Delhi District Court
M/S Sri Niwas Dall And Besan Mill vs M/S Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar on 29 September, 2021
M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar
Civil Suit No. 595161/16
IN THE COURT OF MS. SONAM SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE-07,
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No. : 595161/16 (Old No. 96/2013)
CNR No. : DLCT03-000505-2013
Date of filing of suit: 09.04.2013
Date of Decision: 29.09.2021
M/S Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill
4068-4069, Naya Bazar,
Delhi-110006
Through its partner Sh. Subhash Chand Singhal.
...............Plaintiff
-versus-
M/S Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar
Sadar Bazar, Nokha,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
.............Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 2,38,385/- ALONG WITH INTEREST & COSTS
Present: None for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff which is a partnership firm, through its partner namely Sh. Subhash Chand Singhal against defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,38,385/- along with costs of the suit and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till its payment.
Plaintiff's Version:
2. The plaintiff has come with the averments that it is a partnership firm which is duly registered with the Registrar of firms and plaintiff has been carrying on its wholesale Page 1 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 business of sale of pulses, besan, etc. at 4068-4069 at Naya Bazar, Delhi, whereas defendant has been working as a dealer, commission agent in oil seeds, food grains, etc. at Sadar Bazar, Nokha, Rajasthan. It is averred that Subhash Chand Singhal is one of the partners of plaintiff firm and is fully conversant with the facts of present case and is also fully competent to file the present suit on behalf of plaintiff. It is averred that plaintiff had contacted defendant on phone to purchase Moth for plaintiff in the month of September 2011 and as per the discussion which had taken place between the parties on phone at Delhi, plaintiff had authorized defendant to buy moth for it and some of the terms and conditions of purchase of goods by defendant for plaintiff were as under:
(a) that defendant was to purchase Moth at the best available market price in the market at Nokha, Rajasthan (b) that plaintiff was to pay to defendant the amount of aforesaid goods purchased by defendant for plaintiff (c) that as the goods were to be stored by defendant for plaintiff, so plaintiff also agreed to pay storage/godown charges of said goods which were to be kept in godown by defendant on behalf of plaintiff (d) that plaintiff has also agreed to pay interest to defendant on the amount invested by defendant in purchase of goods (e) that defendant was also to render true and correct account at Delhi in respect of all transactions done by defendant for plaintiff for purchase of Moth
(f) that plaintiff also agreed to pay wages and aarat on purchase of aforesaid goods as per practice prevailing in the market. It is further averred that as per orders placed by plaintiff on telephone from Delhi in September and October 2011, defendant had purchased 900 bags of Moth, each bag containing 100 kgs of moth in the account of plaintiff as per the following details: (a) 370 bags of 100 kgs each on 20.09.2011 (b) 330 bags of 100 kgs each on 21.09.2011 and (c) 200 bags of 100 kgs each on 10.10.2011. It is averred that after purchase, defendant had stored the same in a godown and the same were to be kept there till the time they were sold by defendant on behalf of plaintiff, and as per the instructions of plaintiff, out of 900 bags of moth, defendant had sold 420 bags of moth on 11.10.2012 at the rate of Rs 3808.87/- per quintal and remaining 480 bags were sold on 16.10.2012 at the same rate by defendant. It is further averred that as per the agreement, defendant had to send the statement of account to plaintiff at Delhi soon after the said goods were sold by defendant, however, despite repeated demands, defendant did not send the statement of account to plaintiff soon after the sale for reasons known to defendant. It is further averred that on repeated demands of plaintiff, defendant sent the statement of account at Delhi on 14.12.2012 which was received by plaintiff on Page 2 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 17.12.2012 and in the said statement of account, it was mentioned that at the time of sale of 420 bags of Moth on 11.10.2012, their total weight was found to be 394 quintals in place of 420 quintals and total weight of remaining 480 bags was found to be 455 quintals & 60 kgs at the time of their sale in place of 480 quintals. It is averred that on receiving the aforesaid statement of account, plaintiff contacted the defendant and enquired about the weight of bags to which defendant informed that reduction in weight was because of moisture in moth. It is submitted by plaintiff that the said contention of defendant is totally false and wrong in as much as moth is a fully dry product and there cannot be any moisture in the said product as alleged by defendant; further, it is submitted that if moth had huge moisture as alleged by defendant, then it would not have remained intact for a period of about one year in the godown and would have been damaged by insects as soon as the same was stored and would become useless. It is averred that bags of moth purchased by defendant in September and October 2011 and sold in October 2012 were in good condition and there is no question of any moisture in said moth as alleged by defendant and the weight of moth reduced by 50 quintals and 40 kgs at the time of sale is absolutely false and wrong. It is averred that the moth purchased in September and October 2011 by defendant was of old crop 2010 and defendant has shown reduced weight causing loss to plaintiff and for making an illegal gain for the price of 50 quintals and 40 kgs for itself. It is further averred that as per the statement of account, defendant had sold the moth at the rate of Rs 3808.87/- per quintal and as such plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 1,91,967.05/- from defendant on account of 50.40 quintals at the rate of Rs 3808.87/quintal. It is further averred that defendant has wrongly charged Rs 5400/- on account of Dalali, Rs 13500/- on account of halali mangai and Rs 4334/- + Rs 5016/- (total Rs 9350/-) on account of halali. After the receipt of said statement of account, plaintiff sent a notice dated 27.12.2012 to defendant through its counsel by registered AD post demanding Rs 1,95,775.92/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. within seven days of receipt and the same was duly served upon defendant, and reply dated 14.01.2013 was also sent by defendant wherein it was stated that it had rightly charged the amount for halali mangai and halali as the moth were brought from the godown in market for sale and all bags were emptied on a platform in market and thereafter the goods were sold in auction, and defendant had charged Rs 15/- per bag on account of emptying the bags and Rs 11/- per bag on account of refilling them after sale., and Rs 5400/- was charged on account of brokerage; however, plaintiff has submitted Page 3 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 that the above is wrong and false as when the goods are sold in the market, then only sample of goods are taken out of bags by purchaser and all bags are not emptied on the platform, and plaintiff has further submitted that no broker was involved in the said transaction of purchase and as such Rs 5,400/- has been wrongly charged by defendant.
Apart from aforesaid amounts, plaintiff has also claimed Rs 18,167.95/- against defendant on account of interest due up to date at the rate of 18% p.a. and total amount being Rs 2,38,385/- which defendant has failed to pay despite repeated demands and service of notice dated 27.12.2012 and hence, the present suit.
Defendant's version:
3. In the WS, preliminary objections, inter-alia, have been taken qua the suggestion falsi and suppressio veri, lack of territorial jurisdiction and contradictory averments contained in plaint. In reply on merits, defendant has denied the allegations of plaintiff against it and it is stated that plaintiff initially had contacted the defendant for purchase of moth over phone and plaintiff had come to Nokha in the month of September 2011 and met defendant personally through some agent and had understood each and every term and condition regarding transaction in question. It is stated that defendant had purchased moth at the best available market price at Nokha; plaintiff had only made an advance payment to defendant at Nokha; it was clarified by defendant that as per market practice, all necessary, miscellaneous and incidental expenses incurred during purchase, storage, transport and sale are borne by the owner of goods. It is denied that the account qua the transactions done by defendant was to be rendered at Delhi, and it is submitted that defendant carries his business from Nokha and has no regular dealings in Delhi and the averments made by plaintiff are to bring the present case in the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is reiterated that the terms between the parties were agreed personally and not over phone and further stated by defendant that as per regular market practice for selling any product by auction in market, the same is taken out of the gunny bags in open and is weighed again to confirm the exact weight to buyer and also to let the buyer check the quality of grain/pulses and to confirm that they are not infected or damaged by insects, pests or rodents, etc. It is denied that account statement was to be sent to Delhi, rather it was agreed that plaintiff would come to Nokha on October-November 2012 but he didn't come and defendant transferred the requisite amount to the bank account of plaintiff who was initially satisfied. It is further stated that defendant had already Page 4 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 informed plaintiff that as moth purchased by him belongs to current harvest year crop, there may occur a weight reduction due to moisture loss in it, but plaintiff opted to go with decision to store the goods for almost a year to make good profit and was ready to bear the loss in weight of moth and thus, plaintiff was aware from beginning that during the course of one year, there may occur a weight loss in the moth on account of moisture loss. It is further denied that moth is a fully dry product or that there is not moisture in it. It is submitted that loss of moisture is a natural process and the contentions of plaintiff with regard to moth are only presumptions and guess work and as a matter of fact, the amount of moisture in moth is around 15-17% more than the usual moisture content of other pulses. It is submitted that the said moth was purchased and belonged to the current year harvest crop of 2011 and that loss in weight of moth is a natural and regular phenomenon and the same happens to every stock of moth in lesser amount or more. It is further submitted that four invoices dated 16.10.2012 and 11.10.2012 raised by defendant at the time of sale of moth would confirm the number of gunny bags opened and the weight found in the bags. It is denied that defendant has wrongfully charged Rs 5,400/- from plaintiff on account of Dalali and defendant has stated that plaintiff was well aware of the fact that sale and purchase of goods in grain market cannot happen without brokers and they have been paid at the rate of Rs 6/- per gunny bag and the same is a regular and well accepted and adapted market practice, Rs. 15/- per gunny bag paid for transport expenses (halali mangai i.e. transport from godown/warehouse to mandi and then goods are taken out from gunny bags and dispersed over mandi platform for auction, amounting to Rs 13,500/-) and Rs 9,350/- paid as halali (weighing and repacking of moth @ Rs 11/- per gunny bag) and the same is a regular and well accepted and adapted market practice. It is thus denied that defendant has wrongfully claimed the amounts of Rs 13,500/- and Rs 9,350/- from plaintiff and it is clarified that broker was involved in the sale and not purchase of said goods for plaintiff and accordingly, amount of Rs 5,400/- have been claimed from plaintiff. It is reiterated by defendant that the said loss of weight has occurred on account of loss of moisture from the said moth during the course of one year when the goods were purchased, stored and then sold. It is submitted that the claims of plaintiff are malafide and are in contradiction to the agreed terms between the parties and contrary to the regular market practice followed in the grain market. It is submitted that defendant has paid all the amounts to plaintiff as per the accounts and as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. Further, defendant has also stated that the Page 5 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 legal notice sent by plaintiff was duly replied by defendant vide its reply dated 14.01.2013 and all the allegations leveled in the said notice have been denied. Lastly, defendant has denied the amount or any other relief claimed by plaintiff against it and accordingly, it is prayed that the present suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Replication by plaintiff:
4. In its replication, plaintiff has denied the submissions contained in WS and reiterated & reaffirmed the averments of plaint. In para 4 of the replication, it is averred that the whole transaction had taken place on phone with defendant and neither Sh. Subhash Chand nor other partner of plaintiff firm had gone to Nokha for purchase of Moth through some agent as alleged, and it is submitted that before filing of the present suit, plaintiff had sent a notice dated 27.12.2012 to defendent which was duly served upon defendant and reply dated 14.01.2013 was also admittedly sent by defendant wherein it was clearly admitted by defendant that orders for purchase of moth was given by plaintiff to defendant on telephone and after purchase of moth to the extent of 900 bags of 100 kgs each were to be kept in godown at Nokha and that after purchase of said bags, plaintiff was duly informed by defendant. It is averred in para 11 that moth purchased by defendant in September and October 2011 was of the crop of 2010 not of 2011in as much as the new crop of moth does not come in month of September or up to second week of October. In para 12, it is averred that moisture in moth and other pulses in the State of Rajasthan does not exceed 8 to 9% and even if moth is stored for a long period of one year or more, still the moisture will not come down and as such there is no question as alleged by defendant. In para 15 it is submitted that defendant is alleged to have sold 230 bags of moth to M/s Gopi Kishan Jhanwar & Company vide bill dated 16.10.2012 which is a concern of defendant itself and defendant has made a false story of reduction in weight of moth. Similarly, defendant had wrongly shown the reduction in weight alleged to be sold by it to M/s Arihant Industries and M/s Rishub Industries in order to cause loss to plaintiff. In para 25, it is alleged that the invoices dated 16.10.2012 and 11.10.2012 are false and wrong and illegally got prepared by defendant. All other averments of defendant in WS have been denied by plaintiff.
5. It is pertinent to mention that an application under Oder VII Rule 11(a) & (d) was filed on behalf of defendant wherein plea was also raise qua the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and the same was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court v.o.d 13.11.2013.Page 6 of 21 (Sonam Singh)
Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 Another application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed on behalf of defendant seeking to amend the WS by way of adding verification clause after prayer para in the WS which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor this Court v.o.d 18.03.2014.
6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues have been framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dt. 16.04.2014:
1) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD
2) Whether the plaintiff is a duly registered partnership firm and the present suit has been filed in accordance with Section 69 of the Partnership Act? OPP
3) Whether there is no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD
4) Whether the defendant had rightly deducted Rs 1,91,967.05/- on account of loss of weight 50.40 quintals of the moth out of 900 bags of moth of total weight of 900 quintals sold by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff? OPD
5) Whether the defendant has rightly deducted Rs 5400/- on account of dalali?
OPD
6) Whether defendant has rightly deducted Rs 13,500/- on account of Dhalai Mangai and Rs 9500/- on account of Halali? OPD
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs 2,20,217.05/- from the defendant ? OPP
8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
9) Relief
7. To prove its case, plaintiff has examined three witnesses, namely: PW-1: Sh. Subhash Chand Singhal, PW-2: Sh. Anil Kumar Mittal and PW-3: Sh. Amit Kumar Mittal by tendering their affidavits which are Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW3/A respectively. The witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for defendant. That apart, plaintiff has relied upon the following documents:
Ex. PW1/1 Certified copy of Form A issued by the Registrar of Firms Ex. PW1/2 Original Statement of account sent by defendant to the plaintiff Ex. PW2/A Hindi translation of the aforesaid statement of account Ex. PW1/3 Notice dated 27.12.2012 Ex. PW1/4 Original postal receipt dated 02.01.2013 Page 7 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 Ex. PW1/5 Reply of notice dated 27.12.2012 Ex. PW1/6 to 1/8 Three inspection certificate of weight and quality (objected as to the mode of proof) During cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses, following documents were put by the Ld. Counsel for defendant:
Ex. PW1/D1 Purchase statement (filed by defendant)
Ex. PW1/D2 Letter of claim for shortage & stock discharge receipts (colly 8
pages)
Mark D1 Copy of ID card of PW-2 issued By Dalal Galla Committee
Mark D2 Copy of receipt/memo dated 29.08.2016 in respect of dealing of
Moth @ Rs 3500/-
Mark D3 Copy of ID of PW-3
8. Thereafter, on request of Ld. Counsel, plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dt.
08.05.2017 and matter was fixed for DE. However, despite giving opportunities, no evidence was led on behalf of defendant, and accordingly DE was closed v.o.d 30.05.2018. Arguments were advanced afresh by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff before this Court on 29.01.2021, however, no one argued on behalf of defendant despite opportunities and accordingly, the suit was fixed for judgment.
Evidence in Brief:
9. PW1: Sh. Subhash Chand Singhal- The witness in his affidavit has reiterated the contents of plaint & replication and has relied upon following documents:
Ex. PW1/1 Certified copy of Form A issued by the Registrar of Firms Ex. PW1/2 Original Statement of account sent by defendant to the plaintiff Ex. PW2/A Hindi translation of the aforesaid statement of account Ex. PW1/3 Notice dated 27.12.2012 Ex. PW1/4 Original postal receipt dated 02.01.2013 Ex. PW1/5 Reply of notice dated 27.12.2012 Ex. PW1/6 to 1/8 Three inspection certificate of weight and quality (objected as to the mode of proof) In his cross examination, the witness has stated that there are two partners in the plaintiff firm including himself and Sh. Sant Kumar Singhal and that he has not obtained any written authority etc. from him to file the present suit. It is stated that the other partner is Page 8 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 aware of the present transaction and the bank account of firm is being operated severally by the partners. It is stated that the witness talked on telephone with Mr. Radha Krishna for the first time in September 2011, when it was agreed that he would purchase Moth on his behalf and would further stock the same and invest some money into the same on their behalf. It is stated that the defendant was referred to the witness by a broker from Lawrence Road, Delhi who had not mentioned any term of transaction. It is stated that after the purchase of Moth, defendant had sent a purchase statement to plaintiff which has been filed in the present suit by the witness. At this stage, the witness identifies the document filed by defendant as the said purchase statement and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1. It is stated that the said written instrument/document is the first instrument which was received from defendant by plaintiff in Delhi. The witness has stated that at the time of aforesaid telephonic conversation no one from defendant side had made any commitment regarding moisture reduction in the Moth. It is stated that after the purchase, he did not inspect the moth personally in Nokha, Bikaner (Rajasthan), that he regularly carries on business in the said area and that he has never done the business of moth before in the said region, however, he continually deals in moth from Lawrence Road, Delhi which is received from Nokha and surrounding regions. The witness has further stated that he cannot respond to the suggestion that on an average, the moth is stocked only for 3-4 months as there is no particular average period of stock. When the question was put by the Ld. Counsel for defendant that it is very rare that the moth is stocked for more than a year in Delhi, it was replied that the question is difficult to answer as the stock is directly dependent on demand and supply of the crop. It is further stated that the witness is not aware about the wages rates of labor in Nokha and has knowledge of said rates in Delhi and the labor rate for loading and unloading in Delhi is at present is Rs 3.5/- for each bag of 70 to 100 kg and the brokerage charges is about Rs 6 to 8 per quintal which is to be paid in Delhi only by the person who ever sells the same. The witness has further stated that he is not aware about the rates of Halali Mangai in Delhi. He's stated to be correct that the moth contains about 8 to 9 percent of moisture. It is further stated that it was agreed that plaintiff shall be bearing the expenses for purchase and storage of moth and subsequent to sale of stock, he would be bearing the expense of labor employed for the purpose of loading the stock. In his further cross-examination, the witness stated that the documents produced by him pertains to moong and not moth and the same is for 6-7 months. It is stated that the witness has not carried out any transaction similar to the Page 9 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 present suit in Rajasthan and that he had not stored moth in Delhi for one year ever. It is stated that a slight moisture loss is possible but not to the degree as claimed by defendant.
It is stated that the charges levied by defendant at the time of purchase of product except dalali are correct but those levied at the time of sale are not correct. Apart from this, nothing material has been stated during cross-examination.
PW2: Sh. Anil Kumar Mittal- The witness has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A. In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that he works for Subhash Chand Singhal and receives monetary consideration from him and works as broker in whole market. It is stated that if moth containing 8-9% moisture is stored then the same can remain intact up to one year. The witness however does not know the meaning of word intact. It is further stated on the basis of his experience that moth has got damaged where the moisture was more than 8-9%. The witness has stated that he is merely a broker and the record is maintained by purchase or seller, and that the moisture may increase from 9% to 10% but never decreases. The copy of ID of this witness and copy of receipt/memo dated 29.08.2016 in respect of dealing of moth have been marked as D1 and D2. Apart from this, nothing material has been stated during cross- examination.
PW3: Sh. Amit Kumar Mittal- The witness has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW3/A. In his cross-examination, the copy of ID of witness is marked D3 and he has stated that he knows partner of plaintiff Sh. Subhash Chand and works as a daal broker for him. The witness has stated that he has not dealt with any transaction where moth was stored for one year, but has dealt with one where it was stored for 9 months and was for new crop. It is further stated that there was no moisture loss in the said fresh crop, however, in one bag of 100 kg of moth, there is loss of 500g-1kg of weight and the weight loss is generally when the purchaser's man/staff checks the bag, otherwise the loss is not of 500g-1kg. It is further stated that for the present year, fresh crop of moth has come in market in September end. Apart from this, nothing material has been stated during cross-examination.
10. I've heard the arguments and also perused the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Page 10 of 21 (Sonam Singh)Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 Issue No.1:
11. The burden to prove this issue was upon defendant, however defendant has neither led any evidence to prove this issue nor advanced arguments for the same. Defendant has merely stated in its WS that no case has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and that plaintiff has tried to manipulate the facts and averments in order to bring the case within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is further stated in WS that all dealings pertaining to transaction were accomplished at Nokha, Rajasthan and that parties agreed that any dispute shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of court there. Plaintiff, on the other hand, in his affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A has deposed that as plaintiff wanted to purchase moth, so this witness on behalf of plaintiff had contacted defendant on phone in September 2011 to purchase moth for plaintiff. Further, the witness has relied upon Ex. PW1/5 to show that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
Perusal of the aforesaid document i.e. Ex. PW1/5 shows that it is the reply sent behalf of defendant dated 14.01.2013 to the legal notice of plaintiff and in para no.3 of the said reply, it is stated that order to defendant firm for purchase of 900 bags of moth was placed on telephone by plaintiff firm which clearly establishes that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. The said reply dated 14.01.2013 also finds mention in the WS of defendant. Further, in his cross-examination also, PW-1 has stated that he talked on telephone with Mr. Radha Krishna for the first time in September 2011. On the point of territorial jurisdiction, reference may also be made to the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s Girdharilal Parshottamdas and Co. and Others decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.08.1965. In this case the respondents had entered into a contract with the appellants by long-distance telephone. The offer was spoken by the respondent at Ahmedabad and acceptance was spoken by appellants at Khamgaon. Alleging breach of the said contract the respondents filed a suit at Ahmedabad. On the issue of jurisdiction raised by appellants, the trial court found that the Ahmedabad Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. In the said case in view of the opinion of the majority, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the trial court was right in the view which it has taken that a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, where acceptance was communicated by telephone to the plaintiffs.
Page 11 of 21 (Sonam Singh)Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 Thus in view of above, issue no.1 is decided against defendant and in favor of plaintiff.
Issue No.2:
12. The burden of proof to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. Section 69 of the Partnership Act provides as follows:
"69. Effect of non-registration.--
(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be insti -
tuted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. (2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons su- ing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect,-
(a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dis - solved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or (b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 realise the property of an insolvent part- ner.
(4) This section shall not apply-
(a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in the territories to which this Act extends, or whose places of business in the said territories, are situated in ar- eas to which, by notification under section 56, this Chapter does not apply, or
(b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), or, outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim."
In order to prove this issue, plaintiff has placed on record the certificate of registration of its firm and the same is Ex. PW1/1. Perusal of this document, i.e. Form-A maintained under Rule 4(1) of Delhi Partnership Rules 1972 under section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 shows that it bears the name of plaintiff firm and the date of registration is mentioned as 31.01.2011. Further, the certificate also bears the name of Sh. Subhash Chand as one of the partners in the firm and the present suit has been instituted Page 12 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 through him. Moreover, defendant has not challenged this document. Thus, issue no.2 is decided in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.
Issue No.3:
13. The burden to prove this issue was upon defendant, however, as stated above defendant has neither led any evidence nor advanced arguments. The meaning of cause of action in common legal parlance is a bundle of facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 294 has explained the meaning of cause of action. Para 17 of the said judgment may be reproduced as follows:
"The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially-settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises."
It is the case of the plaintiff that it had contacted defendant on phone for purchase of Moth in September 2011 and placed order from Delhi, subsequent to which defendant had purchased 900 bags of moth, each containing 100 kgs of moth, and the same were sold by defendant on behalf of plaintiff at the rate of Rs 3808.87 per quintal. It is further deposed that as per agreement, defendant had to send statement of account to plaintiff at Delhi, however, after repeated demands the said statement was sent by defendant on 14.12.2012 to plaintiff wherein it was mentioned that at the time of sale of 420 bags of moth on 11.10.2012 their total weight was found to be 394 quintals in place of 420 quintals and total weight of remaining 480 bags of moth was found to be 455 quintals and 60 kgs at the time of their sale in place of 480 quintals, and the original statement of account has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/2 and the hindi translation of the same is Ex. PW1/2A. It is thus contended by plaintiff that the loss in weight has been shown by defendant for making illegal gain by defendant and the defendant has wrongly deducted the said amount in the account of plaintiff, and thus, plaintiff is entitled to recover the Page 13 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 said amount from defendant. It is further contended that defendant has wrongly charged Rs 5400/- on account of dalali, Rs 13500/- as halali mangai and Rs 9350/- as halali from plaintiff. It is settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts which gives a ground to enforce a legal right which plaintiff must prove so as to get a judgment in his favor. In order to decide whether a suit has a subsisting cause of action or not, the court has to look at the plaint and nothing else. After perusal of the plaint and materials available on record, the Court is of the view that there is a valid cause of action in favor of plaintiff to recover the aforesaid amount alleged to be wrongfully deducted by defendant from the account of plaintiff. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant.
Issue Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7:
14. The aforesaid issues are taken up together being inter-connected and the burden qua the deductions of amount on account of loss of weight, dalali, dhalai mangai & halali was on defendant (issue no. 4, 5, and 6) whereas burden qua the recovery of those amounts was on plaintiff issue no. 7.
14.1. I would first deal with deductions made by defendant on account of dalali, dhalai mangai and halali as Rs 5400/-, Rs 13500/- and Rs 9500/- respectively onus of which was on defendant.
In his affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A, PW-1 has deposed that plaintiff had contacted defendant on phone and had authorized defendant to buy moth on its behalf at Nokha, Rajasthan and plaintiff had agreed to pay defendant the amount for goods purchased, storage/godown charges, interest on amount invested, wages and aarat as per practice prevailing in the market. It was also agreed that defendant would render true and correct account to plaintiff at Delhi. It is deposed that as per the agreement, defendant had purchased moth for plaintiff and stored the same in godown till they were sold, and as per agreement defendant had to send statement of account to plaintiff in Delhi soon after the goods were sold. It is further deposed that defendant had sold 420 bags on 11.10.2012 @ Rs 3808.87/ quintal and remaining 480 bags on 16.10.2012 at same rate. However, on palintiff's repeated demands and requests defendant had sent statement of account on 14.12.2012 which was received on 17.12.2012 wherein it was mentioned that at the time of sale of 420 bags on 11.10.2012, their total weight was found to be 394 quintals & total weight of remaining 480 bags was found to be 455 quintals & 60 kgs. The original Page 14 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 statement of account is Ex. PW1/2 and hindi translation of the same is Ex. PW1/2A. The witness has deposed that in the said statement of account defendant has wrongly charged Rs 5400, Rs 13,500 and Rs 9350 from plaintiff on account of dalali, halali mangai and halali respectively. It is also deposed that in its reply dated 14.01.2013 sent by defendant (Ex. PW1/5) to the notice of plaintiff which is Ex. PW1/3, defendant has wrongly stated that the said amounts were rightly charged as the goods were brought from godown in market for sale and all bags were emptied on a platform in market and thereafter goods were sold in auction after emptying and refilling the bags. It is further replied by defendant that no goods could be sold in market without paying dalali. However, PW-1 has deposed that when goods are sold in market then only a sample of goods is taken out from bags by purchaser and all goods are not emptied and defendant as such has introduced a false story. It is further deposed that there was no question of charging any dalali by defendant and no broker was involved in the said transactions as defendant is alleged to have sold 230 bags to M/s Gopi Kishan Jhanwar & Company vide bill dated 16.10.2012 (through broker Sh. Nand Kishore Lahoti) which is a concern of defendant itself and as such there is no question of purchasing the goods through any broker. During cross-examination of PW-1, the witness has identified the document filed by defendant i.e. purchase statement and the same is Ex.PW1/D1 and it is stated that the said document was the first written instrument/document received from defendant by plaintiff. It is further stated in cross-examination that it was agreed that plaintiff shall be bearing the expenses for purchase, storage of moth and expenses of labor for loading of the stock. It is further stated that it is wrong to suggest that broker is involved both at the time of purchase and thereafter sale of the goods. It is also stated in cross-examination that the charges levied by defendant at the time of purchase of product except dalali are correct but those levied at the time of sale are not correct.
Perusal of the aforesaid exhibited statement of accounts shows that an amount of Rs 5400/-, Rs 9350/- and Rs 13500/- have been charged by defendant as dalali, halali mangai and halali. As stated above, Ex.PW1/D1 has been filed by defendant and perusal of the same shows that the said documents pertain to the purchase made by defendant on behalf of plaintiff on 20.09.11, 21.09.11 & 10.10.11, and the other part of this document dated 31.03.13 bears the name of one Mamta Trading Company wherein amount for dalali and halali mangai are mentioned as Rs 4308 and 7513 & 10770 respectively. However, the said document is dated 31.03.13 and is drawn in the name of one Mamta Trading Page 15 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 Company, whereas sale transactions in the present suit took place on 11.10.12 and 16.10.12 by defendant on behalf of plaintiff on one hand and Gopi Kishan Jhanwar and Company, Arihant Industries and Shri Rishab Industries on the other hand, and thus the document filed by defendants bearing the name of Mamta Trading Company cannot be relied upon here unless proved by defendant. It is also pertinent to note here that on behalf of defendant no witness has been examined to prove this transaction which took place between defendant and Mamta Trading Company. Further, in para no. 15 of its written statement under the heard of 'para-wise reply' defendant has referred to the four invoices dated 16.10.12 and 11.10.12 raised by it at the time of sale of moth. Now, even though the said invoices have not been exhibited by the defendant, reference can be made to them without any further proof at the instance of opposite party (plaintiff herein) as observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jai Kishan Mehta v. Ram Parshad (1996 Rajdhani Law Reporter 77 (DB)) as follows:
"The question arises as to whether at this stage we can look into it. The said reply was filed by the respondent in the Trial Court along with its postal receipt and A.D (at page 165 of the lower court file) along with the list of documents filed on 3.11.80, signed by the respondent himself. In our opinion this document, though unexhibited can be lead in evidence as the said document was filed by the respondent himself before the Trial Court and finds mention in para 11 of the w/s. It has been held by this Court in case M/s Rudnap Export-Import vs. Eastern Associates Air 1984 Delhi 20 that such a document, though unproved may be looked into without any further proof at the instance of the opposite party as in the present case. The age old saying that man may lie but not the circumstances is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case."
On perusal of copies of invoices of purchase and sale filed by defendant it transpires that on 10.10.11- 200 bags were purchased by defendant from one Gopi Kishan Jhanwar & Co. vide invoice no. 137, and on 16.10.12- 230 bags were sold by defendant to Gopi Kishan Jhanwar & Co. through broker Nand Kishore Lahoti vide invoice no.130. On further perusal of these invoices it appears that they bear the same phone numbers. Furthermore, on perusal of other three sale invoices dated 16.10.12 and 11.10.12 (through broker Nand Kishore Lahoti), it also transpires that in none of the aforesaid sale invoices, any amount has been charged for dalali, halali mangai or halali as contended & claimed by defendant in its statement of account; rather amounts qua bardana, silai, loading and aarat have been mentioned therein. Furthermore, on perusal of the statement of account of plaintiff maintained in the books of defendant firm along with detail of expenses as Page 16 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 filed by defendant in its list of documents, it appears that nowhere in this statement, there is any mention of dalali, halali mangai or halali as charged by defendant. Moreover, as stated in preceding paragraph during cross-examination PW-1 has stated that it was agreed that plaintiff shall be bearing the expenses for purchase, storage of moth and expenses of labor for loading of the stock and he has further stated that it is wrong to suggest that broker is involved both at the time of purchase and thereafter sale of the goods. It is also stated in cross-examination that the charges levied by defendant at the time of purchase of product except dalali are correct but those levied at the time of sale are not correct. Thus, in view of above findings, issues no. 5 & 6 qua rightful deduction by defendant of Rs 5400/-, 13500/- and 9500/-on account of dalali, dhalai mangai and halali are decided against defendant and in favor of plaintiff.
14.2. I shall now deal with the issues of rightful deduction of Rs 1,91,967.05/- by defendant on account of loss of weight 50.40 quintals of the moth out of 900 bags of moth of total weight of 900 quintals sold by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, and recovery of aforesaid amounts from defendant by plaintiff.
In his affidavit PW-1 has deposed that in the statement of account sent by defendant to Delhi, it is mentioned that at the time of sale of 420 bags of moth on 11.10.2012 their total weight was found to be 394 quintals in place of 420 quintals and the total weight of remaining 480 bags of moth was found to be 455 quintals & 60 kilograms at the time of their sale in place of 480 quintals. Thus, weight of 900 bags of moth had been reduced from 900 quintals to 849 quintals 60 kilograms and it was informed by defendant that reduction in weight was because of moisture. It is further deposed by this witness that the said contention of defendant is totally false and wrong in as much as moth is a fully dry product and there cannot be any moisture in the said product as alleged by defendant as in case it had such a huge moisture then it would not have remained intact for a period of about one year in godown and would have been damaged by insects as soon as stored. It is further deposed that the bags of moth which were purchased by defendant for plaintiff in September & October 2011 and it was of old crop, and were sold in October 2012 in good condition so there was no question of being any moisture to such extent as alleged by defendant. It is further deposed that the new crop of moth does not come in month of September, rather it comes after second week of October every year. The witness has further deposed that defendant has falsely alleged that moisture in moth is 15 to 17% Page 17 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 more than the usual moisture content of other pulses. It is further deposed that before filing the present suit plaintiff had sent notice dated 27.12.12 to defendant demanding the suit amount from defendant and on receipt of the same defendant sent a reply dated 14.01.13 in which it has not stated that moth contains moisture to the extent of 15% to 17% more than the usual moisture in other pulses. It is, thus, stated that defendant has caused loss to plaintiff and made illegal gain of the price of 50 quintals and 40 kgs for himself, and as such plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from defendant at the rate of Rs 3808.87 paise per quintal. The witness has also deposed that he has been dealing in pulses since a long time and moisture in pulses like moth, moong, etc. does not exceed more than 8 to 9% so the said pulses remain intact even for one year when stored in godown, and thus the contention of defendant that moisture in moth is more than 15 to 17% more than other pulses is false in as much as if moisture is 8% + 15%= 23% to 25% then moth cannot remain intact ever if the same is stored for a month. Plaintiff has produced three original inspection certificates regarding weight and quality of masoor issued by Intertek Testing Services (Australia) showing that moisture in masoor remains in between 8 to 9% and the same is Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/8 (objected as to mode of proof).
During cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that at the time of telephonic conversation, no one from defendant side had made any commitment regarding moisture reduction in moth. The witness has further stated that he regularly carries on business in said area of Rajasthan and has never done business of moth before in said region. He has stated however that he continuously deals in moth from Lawrence Road, Delhi where moth is stocked as per the demand and there is no average period of stock which can be stated. The witness cannot respond to the suggestion that on an average moth is stocked only for 3-4 months as there is no particular average period of stock. The witness has further stated to be correct that moth contains 8 to 9% of moisture and defendant had reduced the moisture content in sale statement to the tune of about 5.5% and has also stated that it is wrong to suggest that he was informed regarding the said loss prior to entering into transaction and further that moisture loss from stock of moth is a natural process. During further cross-examination, documents showing similar transactions between plaintiff and other clients were called and same has been marked as Ex.PW1/D2 (colly 8 pages) and it has been stated by the witness that these documents are not related to moth but are for moong and the storage period recorded is for 6-7 months. It is also stated that this Page 18 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 transaction is different and distinct from transaction in the suit and that witness has not stored moth in Delhi for one year. The witness however has denied the suggestion that he had not transacted in moth in Delhi. The witness has stated that in nature, slight moisture loss is possible but it is not possible to the degree as claimed by defendant. The witness has denied that lot of moth purchased for it was of crop of year 2011 and stated that defendant is a license holder at Nokha Mandi and he is not a broker rather he is a trader as well as a commission agent.
Further, in his examination PW-2 and PW-3 have deposed that moth is a fully dry product in which moisture does not exceed more than 8 to 9%. They have also deposed that moth does not contain moisture of 15% to 17% more in comparison of other pulses. During cross-examination, PW-2 has denied the suggestion that he has never dealt in moth where moisture is more than 8-9%. During cross-examination of PW-3, the witness has stated that he has recently not dealt with any such transaction where moth was stored for one year, however, he has dealt with one transaction where it was stored for 9 months.
As stated earlier, no witness has been examined on behalf of defendants nor arguments advanced. In its WS, defendant has mainly contended that the moth purchased for plaintiff by defendant belonged to current harvest year crop and there may occur a weight reduction due to moisture loss in it and it was plaintiff who desired to store it for one year, despite apprising that this way reduction could be substantial also, and plaintiff was ready to bear the weight loss in moth. Defendant has denied in WS that moth is a fully dry product or that there is no moisture in it and further averred that as a matter of fact the amount of moisture in moth is around 15-17% more than the usual moisture content of other pulses and that loss in weight of moth is natural and regular phenomenon and the same happens to every stock of moth in lesser amount or more.
It, thus, appears that whereas defendant has raised many contentions in its written statement qua moisture loss in purchased moth and resultant reduction in weight thereof, however, none of the contentions have not been proved by defendant- whether by documentary or oral evidence. During cross-examination of PW-1, defendant has got marked certain documents as Ex.PW1/D2, however, the said documents pertain to moong and not moth and in his cross-examination, PW-1 has clearly stated that this transaction is different and distinct from transaction in the suit. Further, one of the main contentions of defendant qua reduction in weight during sale of moth that moisture contained therein is Page 19 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 around 15% to 17% more than the usual moisture content of other pulses has also not been proved by defendant in any way. It is well settled that mere averments in pleadings of parties cannot be relied upon unless proved by them in evidence, and in the present suit, neither defendant who purchased and sold moth on behalf of plaintiff has examined himself, nor has the broker- Nand Kishore Lahoti through whom sale transactions were made has been examined on behalf of defendant, nor has any document been produced & proved as per law to establish the defence as contended by defendant in its WS. Furthermore, in its reply to plaintiff dated 14.01.2013 which is Ex. PW1/5, defendant has nowhere raised the contention qua the percentage of moisture content in moth. Furthermore, the invoices of sale and statement of account filed by defendant in the list of documents are not the original copies and thus they cannot be read in evidence for defendant unless proved as per law. On the point of cross-examination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muddasani Venkata v. Muddasani Sarojana (decided on 05.05.2016) has held that:
"The cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one is required to put one's own version in cross-examination of opponent. The effect of non cross-examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. The effect of not cross-examining the witnesses has been considered by this Court in Bhoju Mandal & Ors. v. Debnath Bhagat & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1906. This Court repelled a submission on the ground that same was not put either to the witnesses or suggested before the courts below. Party is required to put his version to the witness. If no such questions are put the court would presume that the witness account has been accepted as held in M/s. Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1958 Punjab 440. In Maroti Bansi Teli v. Radhabai w/o Tukaram Kunbi & Ors. AIR 1945 Nagpur 60, it has been laid down that the matters sworn to by one party in the pleadings not challenged either in pleadings or cross-examination by other party must be accepted as fully established. The High Court of Calcutta in A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian AIR 1961 Cal. 359 has laid down that the party is obliged to put his case in cross-examination of witnesses of opposite party. The rule of putting one's version in cross-examination is one of essential justice and not merely technical one."
Thus, in view of findings and discussion made above, issue nos. 4 and 7 are decided against defendant and in favor of plaintiff.
Issue No.8:
15. In order to prove this issue, plaintiff in para no.23 of plaint has averred that defendant has wrongly withheld the amount of plaintiff and as such is also liable to pay Rs 18,167.95 on Page 20 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi M/s. Sri Niwas Dall and Besan Mill v. M/s. Radha Kishan Gopi Kishan Jhanwar Civil Suit No. 595161/16 account of interest due up to date @ 18% per annum as per provisions of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and also as per customs and usage of prevailing in the grain market, and further averred that plaintiff has also paid interest to defendant at the said rate. Plaintiff has placed reliance upon the statement of account filed by defendant in the list of documents where the rate of interest has been stated as 18% p.a. On perusal of the statement of account filed by defendant along with other documents in the list of documents, it transpires that interest has been charged @ 18% and plaintiff has thus claimed interest at the said rate from the date of filing of suit till payment as averred in para no.23 & 30 of plaint. However, regarding the rate of interest, it is to observe that nowhere it has been averred that it was agreed between parties that interest would be charged at such rate. Therefore, being on the higher side, same is reduced to 9% per annum to be calculated on the principal sum of Rs 2,20,217.05/- (Rs 1,91,967.05 + Rs 5400 + Rs 13500 + Rs 9350) from the date of filing of suit till its payment. Issue no. 8 is decided accordingly in favor of plaintiff and against defendant to the extent discussed herein.
Issue no. 9: Relief
16. In light of findings on all the issues as discussed above, the present suit is hereby decreed with costs in favor of plaintiff and against defendant directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 2,20,217.05/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum to be calculated on the said amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization of said amount.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court: (Sonam Singh)
Dated: 29.09.2021 Civil Judge-07, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Note: This Judgment contains twenty-one pages and all pages have been checked and signed by me.
(Sonam Singh) Civil Judge-07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Page 21 of 21 (Sonam Singh) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi