Delhi District Court
Sh. Sanjay Verma vs Sh. Rakesh Verma on 3 January, 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. 180/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0354292009
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Sanjay Verma
S/o Sh. Adesh Verma
R/o D185, Gali No. 6, Bhajanpura,
Delhi110053 ...... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Rakesh Verma
S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal Verma
R/o K3/44, Gali No. 12A, West Ghonda,
Near Pahari Dharamshala,
Delhi110032 ......Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 05.12.2009
Received in this Court : 15.02.2014
Arguments heard on : 03.01.2015
Date of Judgment/Order : 03.01.2015
Decision : Suit is decreed
CS No. 180/14 1/20
Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
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 Khasra No. 442 measuring 20.5 Sq. Yards known as K3/44, Gali No.
12A, Near Pahari Dharamshala, West Ghonda, Delhi53 ( hereinafter called
the suit property) as shown in the site plan; decree of possession in respect of
the suit property and restraining the defendant, agents, servants, associates etc.
not to create any third party interest in the suit property.
2. Plaintiff has averred that on 14.08.09, an agreement to sell in respect to
the suit property was entered into with the defendant for an amount of Rs. 7.85
lakh. The plaintiff paid the earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh and the remaining
consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour
of the plaintiff by the defendant on 30.10.09. The plaintiff purchased the stamp
papers for Rs. 14,130/ on 29.10.09 and requested the defendant to give him the
title documents. On 30.10.09, the plaintiff reached to the subregistrar office
along with remaining balance consideration and also marks his presence in the
office. The defendant did not appear in the office of subregistrar despite
CS No. 180/14 2/20
Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
waiting. The plaintiff again requested the defendant to execute the sale
documents but the defendant refused to perform the part of his agreement.
Legal Notice was also issued by the plaintiff but despite service of the legal
notice, the defendant failed to execute the documents after receiving the
balance consideration. The plaintiff further requested the defendant to accept
the balance consideration and execute the sale deed as the plaintiff is ready and
willing to perform of his part of agreement but of no avail. Hence, this suit is
filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
3. The defendant filed WS contending that this suit is not maintainable and
the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. As contended, the plaintiff not
entered into agreement to sell with the defendant rather with Mr. Jai Pal who is
shown as witness in the agreement entered into with the defendant. There is no
cause of action for filing of this suit and the suit is barred under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC. The defendant further denied receiving any earnest money though
admitted that he received earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh from Jai Pal. The
defendant further denied other contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint and
prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
4. Replication to the WS of the defendant 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
CS No. 180/14 3/20
Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
vide order dated 14.01.2010:
(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance in
respect of suit property as prayed for ? OPP
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession with regard to
the suit property as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint ? OPP
(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction with
regard to suit property ? OPP
(IV) Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
(V) Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hand and suppressed the
material facts ? OPD
(VI) Whether the plaintiff has not entered into the agreement to sell with the
defendant as alleged in the plaint ? OPD
(VII) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant ?
OPD
(VIII) 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. PW1/1. 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. Agreement between the parties dated 14.08.09 Ex.
PW1/A, Site Plan Ex. PW1/B, Copy of Stamp Duty Mark A, Original Receipts
CS No. 180/14 4/20
Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
Ex. PW1/D and Legal Notice dated 06.11.09 Ex. PW1/E.
The plaintiff has also examined another witness Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Sharma by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A who is the attesting witness in the
agreement to sell. The witness has further deposed nothing but the facts as
deposed by the PW1.
Smt. Veena Rani wife of Late Jai Pal Mittal was also examined as PW3
vide her affidavit Ex. PW3/A who deposed that her husband was the attesting
witness of the agreement dated 14.08.09. The witness has further proved the
signature of Mr. Jai Pal on the agreement and deposed regarding the facts of
the case. As no other witness remained to be examined on behalf of plaintiff,
PE was closed and case was fixed for DE.
7. The defendant examined Sh. Devak Ram, Sr. Scientific Officer as DW1.
The defendant filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. DW2/1 and deposed
regarding the agreement dated 30.08.09 of Mr. Jai Pal. The other witness Smt.
Meera/ wife of the defendant was examined by the defendant as DW3. Mr. Raj
Kumar Gupta, Property Dealer was examined as DW4 . 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 gone through the written arguments filed by
the parties along with relevant provisions of law in support of contentions. My
finding on the above said issues are as under:
CS No. 180/14 5/20
Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
Issue No. I to VII
(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance
in respect of suit property as prayed for ? OPP
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession with regard
to the suit property as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint ?
OPP
(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction
with regard to suit property ? OPP
(IV) Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
(V) Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hand and suppressed
the material facts ? OPD
(VI) Whether the plaintiff has not entered into the agreement to sell with
the defendant as alleged in the plaint ? OPD
(VII) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant ?
OPD
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 III i.e. regarding entitlement of the reliefs as prayed in the suit was upon the
plaintiff though the onus to prove the issue No. IV to VII was upon the
defendant. All these issues are examined and adjudicated together being inter
CS No. 180/14 6/20
Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi
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 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 CS No. 180/14 7/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi 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 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 CS No. 180/14 8/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi 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 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 CS No. 180/14 9/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi 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 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 CS No. 180/14 10/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi 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."
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 CS No. 180/14 11/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi 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 " 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 deposed regarding the execution of the notarized agreement Ex. PW1/A. As observed, after framing of the issues an application U/S 151 CPC filed by the defendant for directing the plaintiff to make the payment in view of the CS No. 180/14 12/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi agreement dated 14.08.09 and get the documents of transfer executed in his favour. In the said application the defendant has admitted the execution of the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff and shown his readiness to execute the documents subject to the payment of balance amount of Rs. 6.85 lakh. In view of the application and the contents thereof, the averments of the written statement regarding no agreement between plaintiff and defendant as well as the agreement of the defendant with Jai Pal only is not sustainable. The contentions of the defendant that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts or this suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable is have no basis. Further, in view of the admission it is categorically proved that the defendant has entered into agreement to sell with the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint and as the defendant failed to execute the sale documents, the plaintiff has every cause of action for filing of this suit. The defendant has failed to prove the issues No. IV to VII and discharge the onus. These issues are accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
17. An application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the defendant again controverting his contentions in the aforementioned application U/S 151 CPC to implead Smt. Veena Rani wife of Jai Pal as a defendant. It appears that the version of the defendant is regularly changing and is not believable. The said application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2010 which attained finality. The plaintiff/PW1 deposed regarding the facts as CS No. 180/14 13/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi 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 and application filed by the defendant. The testimony of the plaintiff/PW1 remained unimpeached and uncontroverted and accordingly there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The plaintiff during crossexamination supported his case. PW4 Smt. Veena wife of Jai Pal Mittal categorically denied any agreement to sell executed between the defendant and her husband. There is nothing on record to deny the claim of the plaintiff except the bald averments of the defendant. The agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 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.
18. The contention of the defendant as mentioned above controverted to his own version and he filed two affidavit by way of evidence and controverted regarding his agreement with Jai Pal Mittal. Moreover, no such agreement between the defendant and Jai Pal Mittal either produced or proved due to the reason best known to the defendant. During crossexamination also the defendant regarding execution of only one agreement to sell dated 14.08.09 in respect of the suit property and the sale documents were to be executed on 30.10.09. The defendant further admitted that he did not go to the subregistrar office and accordingly failed to perform his part of agreement. The testimony of the other witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant is also not CS No. 180/14 14/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi sufficient to deny the claim of the plaintiff. The testimony of the DW1 also belie the claim of the defendant. PW4 also proved the execution of the agreement Ex. PW1/A dated 14.08.09 and therefore the contentions of the defendant appears to have no basis.
19. In view of the pleadings of the parties and testimony of the witnesses, it is proved that the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A was executed between the plaintiff and defendant and the defendant 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 un registered 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/A 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, CS No. 180/14 15/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi 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.
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 CS No. 180/14 16/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or of any part of the purchase money.
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 that the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A 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 defendant and obtain titled deeds from him. The plaintiff further proved that he visited to the office of sub registrar 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 14.08.09 Ex. PW1/A, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant 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 CS No. 180/14 17/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi documents but the 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 CS No. 180/14 18/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to 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 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 defendant. The plaintiff is therefore entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. Issue No. I, II and III are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief (I) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.08.09 Ex. PW1/A in his favour and against the defendant, on the plaintiff paying to the defendant a sum of Rs. 6.85 / lakh at CS No. 180/14 19/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge2( NE), KKD Courts, Delhi the time of registration of title documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant 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/B 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 03rd day of January, 2015 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. .
CS No. 180/14 20/20 Sanjay Verma Vs. Rakesh Verma