Delhi District Court
Sh. Nadeem Babar vs (1) Rafiq Ahmed on 5 March, 2015
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
IN THE COURT OF SH. G. N. PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 136/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0108592009
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Nadeem Babar
S/o Sh. Mohd. Yameen,
R/o 31A, Old Brijpur,
Parwana Road, Gali No. 6
Delhi110051 ...... Plaintiff
VERSUS
(1) Rafiq Ahmed
S/o Sh. Bundu Khan,
(2) Smt. Shabana Parveen
W/o Rafiq Ahmed
Both R/o B61 ( Old), B353( New)
Gali No. 2, Tripal Factory Wali Gali
( Near Ansari STD), Indra Vihar,
Shahdara, Delhi110094 ......Defendants
CS No. 136/14 1/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
Date of Institution of suit : 08.04.2009
Received in this Court : 06.02.2014
Arguments heard on : 04.03.2015
Date of Judgment/Order : 05.03.2015
Decision : Suit is decreed
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, POSSESSION &
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying
for directing the defendant to execute the sale documents in respect of
property bearing No. B61, Indra Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi 94 out of Khasra
No. 57/13 admeasruing 35 sq. yards consisting one room set on ground
floor and one room set on first floor with kitchen and bathroom as shown
in red color in the suit plan attached with the plaint ( hereinafter called the
suit property) ; decree of possession in respect of the suit property and
permanent injunction restraining the defendant, agents, servants, associates
etc. not to create any third party interest in the suit property.
2. Plaintiff has averred that on 25.11.2008, an agreement to sell in
respect to the suit property was entered into with the defendant for an
amount of Rs. 8 lakh. The plaintiff paid the earnest money of Rs. 2 lakh
CS No. 136/14 2/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
and the remaining consideration was to be paid on or before 22.12.2008 at
the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff has arranged the
balance consideration and contacted defendant on 22.12.2008 to visit sub
registrar office for execution of the documents but defendant did not
reached there and plaintiff kept waiting in the office till 04:00 PM. The
plaintiff again contacted the defendant but of no avail. The defendant even
did not come on 10.01.2009 to execute the document as agreed between the
parties. Plaintiff served legal notice dated 15.01.09 to the defendant vide
registered AD as well as UPC asking the defendant to execute the
documents or pay the double amount of the earnest money in view of the
agreement but the defendant failed to comply the notice. The plaintiff was
always ready and willing and is still willing to execute the part of the
agreement dated 25.11.2008. Thereafter this suit is filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant.
3. None appeared for the defendant No. 1 despite service through
affixation and therefore he was proceeded ex parte vide order 24.04.2012. It
further appears that on the application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the
defendant No. 2/wife of defendant no. 1, she was impleaded as defendant
No. 2 in view of order dated 23.04.2011. The defendant No. 2 contested the
suit and filed WS contending that this suit is false, not maintainable and
CS No. 136/14 3/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
filed without any cause of action; the plaintiff has suppressed the material
facts. As contended, the plaintiff has filed this suit on the basis of forged
and fabricated agreement in collusion with the defendant No. 1 to grab the
suit property and defendant No. 2 is cosharer. It is mentioned that
defendant No. 1 has no right to execute the said agreement to sell and
plaintiff has concealed the material facts. It is further mentioned that
defendant No. 2 is in possession of the suit property as cosharer and this
suit is not maintainable.
On merits the defendant No. 2 claimed to be the cosharer as her
father gave Rs. 60,000/ to the defendant No. 1 to purchase the property and
defendant No. 2 also contributed for the construction of the house. The suit
for permanent injunction was filed by the defendant No. 2. The defendant
No. 2 further denied other contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint and
prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Replication to the WS of the defendant No. 2 was filed by the
plaintiff whereby the plaintiff has reiterated and reaffirmed the contentions
as mentioned in the plaint.
5. In view of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed
vide order dated 07.08.2012:
(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance of
CS No. 136/14 4/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
the agreement to sell dated 25.11.2008 and for possession of the suit
premises ? OPP
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction
as prayed for ? OPP
(III) Whether the suit has under valued for the purpose of court fees and
pecuniary jurisdiction ? OPD2
(IV) Whether the defendant No. 2 has any right, title or interest in the suit
property ? OPD2
(V) Relief.
The case was thereafter fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
6. In support of his case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by way
of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. By way of his affidavit of evidence, the plaintiff
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. The witness has also relied
upon the relevant documents i.e. Site Plan Ex. PW1/1, Agreement to Sell
dated 25.11.2008 Ex. PW1/2, Receipt from the office of SubRegistrar Ex.
PW1/3, Legal Notice Ex.PW1/4, Registered AD Postal Receipts and UPC
Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6.
The plaintiff has also examined another witness Mr. Saleem by way
of affidavit Ex. PW2/A who is one of the attesting witnesses in the
agreement to sell dated 25.11.2008 executed between the plaintiff and
CS No. 136/14 5/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
defendant No. 1. The witness has further deposed nothing but the facts as
deposed by the PW1.
As no other witness remained to be examined on behalf of plaintiff,
PE was closed and case was fixed for DE.
7. The defendant No. 2 examined herself by way of affidavit Ex.
D2W1/A as DW2 and deposed regarding the contentions in the written
statement. The DE was thereafter closed.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the
relevant materials on record. I have also considered the relevant provisions
of law. My finding on the above said issues are as under:
Issue No. I to IV
(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific
performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.11.2008 and for
possession of the suit premises ? OPP
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent
injunction as prayed for ? OPP
(III) Whether the suit has under valued for the purpose of court fees
and pecuniary jurisdiction ? OPD2
(IV) Whether the defendant No. 2 has any right, title or interest in the
CS No. 136/14 6/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
suit property ? OPD2
9. The brief and relevant facts for filing of the suit along with the
defence of the defendant is mentioned at the outset. The onus to prove the
issue No. I to II i.e. regarding entitlement of the reliefs as prayed in the suit
was upon the plaintiff though the onus to prove the issue No. III and IV was
upon the defendant No. 2. All these issues are examined and adjudicated
together being inter related.
10. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the
pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of
plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and
the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of
that. Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported
in 183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to
observe as under:
"A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The
balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the
Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P1 were
duly executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power
CS No. 136/14 7/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
of Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and
more importantly, the original title documents of the
subject property are in the possession of the respondent
No. 1 and which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her fatherinlaw Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
'' 8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal CS No. 136/14 8/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi case visavis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit " preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance of probabilities
11. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines " burden of proof"
which is reproduced as below: " 101. Burden of proof whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the CS No. 136/14 9/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party.
12. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The specific performance is an equitable relief and Section 20 of the Act preserves judicial discretion. The relief U/S 20 is not automatic as the Court is required to see the totality of the circumstances which are to be assessed by the Court in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. The party who seek specific performance being an equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands and while exercising the discretion, the court would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties and the motive behind the litigation.
13. In a suit for Specific Performance, the plaintiff has to prove a valid sale agreement; the breach of the contract by the defendant and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The CS No. 136/14 10/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi relevant provision of law i.e. Section 16 (c ) of the Specific Relief Acts mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff as a condition precedent to seek specific performance. Section 16 (c ) is reproduced hereunder: " Section 16. Personal bars to relief Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person XXX XXX XXX ( C) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation. For the purposes of clause ( c ), where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction." CS No. 136/14 11/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
14. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 83/2007, the readiness and willingness are two separate issues. The former depends upon the availability of the requisite funds whereas the later depends on the intention of the purchaser. The readiness has to be proved by the purchaser by leading evidence relating to the availability of the funds whereas the intention has to be inferred from the various circumstances on record. If there is not availability of the funds with the purchaser, he can be none suited on the ground of non readiness alone. If the plaintiff is able to show and prove the availability of balance sale consideration with him at the time fixed for performance in the agreement, it is an indication of his readiness but his willingness/intention to perform cannot be inferred from readiness alone. It is the duty of the Court to find out which party has not performed his part of the contract and the Court has to take into consideration the human probabilities, ordinary course of human conduct and commonsense to draw necessary inference. The Court has to minutely examine the conduct of the parties in order to ascertain the truth.
15. In N. P. Thirugnanam Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, ( 1995) 5 SCC 115, the Supreme Court held that the Court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances to adjudge the " readiness" and " CS No. 136/14 12/21
Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi willingness" of the plaintiff. The amount of balance sale consideration must be proved to be available with the purchaser right from the date of execution till the date of decree. The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit for specific performance on various grounds inter alia that the plaintiff was dabbing in real estate business without means to purchase the suit property and the very contract was speculative in nature.
In R. C. Chandiok V. Chunni Lal Sabharwal, (1970) 3 SCC 140, the Supreme Court held that " readiness" and " willingness" cannot be treated as a straitjacket formula. It has to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned.
16. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 in support of his case and one of the witness to the agreement as PW2 and proved regarding the execution of the notarized agreement Ex. PW1/2. In the WS the defendant No. 2 has simplicitor denied the execution of the agreement by the defendant No. 1 contending that he has no right. It appears that the denial regarding the execution between the parties as well as payment of earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 by the defendant No. 2 is without any knowledge and she is not aware regarding this fact all. It is reiterated that execution of the agreement to sell and payment of earnest CS No. 136/14 13/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi money is proved in view of the testimony of the witnesses as well as for want of knowledge by the defendant in simple denial. The only question remained as to whether the defendant No. 1 had no right to enter into agreement to sell as the defendant No. 2 is the cosharer in the suit property.
17. The plaintiff has claimed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement. Even in view of the contentions of the defendant No. 2, the title documents of the property is in the name of defendant No. 1. The testimony of the PWs in one way or the other remained unimpeached. The defendant No. 2 on the other hand failed to produce any document on record to prove her contention regarding the ownership of the suit property or the suit property being purchased by her father. There is nothing on record except the bald averments of the defendant No. 2 which is not sufficient to prove the contentions. The defendant No. 2 further failed to show as to how this suit is not properly valued or this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. She rather admitted during crossexamination that suit property was purchased about 3540 years ago in the name of her husband i.e. defendant No. 1. She also admitted the receipt of the legal notice and non reply of the same along with none of the property documents in her name. In nut shell the defendant No. 2 failed to CS No. 136/14 14/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi discharge the onus and prove this issue that she has any right, title or interest in the suit property being coowner. Issue No. III and IV are decided against the defendant No. 2 accordingly.
18. In view of the pleading of the parties, testimony of the witnesses and documents on record, it is categorically proved that the defendant No. 1 has entered into agreement to sell with the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint and as the defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale documents, the plaintiff has every cause of action for filing of this suit. The PWs deposed regarding the facts as mentioned in the plaint which is proved. Moreover, the contentions of the plaintiff is admitted in one way or the other also in view of the pleadings. The testimony of the PWs remained unimpeached and uncontroverted and accordingly there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The plaintiff during crossexamination supported his case. There is nothing on record to deny the claim of the plaintiff except the bald averments of the defendant No. 2. The agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is also proved by the attesting witness PW2. The plaintiff categorically deposed that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
19. In view of the pleadings of the parties and testimony of the witnesses, it is proved that the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/2 was executed CS No. 136/14 15/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale documents despite readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement by the plaintiff. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant further challenged the maintainability of this suit on the ground that the agreement to sell being unregistered and inadmissible in evidence for passing decree in specific performance.
Section 17 of the Registration Act enumerates the list of documents which require registration. Section 17 (1) (b) of the Act provides for the registration of nontestamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property.
As the document Ex. PW1/2 is an agreement for sale of immovable property, it will not come under Section 17 (1) (b) of the clauses (b) and (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 17 applies to any document not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but, merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest.
CS No. 136/14 16/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi An agreement for sale of immovable property is a nontestamentary instrument which does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent in immovable property. Section 17 (2) (v) makes the position clear that a document not itself creating a right in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/ and upwards, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create any such right need not be registered.
It has been held in Narasimhaswamy v. Venkatalingam AIR 1927 Mad 636 (FB) that a document which does not by itself convey property but merely gives a right to call for another document does not require registration. Explanation to Section 17 (2) of the Act makes it clear that even an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as an evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance. This explanation was added by Section 2 of the Indian Registration ( Amendment) Act, 1927. The explanation states that a document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such a document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or of any part of the purchase money.
CS No. 136/14 17/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi In view of Section 17 (2) (v) and the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, it has to be held that an agreement for sale of immovable property even though not registered can form the basis for a suit specific performance. Thus, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant No. 2 that the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/2 cannot be enforced for want of registration, is untenable and misconceived.
20. In the present case the plaintiff stated in the plaint and also deposed that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract i.e. to pay the remaining balance sale consideration to the defendants and obtain titled deeds from him. The plaintiff further proved that he visited to the office of subregistrar to pay the balance consideration and obtain the sale deed. In view of the unrebutted facts proved by clear and cogent evidence show that vide agreement to sell dated 25.11.2008 Ex. PW1/2, the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant No. 2 is controverted and is not reliable as discussed above. Moreover, no amount of evidence in respect of a plea, which has not been incorporated in the pleadings can be taken into consideration. Further, a party cannot be allowed to travel beyond his pleadings. As the plaintiff deposed and proved that he was always ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration for execution of the sale documents but the CS No. 136/14 18/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi defendant did not perform his part of the agreement.
21. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003) 8 SCC 752. As held: Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of testing of "
proved", " disproved" and " not proved" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the difference. In a suit for possession of property based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving his title beyond any reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of proof would stand discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title ( Para 28,29 and 33). The present case being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to CS No. 136/14 19/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi have been discharged. In the opinion of this court the plaintiff had succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and, therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, materials on the record and testimony of the witnesses, it is proved that the plaintiff proved that he was ready to make the payment on the day when the documents were to be executed or on the day when the suit was filed. The payment of the balance sale consideration and execution of title documents was a simultaneous act. The defendant No. 1 was under obligation to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale documents. This Court does not find any substance in the contention of the defendants. The plaintiff is therefore entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. Issue No. I and II are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Relief (I) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.11.2008 Ex. PW1/1 in his favour and against the defendant, on the plaintiff paying to the defendant a sum of Rs. 6 lakh at CS No. 136/14 20/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi the time of registration of title documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants shall execute the title documents in favour of the plaintiff within three months from the date of this order and thereafter transfer the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. In case the defendant failed to hand over the possession as mentioned above, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to execute the decree for possession of the suit property as per the site plan Ex. PW1/1 in accordance with law.
(II) The defendant, agents, attorneys, associates etc. are restrained from transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property without following due process of law.
(III) The plaintiff is also entitled for the cost of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Announced in open Court on this 05th day of March, 2015 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 136/14 21/21 Nadeem Babar Vs. Rafiq Ahmed & Ors