Delhi District Court
Cs No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh vs Sunil Kumar Arora) & Dod: 23.12.2014 on 23 December, 2014
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014
CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEI:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.1276/2012
UID No.: 02405C0416302009
In the matter of:
Shri Partap Singh,
S/o Late Shri Chattar Singh,
R/o 1153, Goyla Dairy,
Main Bus Stand, New Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate)
Versus
Shri Sunil Kumar Arora,
R/o B102, Divya Apartments,
Plot No.21, Sector10,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
.....Defendant
(Through Shri Rahul Kadyan, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 28.07.2009
Date of Transfer to this Court : 21.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.12.2014
Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2014
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.15,00,000/
(RUPEES FIFTEEN LAKHS ONLY)
AND
Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 1 of 14
& Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014
CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEI:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.1277/2012
UID No.: 02405C0416312009
In the matter of:
Shri Sunil Kumar Arora,
S/o Shri K.L Arora,
R/o B102, Divya Apartments,
Plot No.21, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Rahul Kadyan, Advocate)
Versus
1. Shri Pratap Singh,
S/o Late Shri Chhatar Singh,
R/o 1153, Goyla Dairy, Main Bus Stand,
New Delhi.
2. Shri Mohinder Singh Nehra, [Deleted from the array of
A107, Classic Apartments, parties vide order dated 21.02.2014]
Sector22, Dwarka, New Delhi110 075.
3. Shri Sanjay, [Deleted from the array of
S/o Shri Jasvir Singh, parties vide order dated 08.10.2009]
R/o 14/272, Dayanand Nagar,
Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
.....Defendant
(D1 Through Shri Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 28.04.2009
Date of Transfer to this Court : 21.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.12.2014
Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2014
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.19,95,000/
(RUPEES NINETEEN LAKHS NINETY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY)
Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 2 of 14
& Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014
CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
23.12.2014
J U D G M E N T:
By way of this common judgment two civil suits bearing CS No. 1276/2012, titled as, "Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora" and CS No.1277/2012, titled as, "Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors." are being disposed off. The facts of both the cases are common. For the sake of convenience the pleadings and exhibited documents of civil suit bearing No.1276/2012, titled as, "Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora" are being referred to and the nomenclature of the parties mentioned in the aforesaid case is being adopted in the judgment, i.e Shri Partap Singh is being referred to as "plaintiff" and Shri Sunil Kumar Arora as "defendant". Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) against the defendant, whereas the defendant has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.19,95,000/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Only) against the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his suit has stated that he and defendant were business partners, wherein plaintiff used to finance the defendant for purchase of immovable properties. Thereafter, from the sale proceeds of the acquired properties, 50% of the total profit each used to be shared by both the parties. On 22.12.2008, the accounts were settled between the parties, whereby a sum of Rs. 17,20,000/ (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) was found outstanding towards the defendant. In order to discharge his aforesaid liability, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) in cash to the plaintiff and gave three cheques of Rs.5,00,000/ each, bearing Nos. 969641, 969642 and 969643, all dated 12.02.2009 and drawn on Syndicate Bank, Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 3 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.) Dwarka Branch. All the aforesaid three cheques got dishonoured when the plaintiff presented the same for encashment with the remark "payment stopped". The plaintiff confronted the defendant with the said stateofaffairs and made demands for return of Rs.15,00,000/ to the defendant on several occasions, but to no avail. Thereafter, on 04.07.2009, plaintiff issued legal notice for recovery of said amount to the defendant which again evoked no response from the defendant and as such, this suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The stand of defendant in the written statement as well as in his own suit is that there was no business partnership between the parties. The defendant had purchased a plot of 195 sq. yards, bearing No.B1 (b), out of total 420 sq.yards of plot falling in Khasra No.26/12 and 26/18, in the revenue estate of village Amberahi, in the abadi known as Samta Enclave, Qutub Vihar, PhaseI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "said plot") from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 18,20,000/ (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only). The total sale consideration was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on 22.04.2008, whereafter the plaintiff had executed title documents like General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell etc. in favour of defendant. One Shri Mohinder Singh Nehra was the partner of plaintiff in the said deal and the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ to Shri Mohinder Singh Nehra as part of his profit. The remaining portion of plot admeasuring 225 sq.yards was sold by plaintiff to one Smt.Mamta Sachdeva at the same time for a total sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Only). After purchase of the said plot, defendant took possession thereof and continued to take care of it by occasionally visiting it. On Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 4 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.) one such visits on 08.10.2008, the defendant found some unknown persons demolishing a portion of the boundary wall of the said plot and he immediately objected to the demolition of boundary wall by the said persons. One of the persons namely Shri Sanjay Singh, S/o Shri Jasvir Singh claimed himself to be the owner of said plot. The matter was reported to the police. In the PS, it transpired that the plaintiff did not have any right, title or interest in the said plot and he himself had purchased the said plot alongwith the remaining part of the plot from one Shri Dalip Kumar on 22.04.2008 on the basis of forged documents; whereas, the lawful owner of the said plot was said Shri Sanjay Singh, S/o Shri Jasvir Singh on the strength of documents dated 06.10.2008, executed in his favour by one Shri Balraj. The defendant having suffered cheating at the hands of plaintiff asked him to refund his amount of Rs.18,20,000/, but to no avail. It later transpired to the defendant that the plaintiff himself had got an FIR bearing No.21/2009, registered against one Shri Dheeraj and others U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC, PS Chhawla with a view to befool the defendant. The defendant reported the matter to the police by filing a detailed complaint. Finding himself cornered, the plaintiff offered to compensate the defendant by agreeing to sell him a plot of land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards, out of his own plot bearing No.1153, Goyala Dairy, main Bus Stand, New Delhi for an additional sum of Rs.15,00,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only), over and above Rs. 18,20,000/ which the defendant had to take from the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to the said proposal and gave aforesaid three cheques of Rs.5,00,000/ each to the plaintiff, the details whereof have been already been mentioned in the aforesaid proceedings. The plaintiff even failed to fulfill his second commitment and he continued to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Coming to Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 5 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.) know of the real intention of plaintiff, the defendant asked his banker not to honour the aforesaid cheques and simultaneously he also sent a legal notice to the plaintiff demanding his amount back from the plaintiff. The defendant has termed the suit filed by the plaintiff to be counter blast to his suit for recovery, which was filed prior in time.
3. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings of the parties, in the suit filed by the plaintiff following issues were framed vide order dated 09.12.2009:
(i) Whether the suit is without any cause of action and liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.15,00,000/ with pendentelite and future interest from the defendant? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
Whereas, vide order of the same date, following issues were framed in the suit (CS No.1277/2012) filed by the defendant:
(i) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of parties?
OPD.
(ii) Whether the suit against defendant No.2 is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.19,95,000/ from the defendants, if yes, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount, till its realization? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
4. It is relevant to note here that the defendant had initially also made Shri Mohinder Singh Nehra and Shri Sanjay as defendants in the suit as well, Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 6 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.) however, subsequently on the statement of defendant both the aforesaid persons were deleted from the array of parties and as such, the first two issues framed in the suit of defendant have become redundant and now, there are only two issues on which findings are liable to be rendered in both the suits, i.e:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of amount, as sought for by him in his suit or whether the defendant is entitled to the recovery of amount, as sought for by him in his suit?
5. In the suit filed by plaintiff (CS No.1276/2012), the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and has proved on record the following documents:
(i) The original three cheques, all dated 12.02.2009 in the sum of Rs.
5,00,000/ each, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Sector 12A, Dwarka, New Delhi as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C;
(ii) The cheque returning memos in respect of the aforesaid cheques as Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/F;
(iii) Legal notice dated 04.07.2009 as Ex.PW1/G alongwith postal receipts as Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/I Further, in the crossexamination of plaintiff, following documents were put to him by the defendant:
(a) Certified copies of complaint dated 23.12.2008 U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C as Ex.PW1/R1;
(b) Certified copy of FIR bearing No.21/2009 registered thereupon as Ex.PW1/R2;
(c) Letter dated 03.02.2009, purportedly received by PW1 at his residence as Ex. PW1/DA and;
(d) Photographs of property No.1153, main Bus Stand, Goyla Dairy, New Delhi as Ex.PW1/DB Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 7 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
6. Whereas, the defendant has proved on record the following documents:
(i) Photocopies of documents, i.e GPA, WILL, Receipt and Possession Letter, all dated 22.04.2008 as Ex.DW1/19(Colly);
(ii) Receipt dated 22.04.2008 as Ex.DW1/2;
(iii) Transfer documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, WILL,
Receipt and Possession Letter, all dated 22.04.2008 in the name of Smt.Mamta Sachdeva as Ex.DW1/3;
(iv) Copy of complaint dated 09.10.2008 of the defendant made to PS Hari Nagar as Ex.DW1/4;
(v) Copy of complaint of the defendant dated 10.10.2008 made to PS Chhawla as Ex.DW1/5;
(vi) Copies of the documents of previous chain as Ex.DW1/6 (Colly);
(vii) Copy of complaint dated 23.12.2008 of the plaintiff U/s 156(3) CrPC against Dheeraj Singh, Bittoo and Dalip Kumar as Ex. DW1/7 (also Ex.PW1/R1);
(viii) Copy of FIR No. 21/2009 U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC, registered upon the aforesaid complaint as Ex.DW1/8 (also Ex.PW1/R2);
(ix) Copy of complaint of defendant, dated 21.12.2008 made to PS Chhawla as Ex.DW1/9;
(x) Copy of legal notice dated 03.02.2009, got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff alongwith postal receipt (Ex.DW1/11) as Ex.DW1/10;
(xi) Copy of complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed by the defendant against the plaintiff as Ex. DW1/12;
Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 8 of 14
& Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
(xii) Copy of complaint dated 12.03.2009 of the defendant to I/C PP, Dwarka Court Complex as Ex.DW1/13;
(xiii) Copy of complaint U/s 156(3) CrPC of the defendant against Gurbachan Singh & Natha Singh etc. as Ex. DW1/14 (Colly);
(xiv) Copy of complaint dated 10.10.2008 filed by Ms.Mamta Sachdeva against the plaintiff and others as Ex.DW1/15;
(xv) Copy of order dated 11.05.2009 passed by Ms. Mamta Tayal, Ld. ASJ, Dwarka as Ex.DW1/16 and;
(xvi) Copy of Compromise Deed dated 11.05.2009 as Ex.DW1/17.
7. The defendant was only partly crossexamined by the plaintiff despite repeated opportunities and ultimately this court had to close the right of plaintiff for further crossexamination of defendant. Similarly, in the suit filed by the defendant, plaintiff was proceeded "exparte" (vide order dated 04.08.2011) and he did not come forward to crossexamine the defendant.
8. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Shri Jai Singh Yadav, advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Rahul Kadyan, advocate, learned counsel for the defendant and perused the entire material on record. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 9 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
9. Issue No.(ii) in CS No.1276/2012:
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.
15,00,000/ with pendentelite and future interest from the defendant? OPP.
And Issue No.(iii) in CS No.1277/2012:
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
19,95,000/ from the defendants, if yes, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount, till its realization? OPP. Both these issues are being taken up together as the same are inter connected and the findings thereupon would be common. The onus to prove issue No.(ii) in CS No.1276/2012 is upon the plaintiff while onus to prove issue No.(iii) in CS No.1277/2012 is upon the defendant. In order to prove the aforesaid issues, plaintiff is required to prove that there was an oral partnership between the parties, pursuant whereto the plaintiff had advanced money to the defendant for purchase of an immovable property and that as on 22.12.2008, defendant was liable to make payment of Rs.17,20,000/ to the plaintiff and in discharge of his aforesaid liability only he had issued cheques Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/C, whereas the defendant is required to prove on record that he had given a sum of Rs.18,20,000/ to the plaintiff as sale consideration for the said plot, which the plaintiff got from him by defrauding him as the plaintiff had no right, title or interest to sell the said plot to the defendant. The plaintiff was thoroughly crossexamined by the defendant, Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 10 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.) wherein he categorically admitted that he had purchased the plot bearing No.B1
(b), falling in Khasra No.26/12 and 26/18, in the revenue estate of village Amberahi, in the abadi known as Samta Enclave, Qutub Vihar, PhaseI, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.48,75,000/ from Shri Dalip Kumar and had sold the same in two parts, i.e 195 sq.yards to the defendant and 225 sq.yards to one Smt.Mamta Sachdeva and had received agreed sale consideration from them. He further admitted that he had been doing the business of property dealing under the name and style of M/s Mathur Properties. He further admitted that there was no partnership deed or agreement entered into between him and the defendant with regard to property dealing business. In his further crossexamination, he demolished his own case by deposing that there had never been finalization of accounts between him and the defendant. He further categorically admitted that he represented himself to be the absolute owner of the said plot to the defendant and had sold the same to him as such for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,20,000/. In his crossexamination, when he was confronted with the certified copy of his own complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C being Ex.PW1/R1, he admitted the same to be correct. Paragraphs No.2 to 4 of this complaint which are relevant are reproduced as under.
xxxxx
2. That the applicant purchased a plot of land bearing No.B1, measuring 420 sq.yards, out of Khasra No.26/12 and 26/18, situated in the revenue estate of village Amberhai, Delhi State, Delhi, area abadi known as Samta Enclave, Qutab Vihar PhaseI, New Delhi110071.
3. That the said plot was purchased by the applicant from accused No.3, however, the entire money transactions were particularly made out through the accused No.1 and 2, whom the Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 11 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.) money worth Rs.48,75,000/ (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only) was handed over by the applicant. The entire sale purchase came to the final end on 22.04.2008 then the accused No.3 has executed a set of property papers in the name of the applicant. The sale papers with the previous chain is annexed herewith and marked as Anenxure A1 Colly.
4. That the applicant sold it further in two portions to one Shri Sunil Kumar Arora (S.K Arora) and Smt.Mamta Sachdeva, plot area measuring 195 sq. yards and 225 sq. yards respectively on 22.04.2008 itself. The sale papers are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A2 Colly.
xxxxx
10. There cannot be better admission of facts then the admissions made on judicial record by plaintiff.
11. If the admissions made by the plaintiff in this document are considered in juxtaposition with further admissions made in his crossexamination, then it would be apparent that after purchasing the plot for a sale consideration of Rs.48,75,000/, he had sold it two persons, i.e to defendant and to one Smt.Mamta Sachdeva on a marginal profit, meaning thereby that he had sold it to the aforesaid two persons for more than Rs.48,75,000/. He has made clear admission that he had sold the remaining portion of the plot to Smt.Mamta Sachdeva for a consideration of Rs.33,00,000/ and as such, the sale consideration of Rs. 18,20,000/ mentioned by the defendant in his suit as well as written statement has been duly admitted by the plaintiff and as such, defendant has been able to prove his case.
Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 12 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
12. The plaintiff has not been able to produce on record any evidence about the business relations between him and the defendant. He has further miserably failed to prove that he had advanced money to the defendant for purchasing immovable property under a partnership agreement.
13. This leads us to the second instance of defrauding committed by the plaintiff upon the defendant. The plaintiff has admitted himself to be in possession of house bearing No.1153, main Bus Stand, Goyla Dairy, New Delhi. He has duly admitted the photographs of the said property as Ex.PW1/DB. Initially, he claimed the said property to be admeasuring 50 sq. yards, but in later part of his cross examination, he admitted the same to be around 400 to 500 sq.yards. This shows that plaintiff is a person who is not worth believing at all, as he frequently resorts to stating falsehood in judicial proceedings, which further shows that he has scant regard for the judicial process. As if this was not enough, while crossexamining the defendant, a specific suggestion was given by the plaintiff to him that the total sale consideration paid by him to the plaintiff for purchase of said plot was Rs. 18,20,000/. There cannot be any better admission then this. Considering the matter from the holistic perspective, it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff has not been able to substantiate his claim of Rs.15,00,000/ against the defendant, whereas the defendant has clearly succeeded in proving his entitlement to have a sum of Rs. 18,20,000/ alongwith interest w.e.f 22.04.2008 from the plaintiff. The issues are decided accordingly.
Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 13 of 14 & Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"
CS No.1276/2012 (Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora) & DOD: 23.12.2014 CS No.1277/2012 (Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors.)
14. Relief:
In view of the specific findings on all the aforesaid issues, suit filed by the plaintiff, i.e CS No.1276/2012, titled as, "Partap Singh V/s Sunil Kumar Arora"
is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Whereas, the suit filed by the defendant, i.e CS No.1277/2012, titled as, "Sunil Kumar Arora V/s Partap Singh & Ors." is decreed as under:
(i) Decree in the sum of Rs.18,20,000/ (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f 22.04.2008 till the date of filing of suit and thereafter alongwith interest @ 6% per annum till realization thereof is passed in favour of Shri Sunil Kumar Arora and against Shri Partap Singh.
(ii) Shri Sunil Kumar Arora is also entitled to costs.
15. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. Both the case files be consigned to Record Room.
17. A copy of this judgment be placed in both the case files.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 23.12.2014 Addl. District JudgeI/SouthWest
Dwarka District Courts: New Delhi
Recovery Suit filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Arora "Decreed" Page 14 of 14
& Recovery Suit filed by Shri Partap Singh "Dismissed"