Delhi District Court
Sh. Raj Kamal Srivastava vs Sh. Niraj Kumar Jain on 29 June, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 1334/2018
Sh. Raj Kamal Srivastava
S/o Late Sh. G. P. Srivastava
R/o: 135-A, Pocket-C,
Siddhartha Extension,
New Delhi - 110014 .......... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Niraj Kumar Jain
S/o Late Sh. Naresh Chandra Jain
R/o: J-36, 1st Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi - 110024 .......... Defendant
First date before this Court: 06.09.2018
Date of Decision: 29.06.2021
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit is for recovery of Rs. 20 lacs along with interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The facts in brief are that plaintiff having retired from Indian Navy, engaged the services of the defendant as Chartered Accountant for management of his finances. The defendant started investing the money of the plaintiff and on his advice plaintiff sold a flat which was not giving good returns, with intent to invest it in the market for better returns. The plaintiff secured his liability from the amount realized from the sale of the flat and was left with certain amount. The defendant expressed an emergent need of money and induced CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 1 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain the plaintiff to lend him a sum of Rs. 20 lacs with the assurances to pay good returns. The defendant paid some returns, but was highly irregular. In the year 2014 plaintiff was desperately in need of money for treatment of his father and sought return of his money from the defendant, who expressed his inability to return the principal amount because of his family reasons but assured the plaintiff that he would shortly return the amount along with the interest.
3. The defendant in acknowledgment of his liability gave Cheque No. 816502 & 816503 drawn on The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and two cheques bearing No. 287926 & 287927 drawn on HDFC Bank in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs each to the plaintiff but requested him not to present the same for the time being. The defendant kept on delaying the payment, but after great efforts and persuasion of the plaintiff and his relatives the defendant asked the plaintiff to present two cheques but on presentation of the four cheques to the respective Banks on 07.01.2017 were returned unpaid with the reasons "Account Closed".
4. The plaintiff contacted the defendant but he evaded to talk. The plaintiff realised that he has been duped by the defendant, who deliberately and knowingly issued the cheques of the account which had already been closed by him and thus he committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. Plaintiff gave Legal Notices dated 07.02.2017 and 16.02.2017 but to no avail. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 20 lacs along with interest @ 15% per annum which comes to Rs. 25,25,000/-
CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 2 of 19Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain along with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum.
5. The defendants in the written statement took the preliminary objections that the present proceedings are blatant and gross abuse of the process of law. The plaintiff has concealed the material facts and has concocted a tale in an attempt to mislead the Court. Plaintiff is guilty of suppressio- vari but also suggestio-falsi and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, plaintiff has forged the dates on the cheques and is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed on their basis. The suit is barred by limitation and also does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
6. On merits, it is submitted that defendant is a Practicing Chartered Accountant for last more than 40 years. In the year 2008 plaintiff approached the defendant for availing his services and expertise for the purpose of investment of his money in the market. Plaintiff after understanding the complete investment plan, entered into an Agreement with the defendant for the purpose of investing money in the market for a fixed period. The return on the investment was required to be made initially for a period of six months only. The plaintiff took blank undated cheques in the year 2009 as security for the deposit made by him in the market through the defendant. The defendant from time to time in number of installments ranging from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 50,000/- returned the complete investment made by the plaintiff. The defendant thereafter demanded back his security cheques but plaintiff CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 3 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain kept on delaying it on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the plaintiff assured the defendant that the cheques have been destroyed and defendant need not worry about the same.
7. The defendant had been handling the Income Tax Return of the plaintiff, his mother and father up to the financial year 2014-2015 and has also been handling his Life Insurance matters till date. The defendant has denied that he had intentionally given the cheques of the bank accounts which had already been closed by him or that he had tried to defraud the plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff with an intent to illegally enrich himself, banked the cheques and has used them illegally in the year 2017. Plaintiff himself had put dates without his consent and knowledge. It is submitted that there is no legally recoverable debt and the suit is time barred and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. The plaintiff in his replication has reaffirmed his assertions as contained in the plaint.
9. From the pleadings of the parties and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor on 14.03.2019:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as claimed by defendant? OPD.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
4. Relief.CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 4 of 19
Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain
10.Plaintiff Sh. Raj Kamal Srivastava in support of his case appeared as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A. The documents relied upon by him are Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/3.
11.PW-2 Sh. Prashant Siwach, Assistant Manager, HSBC Bank produced the Certificate in regard to Account No. 052183944006 in the name of Sh. Niraj Kumar Jain as Ex. PW-2/1 and deposed that the said bank account was closed on 26.06.2009.
12.PW-3 Sh. Amulya Saxena, Manager, HDFC Bank produced the Statement of Account of the defendant bearing No. 00921370001339 from 15.06.2001 to 14.01.2002 Ex. PW-3/A and deposed that the two cheques in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs each dated 07.01.2017 were presented, which were dishonoured as account was already closed.
13.PW-4 Mohd. Ehraz Zafar was common acquaintance of plaintiff and defendant and has corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff.
14.Defendant Sh. Niraj Kumar Jain appeared as DW-1 in support of his case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A.
15.The detailed testimony of the witnesses shall be considered subsequently.
16.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant is a Chartered Accountant by profession, whose services had been engaged by the plaintiff for investment of his money and for filing of the Income Tax Returns. For this purpose the plaintiff had entered into an Agreement Ex. C-1 with the CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 5 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain defendant and had handed over Rs. 20 lacs, the amount which the plaintiff had realized from sale of his flat on the advice of the defendant. The defendant failed to return the sum of Rs. 20 lacs despite repeated requests of the plaintiff in the year 2014 when he required money for the treatment of his father. The dispute started between the parties when the defendant gave four cheques, which on presentation were dishonored. It has been argued that defendant neither returned the sum of Rs. 20 lacs nor did he make any investment for and on behalf of the plaintiff. It has been further argued that the cause of action arose only on presentation of the cheques and their dishonour and the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on judgment of Ajanta Raj Proteins Private Limited vs. Himanshu Foods Private Limited , decided on 31.01.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein it was observed that it is only when the payment is not made and the person in whose favour the cheque has been issued, seeks to encash the cheque and it is thereafter dishonoured, that the right to sue itself arises. It has been argued that plaintiff has proved his case and is entitled to recovery of the suit amount.
17. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that as per the Agreement Ex. C-1, a sum of Rs. 20 lacs had been given only for a period of six months by way of investment which expired in June, 2009, which is quite evident from the Agreement itself. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the same had not been given as loan, but had been given for the purpose of investment. The cheques on which the plaintiff has heavily CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 6 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain relied, had been given in the year 2009 by way of security and the two Accounts were closed by the defendant in the year 2010. The defendant had been filing Income Tax Returns for and on behalf of the plaintiff till 2015-2016, but at no point of time plaintiff raised any claim in respect of sum of Rs. 20 lacs. The defendant had made investment and returned the amount in terms of the Agreement Ex. C-1 and nothing is liable to be paid to the plaintiff. It has also been argued that the Agreement Ex. C-1 does not mention about any interest and the claim of the plaintiff in regard to interest is not maintainable. It has been thus argued that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
18. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My issue-
wise findings are as under:
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP.
19.It is the admitted case of the parties that service of the defendant as Chartered Accountant was engaged by the plaintiff way back in the year 2008. Accordingly, plaintiff and the defendant entered into an Agreement Ex. C-1 dated 31.12.2008 which is admitted by both the parties. It is explicitly mentioned therein that the plaintiff had sold the property for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs which he was required to secure for a limited period for the purpose of re-investment. The Agreement Ex. C-1 can be broadly divided into two parts, one was in respect of long term investment of CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 7 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain Rs. 5 lacs in shares and Rs. 25,000/- per month in Systematic Investment Plan or small funds. The second part dealt with the short term investment of Rs. 20 lacs for six months, which the plaintiff had realized by sale of residential property.
20.The controversy revolves around the investment of Rs. 20 lacs and its return. The plaintiff first and foremost tried to claim that it was an amount given to the defendant as loan as he was in distress, but the Agreement Ex. C-1 clearly supports the defendant in establishing that this sum of Rs. 20 lacs was temporarily available from the sale of residential property which was required to be invested in another residential property by 31.07.2009 and the said amount was available for investment purpose for the intervening period of six months i.e. upto 01.07.2009. The amount of Rs. 20 lacs, which was given by the plaintiff to the defendant, was not by way of loan, but for the purpose of investment, as proved from the Agreement Ex. C-1.
21.The plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that some amounts were given to him in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- within five months of the Agreement Ex. C-1. He also admitted that defendant paid him Rs. 15,000/- when his father was admitted in the hospital. The plaintiff also admitted that he does not remember having sent any written communication to the defendant demanding the money in accordance with the Agreement Ex. C-1, though he volunteered that he used to demand the amount orally.
22.From these admissions of the plaintiff in the cross-
examination, first fact which glaringly emerges is that the CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 8 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain amount of Rs 20,00,00/- was to be returned by June 2009 but the claim has been made only in 2017. The story of loan has been projected only to make his claim credible and within limitation. The admissions made by the plaintiff make it evident that the business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant continued till 2014 and apparently there was no dispute between them and that the defendant had returned certain amounts to the plaintiff, as admitted by him. However, plaintiff has failed to produce any details of the amount that had been received by him. Moreover, the investments were to be made in the market and it is not comprehendable that there would be no documents, Statement of Accounts or Income Tax Returns about the investments and returns which happened over a period of five years. The best evidence was documentary to prove what amounts had been received and what remained to be paid, but it has not been brought on record by the plaintiff.
23.It is the oral testimony of the plaintiff claiming the suit amount countered by oral testimony of the defendant and neither party has chosen to place any document on record. In this scenario, the burden to prove that an amount is still due and outstanding rests squarely on the plaintiff. In the absence of any document, it is the conduct of the plaintiff which assumes significance.
24.It is significant to note the conduct of the plaintiff, who had given an amount of Rs. 20 lacs in December, 2008 and chose not take any steps for reclaiming the amount till the year 2017. This is so when admittedly the defendant had continued CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 9 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain to render services till the year 2014, and filed the Income Tax Returns of Sh. Girish Prasad Srivastava, Ms. Madhuri Srivastava and of the plaintiff for the year 2015-2016, which are Ex. PW-1/D-1 to Ex. PW-1/D-3. Plaintiff has further admitted that defendant had helped him in securing refunds against the fraudulent policy in respect of which he had sent written communication dated 02.03.2013 to TATA AIG Life Insurance, copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D4. There is nothing to suggest that there was any dispute or they did not part ways amicably. Once the plaintiff disengaged with the defendant and concluded his transactions with him in 2014 it is but natural that all the accounts would have been settled at that time. Even if it is presumed that something remained outstanding it is difficult to comprehend why the plaintiff did not wake up till the year 2017. The conduct of the plaintiff in maintaining silence and such long inaction on the part of the plaintiff to secure the return of his money even after parting ways in 2014 can lead to only one conclusion that no amount was due and payable.
25.Another aspect of significance is Clause-5 of the Agreement Ex. C-1 which reads as under:
Clause-5: That this agreement will be reviewed year on year
26.According to this Clause-5, there had to be an annual review of the investments. These annual reviews would have reconciled the Debit - Credit Account but significantly not a word has been spoken about these annual reviews of investments by the plaintiff. The only conclusion in CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 10 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain withholding this significant piece of evidence is that nothing was payable to the plaintiff.
27.The other significant aspect is that plaintiff himself has deposed that four cheques Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/2 (collectively) had been given to him sometime on 04.10.2008, while according to the defendant the four cheques were given to the plaintiff in the year 2009 as security cheques. Be as it may, the four cheques had been given to the plaintiff by the defendant in the year 2008 and 2009.The investment of the given amounts was to be made after the Agreement Ex C-1 was entered on 31.12.2008 and the four cheques could only be as security cheques and not in acknowledgement of any outstanding amounts payable to the plaintiff. It is also admitted that said cheques were undated and the dates have been filled in by the plaintiff in the year 2017 at the time of presentation of the cheques to the bank for encashment. Being the security cheques given way back in 2008 the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.20lacs payable in 2017 when the cheques were presented but as held above the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the cheque amounts were due to him.
28.The plaintiff again had attempted to explain the cheques by claiming that defendant had with fraudulent intention given him cheques of the Accounts which had already been closed by him. However, HSBC Account was closed on 26.06.2009 and HDFC bank on 31.03.2010 while the cheques were given much earlier in 2008, as deposed by the plaintiff. The Accounts were functional at that time and no fraudulent CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 11 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain intention can be imputed to the defendant, rather it is the plaintiff who has misused the cheques after about nine years.
29.The question which now arises is whether the cheques reflect any outstanding liability of the defendant. Interestingly, the two cheques Ex. PW-1/1 (collectively) pertained to HSBC Bank which was closed by the defendant 26.06.2009 as per Bank Return Memo Ex. PW-1/1 and the two cheques Ex. PW- 1/2 (collectively) pertained to HDFC Bank which was closed by the defendant on 31.03.2010, as is evident from the Statement of Account of the bank Ex. DW-1/2, produced by the defendant. The four cheques have been dishonoured for the reasons "Account Closed", which is not only admitted by the parties but also proved by Bank Return Memo Ex. PW-2/1 and Ex. PW-3/A of HSBC Bank and the HDFC Bank respectively.
30.The defendant has explained in his cross-examination that he had asked the plaintiff for return of the cheques but the plaintiff evaded the same on one pretext or the other and thereafter he stopped asking for return of the cheques. It is quite evident that having closed the two bank accounts, the defendant's interest in return of the four cheques was just to ensure against their misuse. On the other hand, it is difficult to appreciate as to why plaintiff who had to recover Rs. 20 lacs from the defendant, failed to use these cheques after 2014 when admittedly defendant ceased to be his Chartered Accountant. No explanation has been put-forth as to why these cheques have been presented much later in the year 2017. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 12 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain in fact no amount due to the plaintiff and he has tried to misuse the cheques of the defendant which were in his custody since the year 2008-2009 as per his own admission.
31.The plaintiff has not been able to prove that there is an outstanding sum of Rs. 20 lacs due from the defendant. Issue No. 2 is decided against the plaintiff.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1:
Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as claimed by defendant? OPD.
32.It is an interesting case where the transaction happened way back on 31.12.2008 vide Agreement Ex. C-1 but the claim by way of the present suit has been made only on 06.09.2018 i.e. almost after 10 years. The defendant has raised a preliminary objection about the suit being barred by limitation. The entire case hinges on the Agreement Ex. C-1, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
Clause-3 - Rs. 20 lacs is temporarily available from the sale of a residential property and thereafter has to be invested in another residential property by 31.07.2009 and during the intervening period of six months this is to be invested in the following manner:
(a) That the first party is investing Rs. 20 lacs for a period of six months cut off date thereby being 30.06.2009 with the second party in such a way that the first party CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 13 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain is assured 15% annualised return and ready availability of funds w.e.f. 01.07.2009 for investment in alternate property.
(b) That the assured return will be payable monthly/quarterly.
33.It is quite evident from Clause-3(a) of the Agreement Ex. C1 that a sum of Rs. 20 lacs had been given for the purpose of short investment for the period of six months and the return of the funds was to be made available w.e.f. 01.07.2009 for investment in another property. This clause makes it abundantly clear that the amount of Rs. 20 lacs was to become available to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.07.2009. In case the said amount was not available, plaintiff could have validly claimed the said amount within three years that is upto 30.06.2012. There is no evidence to show that this amount of Rs. 20 lacs was agreed to be further invested after 30.06.2012. The present suit, which has been filed on 06.09.2018 is blatantly barred by limitation.
34.Plaintiff has tried to protect the limitation by relying on the four cheques i.e. Ex. PW-1/1 (collectively) and Ex. PW-1/2 (collectively), which were presented for encashment in January, 2017 but were dishonoured on 17.01.2017 and 07.01.2017 respectively for the reason "Account Closed".
35.The question which arises is whether these four cheques presented in January, 2017 can be of any assistance to the plaintiff in extending the period of limitation, which expired CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 14 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain in June, 2012. Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on Empire Home Appliances Private Limited vs. Suraj Enterprises, RFA No. 208/2016 , decided on 03.05.2016 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein it was explained that the limitation for a Suit for Recovery of price of goods as the subject suit, does not commence from the date when the right to sue accrues but commences from the date of sale and delivery of goods and the extension of limitation by issuance of cheques which were dishonoured, as claimed by the plaintiff commences from the date when the acknowledgment was so signed and which can only be the date of the cheque and not the date of dishonour of the cheque. To hold otherwise, would be doing violation to the language of Section 18.
36.The cheques are not towards any subsisting liability as held in Issue No. 2 and, therefore, cannot be of any assistance to the plaintiff. Even otherwise to be considered as an acknowledgement under Section18 of the limitation Act the cheques should have been given within three years of the amount being due. However, the cheques were given in 2009 as security cheques much prior to the period when the amount according to the plaintiff became due and thus, are of little assistance to the plaintiff. The judgment relied upon by the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts in hand.
37.The plaintiff had tried to wriggle out the difficult situation by claiming in his cross-examination that the cheques have been presented and dishonoured in January 2017.It is argued by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that limitation would commence CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 15 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain from the date of dishonor of the cheque. For this proposition of law the reliance has been placed Steel Authority of India vs. Rohini Strips Limited, CS (OS) No. 1252/2003 decided on 17.08.2007 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it was held that the limitation in respect of the dishonored cheque in Civil Suit for Recovery would commence from the date when the cheque in question was returned unpaid and not from the date when the amount became due and payable. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further relied upon Ajanta Raj Proteins Private Limited vs. Himanshu Foods Private Limited, RFA No. 02/2016 decided on 31.01.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein Suit for Recovery has been filed within the period of three years from the date of dishonour of the cheque, but beyond the period of three years from the date of cheque. It was observed that where there were a series of transactions between the parties and the cheques were given as a security for the same amount that remained outstanding, the giving of cheque per se would amount to cause of action. It is only when the payment is not made and the person in whose favour the cheque has been issued, seeks to encash the cheque which is dishonoured, that the right to sue itself arises. Until and unless the cheque is dishonoured, the cause of action would not arise under Order XXXVII CPC and the limitation is to be calculated from the date of dishonour of the cheque. Similar were the observations in the case of Strips vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, FAO (OS) No. 380/2007) , decided on 28.09.2007, wherein it was held CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 16 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain that the cause of action in the suit was dishonour of the cheque and not merely issuance of the cheque. The suit cannot be filed only on issuance of the cheque and it is only on dishonour when the right to sue accrued. The period of limitation therefore would categorically start from the date of dishonour of the cheque.
38.Likewise, in case of A.K. Khurana vs. Steelman Industries AIR 2000 Del 336 the difference between the ante-dated and post-dated cheques was explained. It was held that in the case of ante-dated cheques, the limitation would begin from the date of issuance of the cheque, while in case of post-dated cheque, limitation would not commence until it is presented for encashment.
39.The proposition of law as elucidated in the judgments above is absolutely clear. The condition precedent for cause of action to arise from the date of dishonor of cheque is that the amount was due and not paid. However, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that there was any outstanding amount payable by the defendant. It has also been proved that the cheques handed over in 2009 by the defendant by way of security have been misused by the plaintiff in the year 2017. The judgments relied by the plaintiff do not support the case of the plaintiff.
40.The plaintiff could have availed Section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to assert that the cheques were the written acknowledgement of a time barred amount and would amount CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 17 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain to a fresh contract from the date of cheques which is of January 2017. Section 25 reads as under:
25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law.--An agreement made without consideration is void, unless --
(1) ...
(2) ....
(3) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits.
In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.
41.It has already been held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that any amount was due from the defendant. In the absence of the existence of past consideration the cheques cannot amount to fresh contract to pay the cheque amounts.
42.It is thus held that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 18 of 19Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
43.In view of my findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, the question of payment of interest does not arise and this issue becomes infructuous.
Issue No. 3 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF:
44.In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
45.Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
46.File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) Court on 29.06.2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge, (KSR) South East: Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ No. 1334/2018 Page No. 19 of 19 Raj Kamal Srivastava vs. Niraj Kumar Jain