Union Of India & Anr vs Mohd.Abid
2012 Latest Caselaw 807 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     RSA 17/2012

%                                            Date of Decision: 06.02.2012


Union of India & Anr                                ..... Appellants
                            Through :   Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate.

                   versus


Mohd.Abid                                           ..... Respondent
                            Through :   Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL)
*

CM 2201/2012

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

RSA 17/2012

By way of this Regular Second Appeal under section 100 CPC,

appellants have challenged two concurrent judgments of the courts below

i.e., the original court dated 7th October, 2011 and that of first Appellate

court dated 9th December, 2011 by which the suit of the

respondent/plaintiff has been decreed and the decree of mandatory

injunction has been passed directing the appellants/defendants to issue

duplicate Indra Vikas Patras (in short referred to as `IVPs') and

thereafter encash the same or if procedure exists, the IVPs in question be

encashed without issuing duplicate certificates subject to furnishing of

undertaking and indemnity bond by the respondent/plaintiff.

The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as under:-

Respondent i.e., plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction

against the appellants herein i.e., defendants before the Ld. Civil Judge,

alleging therein that he is the holder of IVPs bearing number 60152,

60153, 60154, 60156, 64276 and 64276. The same were eaten by white

ants/rats. Accordingly, respondent/plaintiff had applied for issuance of

duplicate IVPs on 20.4.1998 and vide letter dated 20.4.1998, he was

asked by appellant/defendant to deposit ticket of one rupee denomination

against each certificate. The said instructions were complied with by

respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, despite repeated requests, duplicate

certificates were not issued by the appellants/defendants. A legal notice

was also sent but of no avail. Accordingly, a suit was filed by

respondent/plaintiff seeking directions for issuance of duplicate IVPs and

for encashment of the same.

Appellants/defendants have opposed the said suit by filing written

statement contending therein that IVPs in question have been mutilated

beyond recognition and under the INDIRA VIKAS PATRA RULES,

1986, appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

Replication was filed wherein contents of plaint were reiterated by

the respondent/plaintiff.

On 15th December, 2003, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in view of P.O.no.1 of WS? OPD

2. Whether the Indira Vikas Patra in question are so mutilated as being beyond recognition? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction? OPP

4. Relief.

In support of his case, respondent/plaintiff had examined himself

as PW-1 whereas appellants/defendants had examined DW-1 Sh.Kailash

Chand. After hearing arguments, issue no.1 was decided in favour of

respondent/plaintiff. As regards issue no.2, the learned Civil Judge

decided the same against the respondent/plaintiff and further held that

even if IVPs are mutilated and are beyond recognition, same does not

affect the right of respondent/plaintiff to seek mandatory injunction. On

the basis of evidence, issue no.3 was decided in favour of

respondent/plaintiff directing appellants/defendants to issue duplicate

IVPs and thereafter encash the same and if procedure exists, the IVPs in

question be encashed without issuing duplicate certificates subject to

furnishing of undertaking and indemnity bond by the respondent/plaintiff.

Aggrieved with the same, appellants/defendants filed appeal before

the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi. Learned Addl. District Judge

found no infirmity in the judgment of the Ld. Civil Judge and accordingly

vide impugned judgment dated 9th December, 2011 dismissed the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants relying on Rule 7 of Chapter 14

of IVP Rules has contended that courts below have not correctly

interpreted the same as such no directions could have been issued as are

issued in the present case.

There is no denial by the appellants/defendants that IVPs in

question have been issued by the post office. It is also admitted by

appellants/defendants that respondent/plaintiff is the holder of IVPs as

mutilated or defaced IVPs were furnished to the post office. It has also

come in the evidence of appellants/defendants that no claimant has come

forward to claim payment of the IVPs in question and some of the

portions of the IVPs are in possession of respondent/plaintiff. The record

is also maintained in post office for issuance of IVPs. It has also been

admitted in the evidence that same have not been encashed and same

have matured long back. There is also no report about theft of IVPs by

any one. The aforesaid IVPs were purchased in 1998 and same have

matured in 2003 and during the past nine years, nobody has made any

claim on the same. The maturity amount is lying unclaimed with the post

office. The learned Civil Judge has also issued directions to the

appellants/defendants to encash them without issuance of duplicate

certificates as the date of redemption has already gone. Interest of

appellants/defendants has also been protected as directions have been

issued that IVPs be encashed subject to furnishing of undertaking and

indemnity bond by the respondent/plaintiff.

In view of above discussion, no substantial question of law arises

in this case, as such second appeal u/s 100 CPC cannot be entertained.

The same stands dismissed.

CM 2200/2012 (for stay)

In view of the order passed in RSA 17/2012, no order is required

to be passed in the present application. Application stands disposed of

accordingly.

VEENA BIRBAL, J

FEBRUARY 06, 2012 ssb