8 are the postal receipts in this regard.
Ex.PW1/9 is the legal notice dated 24.01.2001 sent by the plaintiff to all the 4 defendants, which is also Ex.P6 and sent through postal receipts Ex.PW1/10.
Ex.PW1/11 which is also Ex.P5 is the reply dated 20.06.2001 sent by defendant no.4 to the Advocate of the plaintiff.
Ex.PW1/12 is the reply sent by the defendant no.2 dated 10.02.2012 to the counsel for plaintiff.
Ex.PW1/13, Ex.PW9/A to D and Ex.PW8/A to E are the medical records of the plaintiff.
Ex.PW1/14 (colly) is the letter dated 06.06.2003 written by the plaintiff to the Manager of the Syndicate bank along with postal receipt.
Ex.PW1/15 is the letter dated 02.04.1983 written by Syndicate Bank to M/s Mittal Service Station.
23. PW2 Sh.Ramanand Yadav who worked as Ex Senior Salesman at M/s Mittal Service Station tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/A and deposed that he was threatened by defendant no.4 to work as per his dictates and no payment from the collection from the service station were given to the plaintiff. He deposed that defendant no.4 was quarrelsome and CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 16 of 33 tampered the machines and lodged a false complaint with the police to falsely implicate the plaintiff. PW3 Sh.Shiv Kumar Yadav another Ex Salesman at the Service Station tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW3/A which is almost verbatim as that of PW2. Though the affidavits of PW4 Sh.Mahender Singh and PW5 Sh. Gyan Chand were filed but they were not examined. PW6 Sh.Rattan Lal Gupta who was one of the named Arbitrator in the Partnership Deed dated 25.10.1974 between the plaintiff and the defendant no.4 tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW6/A.
24. During defendant evidence, defendant no.4 who is the main contesting defendant tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW3/A and relied upon documents Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/9.
Ex.DW3/P2 is the indemnity letter written by the Mittal Service Station signed by plaintiff and defendant no.4 and written to defendant no.2 IOC indemnifying the defendant no.2 IOC on account of retirement of plaintiff no.1 and consequent dissolution of the firm.
Ex.DW3/2 is the indemnity letter dated 26.10.1984 written by defendant no.4 to defendant no.2 for change of the name of the firm.
Ex.DW3/5 is the public notification dated 29.11.1984. Ex.DW3/6 is the letter dated 08.05.1995 written by defendant no.2 to defendant no.3 approving the induction of Smt. Rekha Jain as a partner.
Ex.DW3/7 is the Memorandum of Agreement dated 08.05.1995 between the defendant no.4 and his wife and defendant no.2.
Ex.DW3/8 is the copy of the part order of dismissal of the suit no.145/1983.
CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 17 of 3325. Further, defendant no.2/IOC examined only one witness DW2 Sh.Dalip Rangwani, Deputy Manager LPG Sales (IOC) who tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW2/A and relied upon the documents as Ex.D2/1 to Ex.D2/10.
26. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The issue wise findings of the court are as under:
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
ISSUE No.2
2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD
27. The plaintiff has filed the present suit wherein he has prayed for decree of rendition of account to ascertain his share and for the payment of the said amount along with interest and has also prayed to direct defendant no.2 /IOC to accept the plaintiff as partner of the firm and to deal with him at par with the defendant no.4 with a further prayer to direct defendant no.4 to allow the plaintiff to participate in the affairs of defendant no.3 firm. Plaintiff has also prayed for directing the defendant no.2/ IOC to supply the products to defendant no.3 firm only when the plaintiff is associated with the functioning of the said service station. In the alternative, plaintiff has prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant or anybody on their behalf from breaching legal obligations and to act in accordance with the provisions of law.
28. As far as defendants no.3 and 4 are concerned, defendant no.4 is representing defendant no.3 firm. The main dispute of the plaintiff is with them. The service station which is at the heart of the dispute between CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 18 of 33 the parties is admittedly owned and controlled by defendant no.2/ IOC and there cannot be any dispute that IOC is also a necessary party. The only issue regarding the misjoinder raised by the defendant no.4 is impleading defendant no.1 i.e. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. It was argued by ld. Counsel for defendants that plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that he has not claimed for rendition of account against defendant no.2 /IOCL. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that suit has been filed against all the 4 defendants who are necessary party to adjudicate all the issues pressed by the plaintiff.
29. Defendant no.1 had not contested the suit and even did not file any written statement. Therefore, to adjudicate the issues in the present case, there was no requirement to implead defendant no.1 and further, the plaintiff has also not claimed any relief against defendant no.1. Therefore, as far as the impleadment of defendant no.1 is concerned, it is held that defendant no.1 was neither a necessary party nor a proper party. However, since none had contested the suit on behalf of defendant no.1, the impleadment of defendant no.1 though wrongly, has no effect on the final outcome of the case. Therefore, it is held that defendant no.1 is an unnecessary party and therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE No.3
3. Whether the suit for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction is maintainable against the defendant no.2. OPD2
30. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no.2 and the question of maintainability has to be addressed by taking into account the CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 19 of 33 averments made in the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that defendant no.2 had allotted a petrol pump retail outlet to the plaintiff and his brother Late Sh.Radhey Shyam Mittal way back in the year 1971 and after the death of his brother Late Sh.Radhey Shyam Mittal on 28.07.1972, at the insistence of defendant no.2, a new partnership was formed between plaintiff and defendant no.4 and a fresh agreement was executed by the firm with defendant no.2 IOCL. The plaintiff has alleged that after some time, the defendant no.4 started playing fraud upon him in clandestine manner and physically ousted him from petrol pump violating the terms of the agreement with defendant no.2. Plaintiff has also alleged that defendant no.4 and the officials of plaintiff no.2 colluded and defendant no.4 got changed the name of the service station and the defendant no.4 misused the blank papers which were got signed by him under duress and it was the responsibility of defendant no.2 to maintain the retail outlet in proper working condition and its assets. The plaintiff has further alleged that defendant no.4 got the partnership changed into proprietorship and the defendant no.2 to 4 did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement and plaintiff had also prayed in the prayer clause to direct the defendant no.2 to accept the plaintiff as partner in the firm and to deal with him at par with defendant no.4. Plaintiff has also prayed to direct the defendant no.2 to supply the products to defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 only when the plaintiff participates in the affairs /functioning of the firm.
Therefore, from the averments in the plaint, it is clear that petrol pump of the defendant no.2 which has been allotted by the defendant no.2, initially to the partnership firm in which the plaintiff was the one of CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 20 of 33 the partners and later on, to defendant no.4 as a proprietorship and subsequently as a partner, the defendant no.2 is having control over the affairs of the defendant no.3 firm under the partnership of defendant no.4. Combined reading of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint reflect that plaintiff is not only seeking the rendition of account but also has sought the injunction to direct the defendant no.2 IOC to supply the material to the firm defendant no.3 only if plaintiff is treated at par with defendant no.4.
31. Whether the plaintiff succeeds in his claims, has been separately dealt with while decided in issue no.4 and 5 but on the face of it, perusal of the plaint reflects that in order to adjudicate all the aspects relevant to the dealership and issues raised by the plaintiff in the plaint, the defendant no.2 is a necessary party and since certain reliefs have been sought by the plaintiff against defendant no.2 too, the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable against defendant no.2 /IOC as well. Merely because the PW1 during his cross examination has stated that his claim for rendition of account is not made out against the IOCL does not mean that defendant no.2 /IOCL should not be impleaded as a party. The suit is very much maintainable against the defendant no.2. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ISSUE No.4 and 5.
Whether the defendants are liable to render the accounts as prayed for by the plaintiff? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction and other reliefs? OPP CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 21 of 33
32. It is admitted fact that initially petrol pump retail outlet was allotted by defendant no.2 to partnership firm comprising of plaintiff and his brother Sh.Radhey Shyam Mittal vide memorandum of agreement dated 01.02.1972 Ex.D3/1. The death of Sh.Radhey Shyam Mittal on 28.07.1972 is also not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of Sh.Radhey Shyam Mittal, defendant no.4 was inducted as a partner in the firm M/s Mittal Service Station. Though, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the name of defendant no.4 Sh.Dinesh Kumar Jain was recommended by the officials of the IOC which fact has been disputed by the defendant no.4. However, this is irrelevant as far as the present controversy and its outcome are concerned. Plaintiff had admitted that defendant no.4 was inducted as a partner. It is also an admitted fact that plaintiff and defendant no.4 had re constituted the partnership firm and partnership deed Ex.P2 dated 25.10.1974 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 and memorandum of agreement dated 02.04.1979 Ex.P3 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 on one hand and defendant no.2 IOC on the other.
33. It is also admitted fact that thereafter, differences arose between the partners though the version of plaintiff and defendant no.4 are different in this regard. The plaintiff has also alleged that after the execution of the agreement dated 02.04.1979 Ex.P3, defendant no.4 started playing fraud upon him in clandestine manner and ultimately physically ousted him from the premises of the retail outlet petrol pump at Mehrauli Road, New Delhi and under duress, got some blank papers signed from him which were later on misused as Dissolution Deed and documents CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 22 of 33 regarding change of constitution of the firm and other letters dated 20.02.1984 and 22.02.1984.
34. On the other hand, the stand of the defendant no.4 is that due to differences, the plaintiff, in the year 198384 voluntarily decided to retire from the firm and wrote letters to the IOC/ defendant no.2 vide letters dated 20.02.1984 and 22.02.1984. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4 had argued that plaintiff executed the Deed of Dissolution dated 07.08.1984 Ex.D2/6, Indemnity affidavit Ex.D2/8 and resigned from the partnership firm and surrendered all his rights and interest therein and all accounts were settled with the plaintiff and a sham defence has been taken by the plaintiff regarding blank papers as an after thought. He further argued that the plaintiff kept quiet for a period of more than 18 years and suit has been filed in the year 2002 just to harass the defendant no.4 and extort money from him. He further argued that even if the version of the plaintiff is admitted, he claims to have signed all blank papers whereas the Deed of Dissolution and other documents show that these are the stamp papers which were signed by the plaintiff himself and no complaints were made by the plaintiff to any authority including defendant no.2 /IOC at any point of time.
35. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further argued that a sham plea of duress has been taken by the plaintiff without explaining the attending circumstances, the place and the manner in which the duress is alleged to be exercised by the defendant no.4 upon the plaintiff.
In this regard, it is worthwhile to look into the various documents which are alleged to be executed by the plaintiff at the time of CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 23 of 33 alleged Dissolution Deed. Ex.D2/6 is the Deed of Dissolution dated 07.08.1984. It is a two page document and the first page is a stamp paper of Rs.10/. Both the pages bear the signatures of plaintiff and defendant no.4 not only at the bottom but on the left margin perpendicular to the bottom signature as well. This stamp paper was issued on 27.02.1984 as seen from the back side of the stamp paper and it has been duly attested by a notary and it bears the signatures of one witness Sh.Ramesh Chand Gupta. Perusal of this document Ex.D2/6 nowhere suggests that the signatures of the plaintiff has been done under duress for the simple reason that ordinarily if a person is asked to sign under some duress, generally the signatures are taken at a particular place i.e. at the bottom of the document and it is highly improbable that under duress, a person is asked to sign at the left side margin of the document perpendicular to the signatures at the bottom.
36. Further, the plaintiff has failed to point out as to what was the duress under which he was forced to sign, what was the time and the place when he was forced to sign these documents, whether any person was present or not present at the time of such execution, whether any action was taken by the plaintiff after the signing of the said documents, what was the kind of threat given by the defendant no.4 when the plaintiff was forced to sign these documents. The plaint as well as the testimony of the plaintiff and testimony of the plaintiff witnesses are silent on these material questions. Merely alleging that plaintiff signed certain documents under duress is an unbelievable self serving plea devoid of any merit. This needs to be appreciated in the backdrop of the fact that in the year 198384 itself before the execution of the dissolution deed, the plaintiff had filed a civil CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 24 of 33 suit against the defendant no.4 and the said civil suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff prior to dissolution of the firm. The very fact that plaintiff has filed a suit against defendant no.4 during that period is indicative of the fact that plaintiff is not a novice who does not know the ramifications of signing certain blank (Stamp) papers. Plaintiff is a man of ordinary prudence, in fact more than that and this fact is further accentuated by looking into plaint where the plaintiff has kept the material dates completely vague and in most of the paragraphs in the plaint, he has used the expression "after some time" without specifying the material dates. Not only that, the plaintiff has not even cited as to on which date he was physically ousted. He has also failed to specify the date on which was made to sign some blank papers.
37. Apart from Deed of Dissolution Ex.D2/6, the plaintiff had also executed the indemnity bond Ex.D2/8 along with defendant no.4 which is a three page document, two of which are stamp paper of Rs.20/ and Rs.5/. In the same manner, Ex.D2/8 not only bears the signatures of both the parties at bottom of all pages but also the signatures of the plaintiff as well as defendant no.4 at the left side margin perpendicular to the signatures at the bottom. It will be too novice to accept the stand taken by the plaintiff that he signed these documents under duress at an undisclosed time and place and circumstances. These documents Ex.D2/6 and Ex.D 2/8 are all duly notarized and plaintiff has not bothered to examine the notary to disprove his signatures on these documents.
38. Therefore, in the given facts circumstances, the stand taken by the plaintiff is completely unbelievable and the documents Ex.D2/6 and CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 25 of 33 Ex.D2/8 are held to have been executed properly by the plaintiff and defendant no.4. Not only that, Ex.D2/5 is the letter dated 27.02.1984 written by the defendant no.4 to the General Divisional Manager of IOC/ defendant no.2 informing about the intention of plaintiff to retire from the firm and requesting to accept the resignation of the plaintiff and seeking permission to carry the business as sole proprietor of the firm. It also requested to run the business under the name and style of Qutab Service Station. Sending of this letter by defendant no.4 to the IOC in February 1984 explains the date of the issuance of stamp papers i.e. 27.02.1984 for the execution of the Dissolution Deed. Therefore, the stand of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that stamp papers were issued in February but Dissolution Deed was executed in August 1984 smacks of suspicion is negated.
39. Further, the stand of the plaintiff is that partnership between him and defendant no.4 was governed by the partnership deed Ex.P2 and as clause 9 thereof stipulated that the partnership business is at will and can be dissolved by any party by serving three months notice in writing on the other partner and on the termination of the notice period, the said partnership shall be deemed to be dissolved. He argued that non compliance of the said clause is indicative of the fact that plaintiff is still the partner of the firm and the partnership did not dissolve. However, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff by his own conduct has waived this condition by executing the deed of dissolution Ex.D2/6.
40. The terms of the partnership deed Ex.P2 express the will of CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 26 of 33 the parties and it was open to both the parties to change the said terms or to act in concert to alter the import of the said clauses. Things would have been different had there been no document to prove the factum of dissolution of the firm. Once the plaintiff himself has executed the deed of dissolution Ex.D2/6, it impliedly reflects that the parties had agreed to waive of the condition of three months notice in writing. Therefore, considering the prior as well as subsequent conduct of the plaintiff from the dissolution deed Ex.D2/6, it is clear that plaintiff and defendant no.4 had agreed to waive the said condition and noncompliance thereof does not in any manner affect the defence of the defendant no.4. Accepting the stand of the plaintiff in this regard shall tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to blow hot and cold in the same breath which is not permissible in law as well as in equity.
41. Further, there is nothing on record that after the year 1984, the plaintiff took any steps to claim his share or to agitate his rights in the retail outlet. The plaintiff woke up after the dissolution of the firm only in the year 2000. Ex.PW1/4 (colly) are bunch of different letters written by the plaintiff to Minister of State, Petroleum and Natural Gas and Parliamentary Affairs and IOC which were received on 28.10.2000, 23.11.2000, and 13.12.2000. In this letter which was received on 28.10.2000 addressed to the Minister of State, plaintiff, at the bottom, described himself as EX PARTNER and also mentioned in this letter that the new partner was granted proprietorship. Further, another letter dated 27.10.2000 was written by the plaintiff to the General Manager of defendant no.2 which was received by defendant no.2 on 28.10.2000(part of Ex.PW1/4) and in this CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 27 of 33 letter also, in the end, the plaintiff refers himself as Expartner. There is another letter dated 28.10.2000 again written to the defendant no.2 which was received by defendant no.2 on 23.11.2000 and in this letter too, plaintiff mentioned himself as R. K. Mittal ExPartner. These documents Ex.PW1/4 (colly) which are filed by the plaintiff himself indicate that plaintiff himself was very well aware that he is no longer partner of the firm and plaintiff woke up after a period of more than 16 years.
42. It is the own stand of the plaintiff that he was ousted in the year 1984 as reflected from the letters Ex.P1/4(colly). This being the case, the plaintiff remained silent for a period of about 16 years is clearly indicative that plaintiff was well aware of the fact that he had retired from the firm and had settled his accounts and have nothing to do with the affairs of the firm.
43. Interestingly, legal notice dated 11.06.2001 Ex.P4 sent by Mrs. Rachna Gupta Advocate on behalf of plaintiff to the defendant no.4 is a vague notice without mention of any material dates. Further, even during his crossexamination, plaintiff/PW1 admitted that after his ouster in the year 198383(February 1984), he kept quiet totally till 2000 and did not lodge any protest to IOCL or any complaint to the police nor did he take any legal action in the court of law. PW1 also admitted that he had filed the injunction suit against defendant no.4 in the year 1983 and he withdrew that suit in the year 1984 after defendant no.4 had assured him of his dues and shares and assured him a compromise settlement. PW1 had admitted during his cross examination that in the suit for permanent injunction which was filed by him against the defendant no.4 at Tis Hazari Courts, he had CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 28 of 33 claimed relief to injunct the defendant no.4 from forcibly ousting him from the petrol pump business. PW1 further admitted during his cross examination that his withdrawal statement was unqualified.
44. All this too indicates that plaintiff had himself withdrawn the suit filed by him and retired from the firm after settling his dues. It being the case, he has no concern at all with the firm or its business. Therefore, the question whether the business of the petrol pump could be run by way of partnership or proprietorship was purely a matter between the defendant no.3 and 4 on one hand, and defendant no.2 on the other. Plaintiff having himself voluntarily retired from the firm has no business whatsoever so as to ask about the manner in which the business would/could be run by the defendant no.4. Therefore, the stand of the plaintiff that the original accounts books were not produced by the defendant no.4 despite notice under O.12 R.8 CPC and adverse inference should be drawn for the same, is not legally sustainable.
45. Had the plaintiff been ousted from the petrol pump business, nothing prevented him from approaching him court of law again. The very fact that no complaint or any whisper of protest was made by him for such a long period of 16 years to any authority indicates that plaintiff had voluntarily retired from the business and this fact was admitted by PW1 during his crossexamination wherein he said that all this ouster from business in 1984 he did not lodge any complaint with any authority including the police.
46. Plaintiff has further taken a plea that he has not on good terms with his brotherinlaw Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta after the death of his CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 29 of 33 father in 1972. The deed of dissolution Ex.D2/6 bears the signatures of one Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta as a witness. Considering the overall conduct of the plaintiff and the totality of facts and circumstances, this plea is of no value. Interestingly, plaintiff has also examined one Sh. Ratan Lal as PW6 who during his crossexamination had stated that plaintiff is his brotherin law and his sister is married to him. PW6 further stated that he did not know any person by the name of Mr. Ramesh Chand Gupta. It indicates that not only the testimony of plaintiff is unbelievable but that of PW6 Ratan Lal is also unbelievable. The testimony of PW2 Ramanand Yadav and PW3 Shiv Kumar Yadav does not throw any light as to the core issues in the present suit.
47. Further during the arguments, a plea has been taken by the plaintiff that written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2 Indian Oil Corporation has not been filed by a duly authorized person as no copy of the Board Resolution or Authority Letter has been filed by defendant no.2.
48. Perusal of the written statement reflects that the same has been filed by one Sh. Ravi Prasad, Senior Manager Retail of Indian Oil Corporation. It is not accompanied with any affidavit of Sh. Ravi Prasad. Further defendant no.2 has placed on record photocopy of authority letter Mark X and the power of attorney Mark Y, but these documents were not proved as per law. However, no objection regarding the improper filing of the written statement was taken by the plaintiff in the replication. Neither any issue was framed in this regard. Ordinarily the nonfiling of the authority letter by defendant no.2 would have been fatal to the defence of the defendant but in the present case it will not have any bearing on the CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 30 of 33 defence of the defendants as the dispute is primarily between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 & 4. In his affidavit Ex.DW2/A, DW2 has nowhere stated that as to how did he derive the authority to depose on behalf of defendant no.2 IOC and also he did not file any authority letter therefore, though the defence put up by defendant no.2 is liable to be rejected but it is the defendant no.4 who has mainly contested the suit and has been successfully dislodged the stand of the plaintiff.
49. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case and since it has been held that the plaintiff has himself retired from the business of the firm way back in 1984, no question arises of his having any right to ask the defendant no.3 & 4 to render the accounts of the firm. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have any right to seek any relief of injunction and rendition of accounts as prayed by him. Therefore, both these issues are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
50. As held above, plaintiff himself had ceased to be a partner of the firm vide deed of dissolution Ex.D2/6 dated 07.08.1984. The issue, if any, could have been raised by the plaintiff within a period of three years as far as the relief of rendition of accounts is concerned by virtue of Article 5 of The Limitation Act but the suit has been filed in the year 2002. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had rightly argued that since the suit is barred by limitation therefore the plaintiff deliberately made vague allegations in the CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 31 of 33 plaint without specifying the material dates. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
51. The contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is that it is a continuing cause of action and by virtue of Section 22 of The Limitation Act, since there is a breach of contract and tort being committed by the defendants on day to day basis, the suit is within limitation. However, I find no merit in this contention of the plaintiff as the case of the plaintiff squarely covered by Article 5 of the scheduled to the Limitation Act which provides that the period of limitation starts from the date of dissolution. Therefore, the plaintiff could have filed the suit latest by 06.08.1987 and the present suit is hopelessly barred by time.
52. Not only that, there is another angle to the suit. The plaintiff has claimed to be the partner of the partnership firm and partnership deed between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 is Ex.P2 dated 25.10.1974 and this document shows that the partnership is duly notarized. There is nothing in pleadings or in evidence to suggest that the partnership of which the plaintiff claims to be a partner is a registered one. This being the case, the suit is also hit by Section 69 of The Partnership Act 1932 and on that account also, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Therefore this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants Relief:
53. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, it is clear that plaintiff has filed this frivolous suit after a period of more than 18 years of retiring from the firm and further, litigation dragged on itself for a period of 16 years (this fact is also evident from the examining of PW7 Dr. CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 32 of 33 A.P. Arora, PW8 Dr. Asim K. Katyal and PW9 Dr. Sanjeev Verma who deposed regarding the illness of the plaintiff during different periods of time and their examination had no connection whatsoever with the present case and their testimony was totally irrelevant to the matter before the court.) and therefore not only the defendants were made to undergo rigors of trial for such a long period, but the plaintiff accentuated the frivolous litigation wherein the plaintiff withheld material facts, this is a fit case where the defendants should not only be duly compensated under Section 35A CPC for the false and vexatious litigation but plaintiff should also be burdened with the costs under Section 151 CPC for abusing the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Harish Relan Vs. Kaushal Kumari Relan; 2016 II AD (Delhi) 571 (DB), reiterated in the judgment of Airport Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Hotel Leelaventure Ltd.; 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3882, by virtue of provisions of Section 35, 35A, Order XXA read with Section 151 CPC, plaintiff is also burdened with costs of Rs.50,000/ each to be paid to defendants no.2, 3 & 4.
54. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Plaintiff is also directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/ each to be paid to defendants no.2, 3 & 4. Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 18.07.2018 (Munish Markan) Additional District Judge01 (South) District Courts, Saket, New Delhi CS no.208843/16 R. K. Mittal (through Lrs) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page 33 of 33