Delhi District Court
Shailendra Kumar Mishra vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 23 July, 2025
RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra
V.
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
RCA SCJ 5/23
CNR No. DLSE030028442023
Shailendra Kumar Mishra
S/o Sh. Ram Naresh Mishra
R/o H. No. 372, Chauhan Mohalla,
Madanpur Khadar, Sarita Vihar,
South Delhi, Delhi-110076. ...Appellant
versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Through its Chief Executive Officer
LIC Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
2. The Senior Branch Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Branch Office at:
BB, Plot No. 3, Community Centre,
Jasola, Splendor Forum Jasola,
MANISH New Delhi-110025.
JAIN
Digitally signed
by MANISH JAIN
Date: 2025.07.24
12:38:14 +0530 (Manish Jain)
JSCC:ASCJ:GJ
South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi
Page 1 of 21
RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra
V.
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
3. The Divisional Manager (Marketing)
LIC of India
9th Floor, Scope Minar Tower,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
4. Rajesh Yadav
S/o Sh. Suraj Pal Singh
R/o H. No. 253, Haddu Mohalla,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076.
Also at J-93, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076.
5. Sarvesh Singh
W/o Sh. Rajesh Yadav
R/o H. No. 253, Haddu Mohalla,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076.
Also at J-93, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076. ...Respondents
23.07.2025
JUDGMENT
Appeal under Section 96 and Order 41 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned Judgment and Decree Dated 21.09.2023 passed by Ms. Poorva Mehra, Ld. Civil Judge.
1. The appellant, by way of the present appeal, has assailed the Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2023 of Ld. Civil Judge-02, JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:38:25 South-East District, Saket Courts wherein the civil suit CS SCJ +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 2 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
bearing no. 50637/16 titled as 'Shailendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation and others' filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) was dismissed. For the convenience, the appellant and the respondents herein shall be referred by their original nomenclature i.e. plaintiff and defendants.
Brief Facts of the plaint
2. Briefly summarized, plaintiff is indulged in the business of insurance as an insurance agent on behalf of various insurance companies and he is doing the business of insurance on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 3. It is further stated that the plaintiff issued the policy to defendant no. 4 and 5 and after paying the initial premium of their policies, they did not make any further payment towards the premiums. Thereafter, defendant no. 4 and 5 demanded back their initial premium from the plaintiff which was deposited with LIC of India. Defendant no. 4 and 5 made a false complaint against the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no. 2 to the affect that plaintiff has received the premium amount and issued a receipt thereof but the same has not been deposited with LIC of India. It is further averred that Digitally defendant no. 3 withheld the agency code and commission of signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff that he will JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:38:31 clear the agency code of the plaintiff and will release his +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 3 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
commission as and when he returns the premium paid by defendant no. 4 and 5 of the lapsed policies.
Written statement filed by the defendants
3. Defendant no. 1 to 3 have filed written statement wherein it is stated that plaintiff collected premiums in cash from the policyholders of the Corporation but the premium was not deposited with the Corporation and due to non-deposit of premiums, the policies have been lapsed. It is further stated that plaintiff further deposited his own cheques to revive the policies but the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the plaintiff.
4. Defendants 4 and 5 have filed a written statement, wherein they aver that despite depositing four premiums with the plaintiff, they came to know upon inquiry with Defendant No. 1 (the insurance company), that only one premium amount had been credited to their policies. It is alleged that the receipts provided by the plaintiff to Defendants 4 and 5 were forged. Defendants 4 and 5 further stated that they have submitted an Digitally application to the insurance company on 02.01.2013 seeking a signed by MANISH refund of their deposited amount, but were informed by the MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 company that the amounts had not been deposited into their 12:38:36 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 4 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
policies, hence the company is not liable to refund the same. It is further stated that when they confronted the plaintiff regarding this, they were threatened to kill.
5. Thereafter, issues were framed and evidence was led by both the parties. After hearing final arguments, Judgment was passed by Ld. Trial Court wherein the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The operative part of the judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
"25. As is the settled position of law that Plaintiff in order to claim relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction has to prove his case in his favour based on substantive evidence. The appointment of Plaintiff as an agent of LIC of India is not under dispute. Documentary evidence filed by the Defendant is not being challenged by the Plaintiff in any manner. Ex.DW-1/3 to Ex.DW-1/13 is not being doubted in any manner. Plaintiff does not have even an iota of proof that Digitally Defendant no. 4 & 5 acted with malicious intent.
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN As per rules and regulations filed by the Defendant
JAIN Date:
2025.07.24
12:38:41
+0530 no. 1 to 3, the commission of the Plaintiff was
(Manish Jain)
JSCC:ASCJ:GJ
South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 5 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
stopped and his agency code was suspended as per rules. These proceedings are also not under challenge by the Plaintiff either before this forum or any other forum. However, in addition to Defendant no.4 and 5, there are two more people namely Sh. Illiyas and Sh. Alimuddin who are apparent sufferers of the misconduct of the Plaintiff. These facts are also not under question by the Plaintiff.
26. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant no. 1 to 3 had issued letters and notices at the wrong address of the Plaintiff. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that the said fact was brought to the notice of Defendants no. 1 to 3 by the Plaintiff in any manner. Consequently, service on last known address can only be deemed to be proper service."
Grounds of Appeal
6. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 96 and Digitally signed by MANISH Order 41 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:38:46 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 6 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
challenging the Judgment and Decree 21.09.2023. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
Ld. Trial Court has wrongly observed that Ex.DW1/3 to Ex.DW1/13 are not being doubted in any manner by the plaintiff.
Ld. Trial Court has wrongly observed that as per rules and regulations filed by defendant no. 1 to 3, the commission of the plaintiff was stopped and his agency code was suspended as per rules. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly observed that the proceedings of stopping of commission and suspension of agency are not under challenge by the plaintiff either before this forum or any other forum.
Reply to Appeal
7. Reply was filed to the appeal by defendant no. 1 to 3 wherein all the contents of appeal were denied and it was prayed that the appeal of the plaintiff should be dismissed with cost.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused. Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:38:50 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 7 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
Findings/ Reasoning
9. While challenging the impugned order, plaintiff has questioned the reliance of the trial court upon the documents filed by the defendants. It is alleged that the trial court has erred in considering the documents Ex. DW1/3 to DW1/13 to be admitted by the plaintiff. Before delving into the arguments raised by the plaintiff, it will be apposite to understand the contentions made by the plaintiff.
10.The burden of establishing and thereby proving its case lies upon the plaintiff and even if the defendants are unable to raise valid defence or prove the documents relied upon, the plaintiff ought to stand on its own legs. The premise of the case presented by the plaintiff is based on certain grounds i.e. the defendant no. 4 and 5 in collusion with Senior Manager of LIC lodged a complaint against the plaintiff; defendant no. 1 to 3 had wrongfully withheld his commission and temporarily suspended his agency code due to which his license got terminated.
11.In order to discharge the burden placed upon the plaintiff, the Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN plaintiff was required to prove collusion among defendant no.1 JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:38:55 to 3 on one end and defendant no. 4 and 5 on the other. Further, +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 8 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
the plaintiff was duty-bound to prove that the defendant no. 1 to 3 had wrongfully and illegally withheld his commission and suspended his agency code.
12.On perusal of the entire plaint and the evidence led by the plaintiff, the details of the Senior Manager of LIC has not been revealed with whom defendant no. 4 and 5 allegedly entered into collusion in filing a false complaint against the plaintiff. The entire case of the plaintiff rests upon the alleged conspiracy in order to frame the plaintiff, the details of which have not been disclosed. Further, in order to prove that the suspension of agency code of the plaintiff and withholding of the commission has been done in an illegal manner, the plaintiff has relied upon the certain documents such as the complaints filed by him against defendant no. 4 and 5, and certain letters written by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 to 3 thereby questioning the suspension of agency code and withholding of commission. It is the admitted position among the parties that the agency of the plaintiff was not terminated at the time of filing of the suit and was merely suspended while the disciplinary proceedings were ongoing.
Digitally
signed by
MANISH JAIN
MANISH Date:
JAIN 2025.07.24
12:39:00
+0530
(Manish Jain)
JSCC:ASCJ:GJ
South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 9 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
13.It is observed that the plaintiff by filing the suit has attempted to encroach upon the proceedings initiated by the Corporation as per the existing Rules, thereby warranting an occasion where inconsistent findings could be arrived. The plaintiff himself has stated that the inquiry has been commenced by defendant no. 1 to 3 on the complaints lodged by defendant no. 4 and 5. It is not the case that the defendant no. 1 to 3 initiated the inquiry without any complaint in an arbitrary manner. It is held that the plaintiff has not presented any evidence to substantiate that the commencement of inquiry against the plaintiff is illegal or has been initiated in a malafide manner.
14.Defendant no. 1 to 3 has relied upon Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 duly approved by Central Government and enacted by Corporation by virtue of powers vested under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 which is Ex. DW1/2. It is submitted by defendant no. 1 to 3 that the impugned action against the plaintiff has been taken under Regulation 16 (1) (b) of Life Digitally Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN wherein a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff and a JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 reply was received thereof from the plaintiff. It is further 12:39:05 +0530 submitted that in the intervening time, instead of showing (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 10 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
sufficient cause to the notice issued by defendant corporation, plaintiff resorted to malafide action by filing the present suit. For the sake of convenience, Regulation 16 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 is reproduced herein below:
16. Termination of agency for certain lapses :
(1) The competent authority may, by order, in writing, terminate the appointment of an agent, after due notice and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Fifth Schedule, if he-
(a)has violated the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India Act, 1999 (41 of 1999) or rules or regulations, made thereunder as amended from time to time;
(b)acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation or to the interests of its policyholders;
(c)has failed to discharge his functions and failed to comply with the code of conduct as set out in Digitally signed by MANISH regulation 8 and regulation 14, and directions issued MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 by the Authority from time to time, to the 12:39:15 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 11 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
satisfaction of the competent authority;(d)fails to furnish any information relating to his activities as an agent as required by the Corporation or the Authority;(e)furnishes wrong or false information or conceals or fails to disclose material facts in the application submitted for appointment of Agent or during the period of its validity;
(f)does not cooperate with any inspection or enquiry conducted by the Authority;(g)fails to resolve the complaints of the policyholders or fails to give a satisfactory reply to the Corporation or the Authority;
(h)if the competent authority is satisfied that either directly or indirectly the agent is involved in embezzlement of premiums or cash collected from policyholders or prospects or on behalf of Insurer, and he has been knowingly involved in or connived at any fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation, misappropriation, cheating and forgery against the Corporation or its policyholders or any of its subsidiaries or against any person having official Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN dealings with the Corporation or any of its MANISH Date:
JAIN 2025.07.24
12:39:22 subsidiaries;(i)violates the terms of appointment;
+0530
(Manish Jain)
JSCC:ASCJ:GJ
South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 12 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
(j)does not submit periodical returns as required by the Corporation or the Authority;
(k)if evidence comes to its knowledge to show that he has been allowing or offering to allow rebate of the whole or any part of the commission payable to him;
(l)if it is found that any averment contained in his agency application or in any report furnished by him as an agent in respect of any proposal is not true;(m)becomes physically or mentally incapacitated for carrying out his functions as an agent;
(n)if he being an absorbed agent, on being called upon to do so, fails to undergo the required training or to pass the tests, within the time fixed by the Corporation;(o)if it is found that he is misusing any facility provided to him by the Corporation. (2)Where the competent authority proposes to take action under sub-regulation (1), it may direct the agent not to solicit or procure new insurance Digitally business until he is permitted by the Competent signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN Authority to do so and the order of suspension so JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:39:28 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 13 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
issued may be published as provided for in the Fifth Schedule.
15.In this context, it is observed that plaintiff has neither challenged the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 nor the manner in which proceedings are conducted against him. Rather, the plaintiff has challenged the allegations levelled against him by defendant no. 4 and 5. Moreover, even if the agency/license of the plaintiff was terminated under Regulation 16 (1) (b) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, Regulation 20 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, as reproduced below, gives a right to the agency holder to approach the appellate authority.
20. Appeals.--
(1) Every agent shall have a right of appeal to the Zonal Manager concerned of the Corporation against an order terminating the appointment and or forfeiture of renewal commission or suspending him from procurement of new Digitally signed by business under regulation 15 or regulation 16 or MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
regulation 18 or sub-regulation (2) of regulation 2025.07.24 12:39:34 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 14 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
19. (2) Every person submitting an appeal shall file the appeal in his own name. (3) The appeal shall be addressed to the authority to whom the appeal lies and shall not contain any disrespectful or improper language and shall be complete in itself. (4) The appeal shall be submitted through the authority which made the order appealed against.
(5) No appeal under this regulation shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of three months from the date on which the appellant receives a copy of the order appealed against:
Provided that the Zonal Manager may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of three months, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time.
16.Harping back to the grounds raised by the plaintiff in his appeal, the plaintiff has relied upon the cross-examination of Digitally signed by defendant no. 4/ Rajesh Yadav wherein he deposed that:
MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:39:39 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 15 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
"However, when he did not make the payment I was told by the LIC to file a case against the defendant...It is correct that I filed complaint upon suggestion of the branch manager of the LIC".
17.It is argued by the plaintiff that the suggestion given by the branch manager to defendant no. 4 to file a complaint shows the collusion between them to frame the plaintiff.
18.It is observed that a mere suggestion for filing a complaint by the branch manager to the customer in cases of allegation of fraud played by the agent, in widest of interpretation, cannot be termed as collusion.
19.It is further argued by the plaintiff that the trial court failed to appreciate the testimony of PW1 wherein the plaintiff has deposed that the policy status documents are simply printouts taken from the LIC portal and are not fabricated. It is further argued that the trial court failed to appreciate that no positive evidence has been adduced by the defendants to prove that the above stated documents are false and fabricated.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:39:46 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 16 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
20.It is observed that the trial court while giving its findings cannot be obligated to pen down its finding on each and every word of the testimony given by the witnesses. The appreciation of evidence warrants due consideration of the relevant testimony of the witnesses which have a bearing on the merits of the case. In the present case, the finding on the point of genuineness of policy status documents was not relevant to adjudicate the issues framed by the trial court. Accordingly, it is held that trial court has not erred in not giving any finding on the point of genuineness of policy documents.
21.It is further argued that the issuance of show cause notice could not have a cascading effect or could not eclipse the rights which have already accrued in favour of plaintiff i.e. the commissions accrued on the basis of successful business/ transactions.
22.It is observed that the argument that at best, the Corporation could have withheld the commission qua transactions which complaint has been filed and ought to have released the commission qua the transactions which were successful, has to Digitally be addressed in light of Regulation 19 of Life Insurance signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:39:52 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 17 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972. For convenience, the same is reproduced below:
"19. Payment of commission on discontinuance of agency.
(1)In the event of termination of the appointment of an agent, the commission on the premiums received in respect of the business secured by him shall be paid to him, if such agent-
(a)has fulfilled the minimum business required under regulation 9 for at least five years since his appointment and twenty five policies on different lives effected through him were in full force on a date one year before his ceasing to act as such agent; or
(b)has fulfilled the minimum business required under regulation 9 for at least ten years since his appointment; or
(c)being an agent whose appointment has been terminated under clause (m) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 16 has fulfilled the minimum business required under regulation 9 for at least two years since his appointment and policies on twelve different lives effected through him were in Digitally signed by full force on a date immediately prior to such MANISH MANISH JAIN termination:
JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:39:58 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 18 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
Provided that after his ceasing to act as such agent he does not directly or indirectly solicit or procure or promote life insurance business in any capacity for any other person or company or organization, which includes broker or intermediary or a life insurance company or a health insurance company for two years thereafter.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(a) or (b) of sub-regulation (1), an agent terminated by an order passed under regulation 15 or under clause (b) or (h) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 16 shall entail forfeiture of his entire commission in respect of all the policies effected under his agency.
(3)Any commission payable under the sub- regulation (1) shall not be paid if the agent commits breach of the proviso thereunder. (4)Subject to other provisions of this regulation, any commission payable to an agent under sub- regulation (1) shall, notwithstanding his death, be payable to his nominee or nominees or, if no nomination is made or is subsisting to his heirs, so long as such commission would have been payable had the agent been alive.
Digitally (5)In the event of the death of the agent while his signed by MANISH agency subsists, any commission payable to him MANISH JAIN had he been alive, shall be paid to his nominee or, JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:40:05 if no nomination is made or if subsisting to his +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 19 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
heirs, so long as such commission would have been payable had the agent been alive, provided he had continually worked as an agent for not less than two years from the date of his appointment and policies on twelve different lives effected through him were in full force on a date immediately prior to his death.
(6)If the renewal commission payable under sub-
regulation (1) or sub-regulation (4) or sub- regulation (5) is less than ten thousand rupees in any financial year (hereinafter referred to as the said financial year), the competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub- regulation, commute all commission payable in subsequent financial years for a lump sum which shall be three times the amount of renewal commission paid in the said financial year, and on the payment of such lump sum to the agent or his nominees or heirs, as the case may be, no commission on the business effected through the agent shall be payable in the financial years subsequent to the said financial year. (7)Notwithstanding anything contained above, the payment of renewal commission or hereditary commission shall be as decided by the Corporation from time to time subject to any regulations made Digitally signed by by the Authority in this regard." MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:40:12 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 20 of 21 RCA SCJ 5/23 Shailendra Kumar Mishra V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
23.Even if it is assumed that the present case does not fail in the exception of 'fraud', the plaintiff was bound to prove the requirements enshrined in sub-clauses (a), (b) or (c) of clause 1 in order to get the commission for successful transactions.
However, the plaintiff has neither pleaded anything of such nature in his plaint nor adduced any evidence in that regard.
24.Accordingly, plaintiff failed to prove any of the grounds mentioned in the present appeal and the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. The order passed by learned Trial court is well reasoned and speaking order and no infirmity is found in the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. This court finds no merit in the appeal of the appellant.
25.In view of the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal stands dismissed.
Appeal case file be consigned to record room. Trial court file be returned back to the concerned court with a copy of this order. Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Announced in the open JAIN Date:
2025.07.24 12:40:19 court today i.e. 23.07.2025 +0530 (Manish Jain) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ:South-East Saket Courts:Delhi (Manish Jain) JSCC:ASCJ:GJ South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Page 21 of 21