Delhi District Court
Rahul Kumar Alias Rahul Sharma vs Balraj Bhardwaj Alias Sartaj Ahmad on 6 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, DISTRICT JUDGE-15,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT01-007274-2025
RCA DJ No.77/2025
Index to the Appeal
Serial No. Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Page Nos.
Sharma vs. Balraj
Bhardwaj @ Sartaj
Ahmad
1. FACTS 2 to 4
2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 5 to 6
3. DELAY GROUNDS OF 6 to 7
APPEAL
4. REPLY 7
5. ON MERITS 8 to 9
6. ANALYSIS AND 9 to 19
DISCUSSION
7. CONCLUSION 20
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma
S/o. Sh. Devender Kumar
R/o. A-898, JJ Colony, Pankha Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
...Appellant
Versus
Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad
S/o. Sh. Multaj Ahmed
Chamber No. 20, First Floor,
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 1 of 20
Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi-110054.
...Respondent
DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL : 19.05.2025
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 06.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06.11.2025
DECISION : APPEAL DISMISSED
ON DELAY AND
MERITS
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. CJ-01 (Central), THC, Delhi in case Suit bearing CS No. 1213/2020, titled as Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmed vs. Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma.
FACTS OF THE APPEAL
2. That the respondent herein/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,26,021/- against the appellant/defendant whereby the respondent/plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,11,700/- as his professional fees for representing the appellant/defendant before the Court, and an amount of Rs. 14,521/- towards pre-suit interest. (The parties herein under are referred by their initial status in terms of the suit filed before the ld. Trial Court) RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 2 of 20
3. That the plaintiff is a practicing advocate and the defendant was his client, who was having good relations with the plaintiff for the last 5-6 years.
4. That the plaintiff rendered the professional services as an advocate to the defendant in two civil cases and one execution petition.
5. That the defendant had also orally engaged the plaintiff for execution proceedings of the case, but due to non payment of his earlier fees, wherein even the misc. expenses were also not paid, the plaintiff had refused to file the same.
6. That the plaintiff had raised a bill dated 05.08.2019 for the alleged professional fees for the cases amounting to Rs. 1,11,700/-, and the said bill was duly acknowledged by the defendant, and the defendant had assured that the entire amount shall be paid to the plaintiff within 30 days.
7. That the defendant did not pay the requisite fees of the plaintiff despite repeated demands via calls and whatsapp messages, but replied in a positive manner on 02.12.2019 during their conversations.
8. That on 03.12.2019, the plaintiff sent the invoice dated 05.08.2019 of Rs. 1,11,700/- as a reminder to the defendant by the speed post, which was duly served upon him on 05.12.2019.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 3 of 20
9. That the defendant with intention to cheat and fraud, threatened the plaintiff to implicate him in false criminal cases, and he also through Whatsapp message to the plaintiff told that he had already paid huge amount of Rs. 1.5 Lacs to the plaintiff.
10. That on 13.01.2020, the plaintiff had filed a written complaint to PS Tis Hazari Courts and the same was sent to DCP North District, by speed post also.
11. That the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 04.01.2020 which was duly served upon the defendant on 04.02.2020; replied by the defendant while refusing to pay the outstanding professional fee in order to cheat and grab the hardest earnest money of the plaintiff.
12. That the defendant claims that he had already paid the entire professional fees in cash to the plaintiff as stated in his WS and no receipt thereto was ever issued to him by the plaintiff.
13. That the evidence was thereafter led by the parties and vide detailed judgment dated 12.01.2024, the ld. Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent in its favour and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,11,700/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
14. The said judgment is assailed by the defendant/respondent in the present appeal.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 4 of 20 GROUNDS OF APPEAL (AS ARGUED)
15. That the ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment mechanically and arbitrarily without applying the correct provisions of law.
16. That the ld. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the defendant/appellant had paid the entire amount of the professional fees to the plaintiff through cash, wherein no acknowledgment/receipt was issued by the respondent/plaintiff.
17. That the ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate that the plaintiff/respondent had not filed any document on record to substantiate his claim and the judgment is passed merely on oral statements without being supported by any evidence.
18. That the ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the admissions of the plaintiff in his cross-examination wherein he has specifically admitted that "I do not maintain aforesaid day book, cash book, ledger account and thus, I have not produced the same" and "I do not maintain the payment/receipt voucher for the financial year 2018-19/2019- 2020" , amongst others.
19. That the ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that the defendant had already lodged a complaint against the plaintiff/respondent with the concerned police on the illegal RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 5 of 20 demands of the plaintiff, whereby he was also threatened to implicate him in false cases.
20. That the invoice dated 03.12.2019 of Rs. 1,11,700/- was a false document wherein signatures of the appellant/defendant were forged, and the said fact has been clearly overlooked by the Ld. Trial Court while placing reliance upon the said invoice in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
21. That the plaintiff/respondent had never issued any invoice to the appellant/defendant.
22. That the defendant/appellant had paid the full professional fees to the plaintiff/respondent in advance, and the plaintiff being a legal practitioner is trying to extort money from him, and has also threatened to implicate him in false case under NI Act.
DELAY GROUNDS IN FILING APPEAL
23. That the appellant was busy resolving his matrimonial disputes with his wife, which was amicably settled after hectic discussions, and finally got divorced by way of mutual consent.
24. That thereafter, the appellant suffered from mental illness.
25. That the appellant had spent huge amount of money on divorce litigation and his treatment due to which he was facing financial crisis.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 6 of 20
26. That the delay caused in filing the present appeal is not intentional, deliberate or willful, but due to reasons beyond his control. It is thus, prayed that delay of 459 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice.
27. Hence, the present appeal and it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 may kindly be set aside.
NO REPLY TO THE APPEAL AND DELAY WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT, WHO STRAIGHTWAY ARGUED ON MERITS AS WELL ON DELAY SEEKING DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL NOT ONLY ON MERITS BUT ALSO ON DELAY
28. It was argued that appellant has failed to show any cause much less any reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the statutory period of 90 days.
29. That the appellant is trying to mislead the Court by taking plea of illness whereas the fact remains that the appellant was regularly appearing in other matters which were pending between the parties relating to their matrimonial discord.
30. That the delay so pleaded is also not supported by any reliable medical documents.
31. That the appellant has failed to give any plausible reasons for filing the appeal so belatedly and it be out-rightly dismissed on that very ground.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 7 of 20 ON MERITS
32. That there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the ld. Trial Court.
33. That the ld. Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in correct prospective and passed the detailed judgment on merits in terms of legal provisions.
34. That the appellant/defendant had taken the defence of making the payment of the professional fees of the plaintiff/respondent whereas he has failed to lead any substantive evidence to show the factum of payments to the respondent/plaintiff.
35. That the defendant/appellant had disputed his signatures on the invoice for the professional fee raised by the plaintiff/respondent, however, no evidence whatsoever was led by into substantiate his defence of forged signatures or creating a false document, and no error thereby can be found in the observations of the ld. Trial Court in that regard.
36. That the defendant/appellant had not even led any handwriting expert opinion to prove the falsity/forgery in the invoice in question before the ld. Trial Court despite having opportunities in that regard.
37. That the appeal so filed by the appellant/defendant is based on wrong appreciation of fact and law and thereby is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 8 of 20
38. The Court has heard the arguments addressed by the plaintiff and perused the judicial file.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A. DELAY
39. Section 5 of the Act provides for extension of the prescribed period of limitation for filling an application under any provision, except Order XXI of the CPC thereby, vesting discretionary powers to the Court to entertain an appeal that has transgressed the prescribed period of limitation by condoning the delay. The said provision is reproduced herein below:-
Section 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.
Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.-The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
40. It can be clearly noted that the provision provides for a necessary condition i.e., "sufficient cause" in order to adjudicate upon whether or not the prescribed period of limitation shall be extended or not, and discretion be exercised in favour of the appellant.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 9 of 20
41. The phrase "sufficient cause" has been interpreted in different light by different Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no straight jacket has been laid as to what constitutes the sufficient cause, and each case is to be decided on its own merits and under prevailing circumstances in terms of the reasons so taken thereto.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, dealt with the expression sufficient cause as provided under Section 5 of the Act and held that the said expression must be construed liberally in order to advance justice and delays in preferring appeals maybe condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking such relief. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:-
The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal, [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201] .)
43. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
44. It is also equally settled that the Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 10 of 20 provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means the law is hard but it is the law, stands attracted in such a situation.
45. It has consistently been held by the Ld. Apex Court that inconvenience is not a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
46. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale.
47. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266:-
Policy of the Limitation Acts. The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence.
48. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn., [(2005) RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 11 of 20 7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, [(1973) 2 SCC 705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project, [(2008) 17 SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 907] .)
49. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation.
50. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever exterior to that.
51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1961 SCC OnLine SC 39 further elucidated the interpretation of Section 5 of the Act. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:-
In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 12 of 20 limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. As has been observed by the Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chathappan, [(1890) ILR 13 Mad 269] Section 5 gives the court a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words sufficient cause receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant.
52. Now adverting to the facts of the present appeal. The decree/judgment assailed by the appellant in the present case passed by the ld. Trial Court on 12.01.2024, directing the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1.11,700/- alongwith interest @10% p.a.
53. It is an admitted position on part of the appellant that the instant appeal is barred by an inordinate delay of 459 days, and thus, this Court is required to adjudicate whether the appellant/defendant has been able to justify and establish the sufficient cause in filing the appeal so belatedly.
54. Primarily, two reasons have been cited by the appellant/defendant in his prayer for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
55. First, to say that the appellant was busy in resolving his matrimonial dispute with his wife and later on, got divorced also by way of mutual consent.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 13 of 20
56. Here, it may be noted that, in terms of his own admission, appellant/defendant was appearing before other Courts and/or in other proceedings so litigated wherein he was one of the parties, so I fail to comprehend what stopped the appellant from assailing the impugned judgment/decree before the Superior Courts within the limitation period.
57. Just because the appellant was busy in resolving his matrimonial discord makes out no plausible reason or to say 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal within statutory period. There is absolute no merit in the contentions so raised by the appellant in that regard.
58. Second ground so taken by the appellant/defendant pertains to his claim that he was suffering from illness and was getting his treatment from the hospital and therefore, the appeal was not filed within time.
59. Firstly, to say, that as noted above, the appellant was appearing in other proceeding, thereby there was no reason for him not to appear or challenge the judgment/decree in question. The appellant cannot be permitted to pick and choose to appear before the Courts as per his own convenience.
60. Secondly, the medical documents filed alongwith an application pertains to the month of Oct-Nov, 2023, whereas the judgment/decree was passed on 12.01.2024. All the medical documents are ante-dated to the passing of the RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 14 of 20 judgment. No documents of any nature whatsoever, post passing of the decree/judgment have been placed on record by the appellant to substantiate his contentions qua his illness.
61. Moreover, the medical document also does not reflect any serious illness incapacitating the appellant/defendant to file the present appeal within time.
62. Both the grounds so taken by the appellant are absolute misleading and frivolous having no substance in it. The appellant/defendant has failed to show any sufficient cause to file the present appeal after an exorbitant delay of 459 days. The appeal on the ground of delay is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
B. ON MERITS
63. Nextly, coming to the merits also, no ground for interfering with the the impugned judgment/decree is made out for the reasons discussed herein.
64. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that he was engaged by the defendant/appellant as a legal counsel to represent him in three cases and subsequent thereto, when his professional charges were not paid, he raised an invoice dated 05.08.2019 for a sum of Rs. 1,11,700/- as per agreed oral terms upon the defendant. The invoice/bill was duly served upon the RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 15 of 20 defendant but no payment was made and the suit was filed for its recovery.
65. In evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and duly proved on record invoice dated 05.08.2019 Ex. PW-1/2, wherein the entire breakup of legal and professional charges so rendered by the plaintiff is separately mentioned in detail.
66. Plaintiff has also proved on record the vakalatnamas executed in his favour by the defendant to represent him in the said three cases, wherein the defendant was one of the party.
67. Perusal of the invoice dated 05.08.2019 bears the acknowledgment of the defendant vide the signatures at point A at the bottom.
68. Plaintiff has also placed on record whatsapp chat conversations dated 20.11.2019, 24.11.2019, 30.11.2019, and specially 02.12.2019 and 07.12.2019 between him and the defendant, which were duly Ex. PW-1/3, wherein it can be clearly seen that the plaintiff was asking about his professional fees from the defendant which had remained unpaid.
69. Though, in the said conversations, also relied upon by the defendant, defendant is claiming to have paid a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lacs, and at the same time, defendant is further mentioning some of his own amount due towards the plaintiff. But in conversation dated 02.12.2019, it is apparent RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 16 of 20 that the plaintiff is mentioning about his outstanding legal fees to the defendant i.e. "tumse do cases ki legal fees recovery banti hai .... bina fees liye aage case nahi file kar sakta".
70. PW-1 in the cross-examination has reiterated the facts about him representing the defendant in the aforesaid cases and issuing invoice dated 05.08.2019 Ex. PW-1/2. Besides that, only suggestive from of the cross-examination of PW-1 is conducted on behalf of defendant. There is no cross- examining on merits as such to dent testimony of the plaintiff in that regard.
71. On the other hand, the defendant, in terms of his defence and evidence so led, has primarily raised two defences, wherein firstly it is stated that all the professional charges were paid to the plaintiff on each date of hearing; and secondly, with respect to the invoice Ex. PW-1/2, it is stated that it is a forged and fabricated document.
72. During cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that he was the sole proprietor of M/s. Shivam Graphics Stickers which deals in manufacturing and job work for helmet and vehicles stickers screen and offset printing presses.
73. DW-1 also admitted that his C.A. was regularly maintaining his accounts of books which includes cash book, day book, ledger book on daily basis. He admitted that his ITRs so filed reflects his entire transactions in terms of information RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 17 of 20 contained in cash book, day book, ledger book and other related documents.
74. DW-1 during his cross-examination volunteered to produce all the aforementioned documents/books of account reflecting his financial transactions, however, on the next date, he categorically admitted that he was not maintaining the said books of accounts and thereby, did not produce the same.
75. His Cross-examination further highlighted his bald statements of making payments to the plaintiff qua his professional claims wherein no date, month or year was mentioned.
76. DW-1 further admitted that he has not filed any single document, nor produced during trial of the case, regarding payment of over Rs. 1,47,000/- to the plaintiff.
77. Defendant has also not produced any other evidence to substantiate the aforesaid payment of professional charges to the plaintiff in terms of his defence so raised, including any receipt or acknowledgment.
78. In fact, DW-1 admitted the conversations between him and the plaintiff in terms of Ex. PW-1/3 from period 01.11.2019 to 06.01.2020 wherein parties are having conversation with respect to payment of fees.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 18 of 20
79. Further, qua the allegations of forged and fabricated invoice Ex. PW-1/2 also, except making oral statements to the effect, no positive evidence was led by the defendant to substantiate his contentions about the forgery of his signatures on it.
80. No witness be it handwriting expert or otherwise was examined by the defendant in that regard.
81. Appreciating and analyzing the evidence so adduced on record, the rival contentions of the parties, the claim of the plaintiff and the defence so taken up by the defendant, when the relationship/status between the parties stands admitted, wherein the plaintiff had rendered his professional services to the defendant, and the invoice dated 05.08.2019 stands proved, it was incumbent upon the defendant to lead positive evidence to discharge his burden of proving the factum of forgery in the aforesaid invoice and/or the payment thereof to the plaintiff, in terms of Section 101 to 103 Evidence Act(104 to 105 of BSA), and which the defendant has miserably failed to do so as discussed above.
82. The ld. Trial Court has correctly and legally decided the issues in the given case by appreciating the evidence so led by the parties in the correct prospective.
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 19 of 20 CONCLUSION
83. Thus, this Court finds no ambiguity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 passed by the ld. Trial Court.
84. The appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff stands dismissed.
85. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 06th November, 2025 (ANIL ANTIL)
DISTRICT JUDGE-15
CENTRAL/THC/DELHI
06.11.2025
Digitally
signed by
ANIL ANIL ANTIL
Date:
ANTIL 2025.11.06
15:01:51
+0530
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 20 of 20