Ishpinder Kochhar vs Deluxe Dentellers (P) Ltd & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 680 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment delivered on: 29th January , 2016

+              I.A. No.21323/2014 & I.A. No.22158/2014 in
               CS(OS) 3075/2011

       ISHPINDER KOCHHAR                                   ..... Plaintiff
                     Through              Mr.Sumit Bansal, Adv. with
                                          Mr.Ateev Mathur, Mr.Amol
                                          Sharma, Ms.Richa Oberoi &
                                          Mr.APS Sehgal, Advs.

                              versus

       DELUXE DENTELLES(P) LTD & ANR         ..... Defendants
                     Through    Ms.Amrita Panda, Adv. for D-1 & 2.
                                Mr.Garv Malhotra, Adv. for
                                proposed defendant M/s Ramesh
                                Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, mesne profits and damages.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing plot No. 10, Block-172, Jor Bagh Market, New Delhi-110003 (hereinafter referred to as the "said property"). It is submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the said property from its erstwhile owner, Smt. Neeta Mehra vide registered documents of title executed by her and got registered on 14th August, 2006.

2.1. The defendant No. 1 had entered into an unregistered Agreement of Lease dated 21st November, 1999 with the erstwhile

owner, Smt. Neeta Mehra with respect to 45% of the area of the said property, which was falling on the Eastern part of the ground floor, comprising of Eastern Shop, an office block, a mezzanine over the office block, a toilet, courtyard at the back and concerned verandah with a display window (hereinafter referred to as the' 'demised premises'). The possession of the first floor of the said property is with the plaintiff and the entrance to the first floor as well as to the mezzanine floor of the said property is from the back portion of the said property.

2.2. The said Agreement of Lease was to commence w.e.f. 18th November, 1999 and was to expire on 28th February, 2011. The defendants have paid the entire rent of the lease period. As mentioned earlier, the said Agreement of Lease dated 21st November, 1999 was an unregistered document and therefore, as per settled law the tenancy of the defendants in respect of the demised premises was on a month-to-month basis. After 17th November, 2008, the demised premises stood governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and in terms of Section 106 of the Act the tenancy of the defendants is determinable by giving 15 days notice. 2.3. It is submitted that when the plaintiff took possession of the said property after purchasing the same from its erstwhile owner, it transpired that the defendants are in an unauthorized occupation of the Western portion on the ground floor of the said property as well which was never let out to the defendants. As the plaintiff was no longer interested in retaining the defendants as a tenant in respect of the demised premises and was also desirous of getting the possession of the western portion, therefore, the plaintiff

terminated the tenancy of the defendants by giving notice dated 3rd May, 2010 under Section 106 of the Act. It was informed in the aforesaid notice that the tenancy of the defendants would stand terminated with effect from the midnight of 17th/18th June, 2010. It was made clear that the occupation and possession of the defendants of the demised premises after 18th June, 2010 would be illegal, unauthorized, unlawful and the status of the defendants would be that of a trespasser. The plaintiff by way of the above stated legal notice dated 3rd May, 2010 also informed the defendants that they were never the tenant with respect to the Western Portion. However, without prejudice, it was stated that if at any point of time the defendants are to claim any tenancy right in respect of the Western portion, then any such tenancy shall also stand terminated by virtue of the legal notice dated 3rd May, 2010. The defendants were accordingly called upon to give peaceful vacant possession of the Western portion as well on 18th June, 2010.

2.4. It was also brought to the notice of the defendants vide aforesaid notice dated 3rd May, 2010 that during the course of occupation by the defendants, the defendants have carried out unauthorized structures in the back courtyard on the ground floor of the said property. The defendants were called upon to demolish the unauthorized structures immediately and restore the said property in its original condition. It was stated in the notice that if the defendants failed to comply with the terms of the notice then the plaintiff will claim damages and take action in accordance with law. 2.5. The defendant instead of complying with the terms of the legal notice dated 3rd May, 2010, sent a reply dated 30th June, 2010 to

the legal notice issued through their counsel. In the said reply it was admitted that the defendants were inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on 18th November, 1999. The defendants also admitted the execution of the unregistered lease dated 21st November, 1999. The defendants have admitted that the lease executed on 21st November, 1999 will expire on 28th February, 2011. It was also admitted by the defendants in the said reply that defendants had paid a sum of Rs. 4,39,224/- towards rent, which after deduction of TDS would be Rs. 3,73,340/-. However, the plea was taken by the defendants that the provision of the increase rentals in the unregistered lease deed was not binding on the defendants. The fact remains that the defendants did not dispute the fact that the last rent paid by the defendants was Rs.3,527/-.

3. Another portion of the suit property, being eastern portion of the said property has already been decreed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 24th January, 2014.

4. The present suit is pending adjudication before this Court with respect to the western portion of the said property which was comprising of 55% of the said property and has been duly depicted in yellow colour in the site plan which has been annexed with the plaint.

5. It is alleged by the plaintiff that when the present suit was filed, the respondents filed their common written statement wherein it was stated that the western portion of the suit property is under the tenancy of another company, namely, Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. It was also stated that the two tenants with the permission of the erstwhile owner had removed the common wall

between the premises for more space. Thus, the defendants and more particularly defendant No. 2 admitted that they have a common possession with respect to eastern and western portion of the said property. But a plea was taken that the western portion has been occupied by Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as a tenant.

6. The plaintiff has also filed two applications; one being I.A. No.21323/2014 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking formal amendment in the plaint which would arise on account of impleadment of M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in the plaint and another being I.A. No. 22158/2014 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as the defendant has taken a stand that M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is a tenant with respect to the western portion of the suit premises as alleged. It is stated by the plaintiff that the said application has been moved so as to avoid any future complications and technical objections being raised by any party.

7. By way of the amendment application, the plaintiff wishes to add the following paragraphs:-

After para 5:

5.1 In the Memo of Parties, M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 4, Sugra Manzil, 9, Best Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400021 may be impleaded as defendant No. 3.

5.2. That defendant No. 3 is in an unauthorized occupation of the premises and in fact the said fact is a creation of defendant No. 2. It is submitted that there exist no Lease Deed between the erstwhile owners of the suit premises with defendant No.3. In

fact the inquiries made by the plaintiff has revealed that defendant No. 2 is holding 61% share in defendant No. 3 and the remaining 39% are owned by another Private Limited Company, namely, Nidas Estate Pvt. Ltd. The further inquiries have revealed that In Nidas Estate Pvt. Ltd. also more than 90% are held by defendant No.2. Therefore, the defendant No. 3 is the Company which is solely managed by defendant No.2. In respectful submission of the plaintiff, the western portion is in an unauthorized occupation in the form of a trespasser with defendant No. 2 and through defendant No. 2 with defendant No.3.

After para 7:

"7.1 That in the reply to the legal notice, the defendant No. 2 did not take any plea as regards Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., being the tenant in respect of western portion of the premises".

After para 9:

"9.1 Defendant No. 3 or defendant No. 2 jointly or severally have no right to continue in the western portion of the premises as the said occupation/possession is unauthorized and is a trespasser and the said defendants are liable to be evicted from the western portion of the premises".

After para 12:

"12.1 That since the possession of defendant No.2 and/or defendant No. 3 in the western portion is unauthorized. The defendants are liable to be evicted and the plaintiff is entitled to peaceful vacant possession of the same".

8. The plaintiff submits that the following amendments may be permitted:

14.1 The word "defendants" wherever used by the plaintiff in the plaint may be permitted to mean and include defendant No. 3 also".

9. In another application being I.A. No.22158/2014 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC it is also stated that upon inquiry it is transpired that defendant No. 2 is the majority stake holder in the alleged tenant, i.e Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and the records available on the website of Registrar of Companies in this regard were also placed by the plaintiff on record. On the basis of the aforesaid revelation that defendant No. 2 is the majority stake holder in Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff moved one application being I.A No.20768/2012 under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC inter alia, asking the defendants to produce the following documents :

(i) Shareholding pattern of Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (il) Shareholding pattern in M/s Nidas Estate Pvt. Ltd.; and

(iii) Production of the alleged Lease Deed/document pursuant to which the defendants claim that Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is in possession of western portion of the said property.

10. During the course of proceedings, the shareholding pattern produced by the plaintiff on record from the website of the Registrar of Companies was not disputed by the defendants. However, it was disputed that the Lease Deed pertaining to Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. could not have been called upon from the defendants. The Joint Registrar, by its order dated 3rd May, 2014, allowed the said application and directed the defendants to produce the aforesaid documents. The said order was challenged by the defendants before this Court, vide O.A. No.87/2014 which came to

be decided vide order dated 22nd May, 2014. By order dated 22nd May, 2014 this Court recorded a finding that Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. being a third party, the aforesaid documents could not have been called from the defendants and thus, allowed the said appeal thereby rejecting I.A No.20768/2012 filed by the plaintiff.

11. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants and more particularly defendant No. 2 are admitting that they had a common possession of the said property, a stand has been taken that tenancy stands in the name of Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff has always taken a stand that no such tenant was ever inducted in the suit property by the plaintiff and/or by the erstwhile owner and the story with respect to Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is an afterthought to somehow thwart the legal proceedings initiated by the plaintiff. However, since the defendants have taken a stand with respect to alleged tenancy of Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff has filed the present application as an abundant caution and to avoid future complications to implead the said Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the present plaint. In view of the said stand taken by the defendants, Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. has become a necessary and proper party in the present suit. It is the submission of the plaintiff that though the plaintiff has always taken a stand that plaintiff does not recognize Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as a tenant or even in possession of the said property.

12. In the replies filed on behalf of defendants and proposed defendant No.3 to the applications filed by the plaintiff it is stated

that the present applications are an abuse of the process of law. The amendment would alter the nature and character of the subject suit. The plaintiff had prayed for a decree of possession with respect to the said property comprising of the ground floor of the said property including its western portion as shown in the site plan and marked in yellow, against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. This was on the backbone of the averments in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 that defendants are in "unauthorized occupation" of the said portion of the western part of the said property and that they were never the tenants in respect of the said portion. The defendants had controverted these allegations by filing their Written Statement during the year 2012 wherein they had stated that the western portion of the property is under the tenancy of one M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff also suffered an order dated 22nd May, 2014 in O.A. No. 87/2014 to the effect that Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. being a third party, the lease deed pertaining to Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., could not have been called from the defendants. The plaintiff has now tried to set up a case through the present application, that the defendants and the proposed defendant No. 3 have always together been illegal occupants of the western part of the property. The plaintiff is taking up contradictory pleas who admit that she has purchased both the eastern and western parts of the said property from the erstwhile owner, from whom she claims to have received only the copy of the lease deed for the eastern portion. The plaintiff is now trying to secure a decree of possession through the back door of the present suit, by claiming that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the proposed defendant No. 3 are together, in illegal

occupation of the western part of the suit property, as trespassers.

13. The proposed defendant No.3 also stated that it is unfortunate that when the plaintiff has been regularly receiving the rent from the proposed defendant No. 3 by way of demand drafts which are regularly sent by post, she ought to have at least apprised the Court of this aspect and thus, the question of trespass or illegal occupation of the western part of the said property does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff has filed his application on 10th November, 2014, suppressing all correspondences with the proposed defendant No. 3 in this regard prior to that date, including correspondence relating to the rent being tendered.

The plaintiff is trying to secure a decree of possession through the back door against the proposed defendant in a civil suit which it appears to have been prosecuting against the two defendants since 2011. The proposed defendant was admittedly not a party. The plaintiff cannot secure such a decree against the proposed defendant as the two defendants have nothing to do regarding the western part of the said property. The plaintiff is aware of the fact that the proposed defendant has always been in possession of the western part of the said property as a lessee but has misled this Court regarding this fact. Valuable consideration having been paid for securing possession of the western part of the suit property, the proposed defendant cannot be summarily termed as a trespasser and the fact of the relationship with the erstwhile owner is suppressed from this Court.

The defendants have nothing to do regarding the western part of the said property which is exclusively vested in the proposed defendant. Therefore, the proposed defendant cannot be impleaded in the present civil suit and such impleadment, if allowed, would not only alter the nature and character of the suit property, but also cause misjoinder of parties. The proposed defendant No. 3 has made its best efforts to locate the document who craves leave of this Court to file the same when they are located in future.

14. The defendants and proposed defendant No.3 has not denied the fact that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of said property and the plaintiff has purchased the said property from its erstwhile owner, Smt. Neeta Mehra vide registered documents of title executed by Smt. Neeta Mehra and registered on 14th August, 2006.

It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendants illegally have trespassed into the western portion of the said property and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could only occupy the demised premises which are also evident by the letter dated 16th September, 2006 addressed by the advocates of the defendants to the erstwhile owner, Mrs. Neeta Mehra. The copy of this letter was handed over by Mrs. Neeta Mehra to the plaintiff.

15. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendant No.3 is in an unauthorized occupation of the premises and in fact the said fact is a creation of defendant No.2 which is in possession of the western portion. Therefore, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendants by giving notice dated 3rd May, 2010 under Section 106 of the Act.

16. The defendant instead of complying with the terms of the legal notice dated 3rd May, 2010, sent a reply dated 30th June, 2010 to the legal notice issued through their counsel. In the said reply it was admitted that the defendants were inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on 18th November, 1999. The defendants also admitted the execution of the unregistered lease dated 21st November, 1999. The defendants specifically admitted that the lease executed on 21st November, 1999 will expire on 28th February, 2011. It was also admitted by the defendants in the said reply that defendants had paid a sum of Rs.4,39,224/- towards rent, which after deduction of TDS would be Rs.3,73,340/-. However, a plea was taken by the defendants that the provision of the increase rentals in the unregistered lease deed was not binding on the defendants.

The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not take any plea as regards Ramesh Kumar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., being the tenant in respect of western portion of the premises. It was also brought to the notice of the defendants vide aforesaid notice dated 3rd May, 2010 that during the course of occupation by the defendants, the defendants have carried out unauthorized structures in the back courtyard on the ground floor of the said property. The defendants were called upon to demolish the unauthorized structures immediately and restore the said property in its original condition. It was stated in the notice that if the defendants failed to comply with the terms of the notice then the plaintiff will claim damages and take action In accordance with law.

17. The plaintiff by virtue of the amendment and impleading of proposed defendant No.3, sought the prayer for passing of decree

of possession with respect to the Eastern part of the ground floor of said property, comprising of Eastern Shop, an office block, a mezzanine over the office block, a toilet, courtyard at the back and concerned verandah with a display window as shown in the site plan and marked in Red and a decree of possession with respect to the Western portion of the ground floor of said property as shown in the site plan and marked in yellow.

18. During the course of hearing, the defendants and proposed defendant have not denied the fact that the plaintiff can file the fresh suit against the proposed defendant No.3 who is claiming itself as the tenant. The lease deed has not been produced by the proposed defendant No.3. As per the plaintiff, the proposed defendant No.3 is merely a trespasser. He is in connivance with the defendants has occupied the part of the property.

19. With regard to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the provision of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is reproduced herein below:-

"(2) Court may strike out or add parties - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

20. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, the discretion has been conferred on the Courts to decide as to whether to strike off the name of any party, who has been improperly joined either as

plaintiff or defendant in a suit, or to include the name of any person, whose presence is found to be necessary for effective and complete adjudication and settlement of all the questions involved in the suit.

21. While discussing the general rule with respect to impleadment of parties in a suit, the Supreme Court had made the following pertinent observations in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported as (2010) 7 SCC 417:-

"8. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure ("Code" for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties.

xxxxxxx

The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. A `necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a 'necessary party' is not impleaded,

the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A `proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance." (emphasis added)

22. Now I shall consider the application for amendment of plaint. It is settled law that while considering the application for amendment the Courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but Court's power must be exercised judiciously and with great care. While deciding applications for amendments the Courts must not refuse bonafide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit malafide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the Court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy.

23. It is settled law that merit of the case is not material while considering the application if on the face of the material placed on record it is found that proposed party is a necessary and proper party in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. The prayer under these circumstances can be granted in the present case, no doubt the plea raised by the defendants and proposed defendant No.3 is to be considered on merit. At this stage, the Court is not deciding as to whether the proposed

defendant No.3 is a trespasser or not. The same issue would be decided later on. At this stage, it is the admitted position that the plaintiff is the owner of the said property and the proposed defendant No.3 is in possession of portion of the said property. Even otherwise, independent suit against the proposed defendant No.3 is maintainable. Thus, there is no impediment that without expressing any opinion on merit, the prayer made in the application can be granted.

As per law, ordinarily, if the other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any Court grants actual costs to the opposite side and basic principles which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment are: (i) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (ii) whether the application for amendment is bonafide or malafide; (iii) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (iv) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (v) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (vi) as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. The above are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

24. (i) It has been held in the case of Abdul Rehman and Another v. Mohd. Ruldu and Others, reported in (2012) 11

Supreme Court Cases 341 that an amendment seeking declaration of title shall not prejudice the case of the other side unless the reliefs claimed are not barred by limitation. It was observed in the case referred that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if amendments were allowed. In order to avoid further litigation, the same should be allowed as all amendment which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties.

(ii) The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K.Modi and Others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 385 held as under:

"18. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court.

19. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case."

25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the averment made in the application, this Court is of the opinion that the amendments proposed by the plaintiff are necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties as the merit of the case is not to be discussed at this stage as the proposed defendant No. 3 is entitled to raise all the objections as raised in the reply.

26. The prayers made in both the applications cannot be disallowed as it is settled law that for the purpose of deciding the application for amendment and impleadment of other defendant, the Court is not to consider the merit of the case. The Court is of the view that the proposed defendant No.3 is a necessary party in order to decide the controversy involved. The amended plaint is taken on record.

27. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of. CS(OS) 3075/2011 The newly added defendant No.3 is at liberty to raise all the pleas which are taken in his replies and in the written statement. The written statement be filed by all the defendants within four weeks from today. Replication if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.

List the matter before the Joint Registrar on 28th March, 2016 for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents.

The matter be listed before Roster Bench on 8th April, 2016 subject to orders of Hon'ble Judge Incharge (Original Side).

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JANUARY 29, 2016