Delhi District Court
Shri B.L. Sachdeva vs Mr. Vipul Rekhi on 4 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE17
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 73/12
Unique ID No. 02401C0343892012
MEMO OF PARTIES
Shri B.L. Sachdeva
S/o Late Shri N.R. Sachdeva
R/o F19(ii Floor), Ashok Vihar
PhaseI, Delhi 110052
...........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Vipul Rekhi
150, DDA Flats (R.P.S.)
Sheikh SaraiI,
New Delhi 110017
.....Defendant
Date of institution of the Suit: 22.10.2001
Date on which judgment was reserved: 29.04.2013
Date of announcement of Judgment: 04.05.2013
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,68,388/ (RUPPES ONE LAC SIXTY
EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY EIGHT ONLY)
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,68,388/ against the defendant.
Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 1/21
2. Initially, the suit was filed under the summary provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.
Setting aside of the exparte order
3. It is to be noted at this juncture that earlier, an exparte judgment was passed in favour of the plaintiff herein vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2003. Thereafter the application of the defendant U/o 37 R 4CPC was allowed upon the statement of the plaintiff given on 01.07.2004 during the course of the arguments on the aforesaid application and further the plaintiff gave a statement that defendant may be permitted to file the written statement. Upon the statement of the plaintiff, the application of the defendant U/o U/o XXXVII R 4 CPC was allowed unconditionally and the suit came to be tried as an ordinary suit.
Case of the plaintiff
4. It is the plaintiff's case that on 08.11.1998 the plaintiff gave a friendly loan of Rs. 1 Lakh to the defendant. The defendant executed and signed a promissory note dated 08.11.1998 in the presence of Sh. Ghanshyam Dass. By virtue of the aforesaid promissory note the defendant acknowledged the receipt of the said amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and promised to repay the amount along with interest @ 2% per mensem with monthly rests. The plaintiff approached the defendant from time to time at his residence as well as Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 2/21 factory and requested him to return the loan amount with interest but the defendant avoided making the payment and made false excuses. Letters were written to the defendant demanding the amount. Legal notice dated 21.08.2001 was also sent to the defendant through counsel making a demand of Rs. 1,92,000/. The notice was replied to by the defendant through his advocate by reply dated 12.09.2001 wherein defendant falsely denied executing the promissory note or taking the loan from the plaintiff. Since the defendant failed to pay the amount despite legal notice, plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the principal sum of Rs. 1 Lakh and sum of Rs. 68,388/ towards interest up to 07.10.2001 i.e. total amount of Rs. 1,68,388/ along with interest @ 18% per annum.
Case of the defendant
5. The defendant filed the written statement taking various preliminary objections. It was submitted that the defendant had not taken any loan or executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The promissory note had been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. It was submitted that the plaintiff being the Chartered Accountant of the defendant not only committed professional misconduct but also committed a fraud by fabricating the signatures of the defendant on the alleged promissory note. It was Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 3/21 submitted that the forgery was apparent since the plaintiff had filed a photocopy of the promissory note showing no stamp and the signatures of the witness but later on filed the original promissory note showing a revenue stamp on the same and the signatures of the witness. It was averred that the aforesaid promissory note had been fabricated and concocted with ulterior motive to pressurize the defendant to pay the plaintiff higher than the annual charges as usually charged by the chartered accountants during the course of their professional business. The plaintiff was a Chartered Accountant of the defendants company namely Introduction Chits Private Limited and due to certain unavoidable circumstances the said company went into loss and the defendant requested the plaintiff to close the company by taking necessary legal steps. The plaintiff by taking the defendant into confidence had already obtained signatures of the defendant on blank papers on the pretext that the same shall be used for filing returns and taking necessary steps for closing the company. The defendant started enquiring from the plaintiff regarding the closure of the company but plaintiff avoided to give any information regarding steps for closure and in this way tried to extract the money from the defendant either for taking the necessary steps for closing the company or giving a resignation letter so defendant could not approach another Chartered Accountant for doing the needful. It is averred Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 4/21 that the plaintiff becoming annoyed filed the present suit on the basis of forged and fabricated promissory note. The plaintiff had no legal license for advancing the loan therefore the alleged act of advancing loan was averred to be contrary to law. A loan for a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh could not be given in cash therefore the entire transaction was illegal.
6. On merits, the claim of the plaintiff was denied. The preliminary objections were reiterated. Defendant admitted receiving the legal notice but stated that the same was duly replied to vide reply dated 12.09.2001. It was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with special cost. Replication
7. In the replication, a preliminary submission was made that on 12.10.2003 the defendant and his wife had admitted the liability in front of the Bailiff and had sought some time to repay the loan amount with interest when the plaintiff went for executing the warrants of attachment stating that he was now doing well in business and would soon settle his amount.
8. In reply to the preliminary objections the same were denied however it was not denied that the plaintiff was a chartered accountant of the defendant but it was submitted that plaintiff was not interested in doing the work of the defendant since the defendant was paying a meager amount of Rs. 400/ per month and was also irregular in making the payment. In response to the Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 5/21 allegation of the defendant that it was clear from the perusal of the case record wherein plaintiff had filed the photocopy of the promissory note showing no stamp and signatures of the witness but later on filed the original promissory note showing revenue stamps, it was submitted that the same was filed by oversight. It was denied that the plaintiff had obtained signatures of the defendant on blank papers on the pretext that the same were to be used for filing the returns since the defendant was not at all serious in winding up the company which was clear from the fact that the defendant had still not taken steps for winding up the company. Further, the defendant had not filed any balance sheet, profit and loss account and annual return with the registrar's office of the company for the last five years. Rest averments of the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reaffirmed. Issues
9. On 06.10.2004 upon completion of pleadings the following issues were framed
1. Whether the alleged promissory note is forged and fabricated by the plaintiff as per preliminary issue no. 2 of the written statement? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,68,388/? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 6/21
4. Relief.
Evidence
10. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Sh. Ghanshyam Dass as PW2. The defendant on the other hand examined himself as DW1, Sh. Subhash Gupta as DW2, Sh. Onkar Singh as DW3 and the handwriting expert Sh. V.C. Mishra as DW4. All the witnesses were subjected to cross examination.
Final arguments
11. After conclusion of the trial exhaustive final arguments were advanced by counsel for the parties. Counsel for plaintiff relied on 2012 VIAD (Delhi) 321, 2001 VIII AD (Delhi) 554 and AIR 1961 SC 1655. The plaintiff also placed on record a copy of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act 1961 as well as Schedule I of the Chartered Accountant Act 1949. The defendant referred and to placed on record the photocopy of Section 12 and 13 of the Indian Stamp Acts 1899 and referred to 1974 RLR Note 138 and 2009 (107) DRJ 271.
12. In the rebuttal arguments, counsel for plaintiff placed on record the judgment i.e. ILR (1974) II Delhi and submitted that the same was the complete judgment of the note of which reference had been made by the defendant i.e. (1974) RLR (Note) 138.
Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 7/21
13. I have heard the arguments, scrutinized the record carefully and perused the case law.
14. My issue wise findings are as follows Issues no. 1, 2 & 3 (1) Whether the alleged promissory note is forged and fabricated by the plaintiff as per preliminary issue no. 2 of the written statement? OPD, (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,68,388/? OPP & (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
15. These issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
16. The allegation of the defendant is that the promissory note Ex. PW1/1 is a forged document as the photocopy filed by the plaintiff, purportedly of the aforesaid promissory note which was exhibited in crossexamination of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/X did not bear either the revenue stamp or the signatures of the witness, whereas Ex. PW1/1 i.e. the original promissory note bore revenue stamps as well as signatures of the witness. It is further the defendant's defence that the plaintiff being a Chartered Accountant of the defendant company had taken the defendant into confidence and obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank papers on the pretext that the same would be used for filing the returns and taking necessary steps for closing the company.
17. It was argued by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has taken Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 8/21 inconsistent pleas in defence; while on the one hand it is argued that the plaintiff being the chartered accountant of the company of the plaintiff had misused blank papers, on the other hand it had been claimed that the signatures on the pronote were forged. This contention is devoid of merit, the pleas taken by the defendant are not mutually destructive of each other. The defendant has throughout denied the execution of the document. The old relations between the plaintiff and defendant stand admitted and the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant took a friendly loan from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is based entirely on the promissory note and thus it was vital for the plaintiff to prove the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note.
18. A number of other arguments were also raised by the defendant, which I shall deal with at the outset. One objection was that if the plaintiff had given any loan as alleged to the defendant then in fact he had committed professional misconduct since being a chartered accountant of the defendant he should not have given any such loan to the client. It was correctly argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant's own case is that the plaintiff was the chartered accountant of the company in which defendant was a director. A company being a legal entity distinct from its directors, a loan to the Director would not in law mean a loan to the company. This contention of Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 9/21 the defendant is found to be meritless.
19. Another ground raised by the defendant was that the plaintiff had purported to have advanced a loan of above Rs. 20,000/ by way of cash, which was not permissible under the Income Tax Act. Counsel for plaintiff argued persuasively that in fact the relevant section of the Income Tax Act 1961 i.e. Section 269SS, a copy of which section was placed on record, was a prohibition on the taking or accepting of loan otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft where such an amount was above Rs. 20,000/. Counsel for defendant was unable to show how the provision would affect the lender of the amount. Indeed the provision bars the act of taking of loan of more than Rs. 20,000/ by cash and is silent on the consequences of lending of amount above Rs. 20,000/. Thus this ground does not come to the aid of the defendant.
20. Next, a ground taken by the defendant was that the promissory note Ex. PW1/1 was not properly stamped and thus could not be read in evidence. The defendant relied on 1974 RLR (Note) 138 R.B. Suraj Bhan versus Dr. Dewan Singh for the proposition that cancellation of stamps on the document should be in such a manner that the stamps if lifted from the document cannot be used again, effective cancellation is one where the signatures commence on the paper on which the stamps are affixed, go across the stamps and finish Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 10/21 on the paper on the other side, further under section 36 of the Stamp Act a document which was not properly stamped even though its execution was admitted and had been marked in evidence could not be admitted into evidence. Reliance was also placed by the defendant on 2009 (107) DRJ 271 in this regard. Counsel for plaintiff on the other hand cited AIR 1961 SC 1655 Javer Chand and Ors versus Pukhraj Surana wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a question as to admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided there and then when the document is tendered in evidence and when once the court rightly or wrongly decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. Counsel for the plaintiff also produced the full judgment of which the defendant only quoted the Note, i.e. ILR (1974) II Delhi R.B. Suraj Bhan versus Dr. Dewan Singh and submitted the case was distinguishable on facts and relied on 2010 VIII AD (Delhi) 554 Rakesh Jain and Ors versus Vinod Kumar Bhola wherein also the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that challenge to the admissibility of an insufficiently stamped document stands foreclosed as soon as the said instrument is admitted in evidence, once a document is marked as an exhibit, the party loses its right to reopen the question of admissibility. It was similarly held in 2012 VI AD (Delhi) 321 Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 11/21 Suresh Kumar versus Satish Mehra and Anr. wherein the judgment of Javer Chand was relied on. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suraj Bhan's case (supra) is distinguishable on facts since the execution of the document therein was not disputed and in those circumstances the document came to be marked as an exhibit, it was held that the mere marking of the document as an exhibit would not be regarded as it being admitted in evidence. The settled law right from Javer Chand's case is clear that the objection of admissibility of a document has to be raised at the stage of the document being tendered in evidence and the court has to decide the question there and then. No such objection appears to have been taken by the plaintiff at the stage of tendering of Ex. PW1/1 in evidence. Thus, in view of the settled law, the question of the document being improperly stamped or being unstamped for the purpose of Section 12 of the Indian Stamps Act cannot be raised at this stage and this ground of defence of the defendant fails.
21. However, the main defence of the defendant is the most pivotal for deciding the fate of this case. The defendant in his written statement itself stated that the promissory note was a fabricated document and the alleged photocopy of the document placed on record by the plaintiff was not identical to the purported original is important to note. Pertinently, the plaintiff Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 12/21 responded to this allegation in the replication simply by denying that the photocopy of the promissory note was forged and only stated that the same was filed by an oversight. The plaintiff did not choose to render any further explanation in this regard in the replication. In crossexamination, the plaintiff testifying as PW1 admitted that Ex. PW1/X was a copy of the pronote which the plaintiff had filed along with the suit. A specific question was put to the plaintiff regarding Ex. PW1/X not being the exact photocopy of Ex. PW1/1 to which the plaintiff responded as follows "At the time of execution of this document defendant has sought a photocopy of the same. I gave him a photocopy which was not signed by any witness neither any revenue stamps were affixed. Inadvertently that copy was filed on record."
22. Apart from the deposition that the copy was inadvertently filed, the rest of the explanation came out for the first time in crossexamination of the plaintiff; no such explanation was rendered in the replication by the plaintiff and even otherwise, the plaintiff nowhere mentioned in the plaint or the replication that the copy of the pronote was supplied to the defendant. Even if the explanation rendered by the plaintiff is taken at face value, presuming that the document was actually executed, if the defendant had sought a copy of the pronote then why had he been supplied with a copy which did not bear the Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 13/21 signatures of the witness? Further, it is not clear as to why Ex. PW1/X photocopy bears the name and address of the defendant at the bottom left of the document while on Ex. PW1/1 at that very point is the signature of the witness PW2. There is no explanation on these aspects. Now, even if the defendant was supplied with a copy of the pronote prior to the witness having signed it, then as per the claim of the plaintiff which has all along been that PW2 was present when the defendant executed and signed the promissory note, and since the averment is that the photocopy was supplied at the time of execution itself, PW2 would at least have seen the plaintiff handing over the photocopy to the defendant. However, PW2/Sh. Ghanshyam Dass is not able to corroborate this plea of the plaintiff since in crossexamination PW2 testified that he did not remember whether Ex. PW1/1 was affixed with revenue stamps or not and also did not know whether any Photostat copy of Ex. PW1/1 was made prior to PW2 putting his signatures. If the argument of the plaintiff is that the witness Sh. Ghan Shyam Dass had not entered the scene at the time the defendant affixed his signatures and thus could not have verified whether the photocopy was given or not then that is destructive of the plaintiff's own case since the plaintiff as well as PW2 maintain in their affidavits of evidence that the entire loan transaction took place in the presence of PW2 and the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ in the Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 14/21 presence of PW2 and the defendant executed a promissory note in the presence of PW2 which bore the signatures of the witness. Even in their evidence affidavits, PW1 and PW2 did not depose that a photocopy of the document was given to the defendant prior to the plaintiff's witness having affixed his signatures.
23. The defendant examined the handwriting expert in evidence as DW4 who gave his report Ex. DW4/1. DW4 gave the opinion that on comparison of the signatures on the documents Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/X with those on the written statement and affidavit of the defendant, they were not the signatures of the defendant but the document Ex. PW1/X was a replica of Ex. PW1/1 though bearing different content at the left bottom. This witness was exhaustively crossexamined by counsel for the plaintiff and in the course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the opinion of DW4 was not of any worth and it was argued that the witness's report was not backed with any reasons. It was contended, inter alia that DW4 had not given any opinion in his report as to whether the alleged forgery was freehand or trace forgery, further, this witness had admitted in crossexamination that quantitative comparison had not been done by him and Ld counsel for plaintiff pointed out that to a specific question put to the witness as to whether height and width of letters had been compared, this witness had evasively answered that such Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 15/21 comparison could be done but did not bother to answer whether he had done it in the present case or not. It was further argued that the witness in his opinion nowhere stated that the disputed signatures were by gel pen and the admitted signatures were by ball point pen and had deposed in cross examination that the same was not of relevance. Counsel for plaintiff argued that as per textbooks on the subject of handwriting analysis the kind of pen used is of much consequence and this fact should have found mention in the report. It was also argued by counsel for plaintiff that even the hand writing expert who was the defendant's witness, in his report made an observation in the plaintiff's favour that Ex. PW1/X (mentioned as 63 in the report) was a photocopy of Ex. PW1/1 (mentioned as 69 in the report) because the signatures purportedly of the defendant thereon were replicas of each other.
24. The evidence of the handwriting expert is mere opinion and has to be considered in its entirety and in consonance with the other evidence on record. Even if the expert's testimony be discarded, the fact of the matter remains that it is for the plaintiff to establish his case. The counsel for the defendant argued that the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has executed 'a promissory note' meaning that a single promissory note had been allegedly executed by the defendant but here was a case where the alleged original did not match the photocopy. This argument of the defendant is of Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 16/21 much force. On the photocopy Ex. PW1/X the name of the defendant was written on the bottom left and on the purported original the name and signature of the witness appeared at the same place. If plaintiff had given a copy of Ex. PW1/1 to the defendant prior to the document being witnessed there would have been blank space on the bottom left, to be filled up by the witness. This really means that two original pronotes existed one with the signatures of the witness on the bottom left i.e. Ex. PW1/1 which has been filed; and second with the signatures of the defendant on the bottom left i.e. the original of Ex. PW1/X which has not been filed, which also bore the alleged signature of the defendant. The plaintiff was apparently in possession of another original on which the name of the defendant should be appearing on the bottom left rather than that of the witness and such an original pronote was not produced by the plaintiff, apparently because the same would demolish the stand of the plaintiff that a single pronote was executed by the defendant. To the specific question put to the plaintiff in crossexamination regarding the two documents not being the exact copies of each other, the plaintiff did not give a satisfactory answer.
25. Further, the plaintiff's witness PW2 deposed in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW2/A that the entire loan transaction took place in his presence, that the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the defendant and the defendant Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 17/21 executed a promissory note Ex. PW1/1 in his presence. PW2 gave wavering testimony in crossexamination, deposing at one place that the Ex. PW1/1 was already written by the plaintiff thereafter he was called to sign the same and at one place he denied the suggestion that Ex. PW1/1 was not written in his presence. Interestingly, this witness deposed that he had seen the original pronote Ex. PW1/1 at the time of drafting of Ex. PW2/A i.e. his affidavit of evidence which was shown to him by his brother/plaintiff. In fact, Ex. PW1/1 was already on the court record therefore this statement of the plaintiff's witness is at the face of it not believable. The testimony of PW2 does not inspire confidence and neither does the document Ex. PW1/1.
26. The defendant in evidence maintained that the company M/s Introduction Chit Funds had been suffering losses and he had requested the plaintiff to close the company but the plaintiff demanded a huge amount for the same. He also deposed that the plaintiff had also obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank papers for submitting returns and taking further action in respect of the accounts of the company. In crossexamination, defendant/DW1 reiterated his stand that the plaintiff had asked for 11.5 lakhs for the purpose of closing the company. Further in crossexamination, when the defendant was asked whether the income tax returns which have to be filed are printed forms and could not be filed on blank papers, the defendant Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 18/21 responded in the affirmative however he deposed that the annexures like balance sheet, statement of liabilities etc. were printed on blank papers with the form. To the question whether the defendant used to put the seal of the company on these annexures, the defendant responded that the balance sheets were prepared by the plaintiff himself on computers who used to write 'for Introduction Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.' Plaintiff was not able to evince anything useful to his case from the defendant.
27. The defendant in evidence produced two other witnesses, DW2/Sh. Subhash Gupta and DW3/Sh. Onkar Singh. It was the argument of Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that both the witnesses were tutored since they both remembered a specific date each, when they witnessed an alleged meeting between plaintiff and defendant. In so far as the evidence of DW2 is concerned, it is clear from his testimony that the memory of this witness has apparently failed him in the crossexamination, reliance cannot be placed on his testimony and so far as the evidence of DW3 is concerned, the evidence of this witness is beyond the pleadings of the defendant as there is no mention in the written statement regarding any alleged meeting of the plaintiff with the defendant in the year 2001 and being beyond the pleadings, the same is discarded on this ground itself. Even after rejecting the testimony of DW2 and DW3, the fact remains that the plaintiff has not been able to Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 19/21 establish the veracity and genuineness of the very foundation of his case i.e. the promissory note Ex. PW1/1. The defendant has discharged his burden of assailing the genuineness of the document Ex. PW1/1 and the circumstances under which it was executed. The plaintiff was fully aware of the plea of the defendant that the document Ex. PW1/1 was forged and not in conformity with the purported photocopy Ex. PW1/X and was required to rebut the allegation with appropriate evidence that could show that the document was in fact executed by the defendant. The plaintiff has miserably failed in doing so. An averment in the replication was that the defendant had admitted his liability before the bailiff in execution proceedings which were carried out prior to setting aside of the exparte decree. The plaintiff has not produced the proceedings sheet/report of the bailiff in evidence and even otherwise, when once the defendant's application under order 9 rule 13 CPC is allowed and the defendant is allowed to contest the case on merits, proceedings prior to the setting aside would not have a bearing on the case.
28. The defendant has proved that the alleged promissory note is not a genuine document and is a fabricated document. The case of the plaintiff was based on the promissory note which thus fails. The plaintiff is thus not entitled to the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,68,388/ and consequently is also not entitled to any interest. Issues 1,2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff. Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 20/21 Issue no. 4 Relief
29. In view of the above discussion on issues 1, 2 and 3 I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed. Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 04.05.2013 Civil Judge - 17 (Central)
04.05.2013
Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 21/21