Muncipal Council, Jaisalmer vs Harish Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 11314 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7140/2022

1. Municipal Council, Jaisalmer, Through Its Chairman

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaisalmer

----Petitioners Versus

1. Harish Kumar S/o SriVallabh Goydani, R/o Jaisalmer At Present Krishna Kunj, Mohanpura, Jodhpur

2. Smt. Premlata W/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently Residing At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St Street, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

3. Smt. Rama Kothari D/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently Residing At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St Street, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

4. Manish S/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently Residing At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St Street, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

5. Smt. Taruna Rathi D/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently Residing At A-501, Monalisa Park, Citi Light, Surat, Gujarat

6. Smt. Kavita Rathi D/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently Residing At A-72, Casela Towers, Opp. Iscon Temple, S.g. Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

7. Smt. Padma Bisani D/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently Residing At C-301, Nightengle Society, Hindustan Naka, Kandivali (West) Mumbai, Maharashtra

8. Anil Kumar S/o Late Deendayal Goyani, Resident Of Chennai, Currently Residing At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St Street, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

9. Gopikishan Mehra, Then Chairman Municipal Council, Jaisalmer

10. Rajkumar Singhal, Assistant Engineer And Commissioner, Municipality, Jaisalmer

----Respondents

(2 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Priyansh Arora, Mr. V.D. Gaur

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

12/09/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the

Civil Judge, Jaisalmer (for short 'the Executing Court'),

whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondent-

decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC has been

allowed and it is directed that the possession of the

disputed property be restored to the decree holders

(respondent Nos.1 to 8) with a further direction that the

petitioner - Municipality shall pay compensation to the

tune of rupees one lakh to the respondent-decree

holders. Certain consequential directions have also been

issued.

Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Vallabh has

filed a suit for permanent injunction against the

petitioners in the court of Civil Judge, Jaislamer in the

year 1993 claiming that his father Shri Laxmi Chand had

purchased a plot measuring 80 x 80 feet situated in

(3 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

Jaisalmer, description of which is given in the plaint, from

the District Magistrate Jaisalmer on 6.12.1951 and,

thereafter, Patta was issued with respect to the said plot

and since then, earlier his father and thereafter the

plaintiff - Shri Vallabh is in possession of the said plot

where he is operating a petrol pump. It is alleged that

the petitioner - Municipality is trying to dispossess the

plaintiff illegally from the said plot and, therefore, a

decree for permanent injunction may be issued in his

favour restraining the petitioner - Municipality from

dispossessing him from the said plot.

The suit filed by Shri Vallabh came to be dismissed

by the Civil Judge vide order dated 28.5.2001. Being

aggrieved with the same, Shri Vallabh has preferred an

appeal in the court of Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer and the

Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer vide judgment and decree dated

22.9.2001 has allowed the said appeal and decreed the

suit filed by Shri Vallabh and restrained the petitioner -

Municipality by way of permanent injunction from

dispossessing the plaintiff - Shri Vallabh from the plot in

question without following the due procedure.

It is not in dispute that the second appeal preferred

by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated

22.9.2001 passed by the Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer was

(4 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

summarily rejected by the High Court vide judgment

dated 16.5.2005.

Thereafter, the respondent-decree holders have filed

an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC before the

Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer in the year 2008 alleging that

they have been illegally dispossessed by the petitioner -

Municipality from the disputed property. The Distt. Judge,

Jaisalmer vide order dated 23.9.2009 has committed the

matter to the Civil Judge while holding that the same is

not maintainable before it. The Civil Judge vide order

dated 5.5.2010 has rejected the said application while

holding that the same is maintainable only when the suit

is pending but since the suit has been finally decided, the

application is liable to be dismissed.

In the meantime, the respondent-decree holders

have preferred an execution application under Order 21

Rule 11 (2) CPC on 5.9.2008 before the Executing Court.

During pendency of the said application, another

application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC was preferred

on behalf of the respondent-decree holders on 5.10.2010

with a prayer to restore the possession of the disputed

property and to attach the property of the department

with a further direction to pay them compensation.

(5 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

The Civil Judge vide order dated 30.9.2013 has

dismissed the application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC

filed by the respondent-decree holders as being not

maintainable, however, simultaneously it has ordered

that the application filed on behalf of the respondent-

decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC be

registered separately for the purpose of inquiry.

Ultimately, vide order dated 13.4.2022, the Executing

Court has allowed the application under Order 21 Rule 32

(5) CPC filed on behalf of the respondent-decree holders,

which is under challenge in this writ petition.

Assailing the impugned order passed by the

Executing Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has

argued that the Executing Court has grossly erred in

allowing the application filed by the respondent-decree

holders under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC because the said

application is not accompanied by an application under

Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. It is submitted that

admittedly, the application filed by the respondent-decree

holders under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC came to be

dismissed by the Civil Judge on 30.9.2013 and with the

dismissal of the said application, another application filed

by the respondent-decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32

(5) CPC ought to have been dismissed. It is argued that

(6 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

the Executing Court has, therefore, committed a grave

error in passing the impugned order and the same

is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further

argued that before dispossessing the respondent-decree

holders from the property in question, the petitioner -

Municipality has followed the due procedure laid down

under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act,

1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') by serving the notice

upon the respondent-decree holders as per the procedure

laid down under Section 250 of the Act of 1959. It is also

argued that the finding of the Executing Court that the

procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act of 1959

has not been followed and the notice upon the

respondent-decree holder has not been served as per the

procedure laid down under Section 250 of the Act of 1959

is contrary to record and, therefore, the same is liable to

be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further

argued that as a matter of fact, the respondent-decree

holders have no title in their favour in relation to the

property in question and they are mere encroachers and,

in such circumstances, the Executing Court has grossly

erred in issuing directions to restore the possession to

(7 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

them. It is further argued that the Executing Court has

also grossly erred in directing the petitioner -

Municipality to pay compensation to the tune of rupees

one lakh without even making the assessment of real loss

caused to the respondent-decree holders. It is, thus,

prayed that the direction of paying compensation to the

tune of rupees one lakh to the respondent-decree holders

is liable to be set aside.

In support of the above contention, learned counsel

for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Asikali Akbarali Gilani and Others Vs. Nasirhusain

Mahebubbhai Chauhan and Others, reported in

(2016) 10 SCC 799; Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai and Others Vs. Sunbeam High Tech

Developers Private Limited, reported in (2019) 20

SCC 781 and judgment of this Court rendered in the

case of Kanti Chand Sharma Vs. Municipal

Corporation & Ors., reported in RLW 2004 (3) Raj.

1963.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents has argued that the Executing Court has not

committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

(8 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

It is argued that the respondent-decree holders can

maintain the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC

independently without even filing the application under

Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. It is further submitted that in

case of injunction, application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5)

CPC is only maintainable. It is also submitted that in the

present case, the respondent-decree holders have earlier

moved an application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC

and during the pendency of the said application, another

application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC was filed,

however, the Civil Judge while dismissing the application

under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC on 30.9.2013 has

ordered for registering the application under Order 21

Rule 32 (5) CPC separately for the purpose of inquiry. It

is argued that the order passed by the Civil Judge on

30.9.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioner -

Municipality and the same has attained finality and, in

such circumstances, the petitioner - Municipality is

estopped from raising objection by virtue of principles of

res judicata. It is argued that it is well settled that the

principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the

same proceedings and once it becomes final, it would be

binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding.

(9 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

In support of the above contention, learned counsel

for the respondents has placed reliance on the decisions

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and Another,

reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 and Chhabil Das Vs.

Pappu, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 41.

It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents

that the technicalities of law should be construed to

advance justice and not to defeat justice. It is submitted

that the Civil Procedure Code is a body of procedural law

designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated

as an enactment providing for punishment and penalties.

Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued

that the learned District Judge while decreeing the suit

filed by the plaintiff - Shri Vallabh has clearly held that

the petitioner - Municipality can dispossess plaintiff - Shri

Vallabh after following the due procedure of law if the

property in question is in its ownership. It is also

submitted that without proving its ownership, the

petitioner - Municipality has illegally dispossessed the

respondent-decree holders from the property in question

and the said action of the petitioner - Municipality has

rightly been set aside by the Executing Court while

holding that the petitioner - Municipality has

(10 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

dispossessed the respondent-decree holders from the

property in question without following the due process of

law.

Learned counsel for the respondents has further

argued that the summons upon the respondent-decree

holder Shri Vallabh has never been served on him and

the procedure laid down under Section 250 of the Act of

1959 has not been followed and, therefore, the findings

of the Executing Court to this effect are perfectly justified

and not liable to be interfered with in any manner.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted

that the Executing Court has rightly ordered for restoring

the possession of the property in question to the

respondent-decree holders and has also rightly ordered

for awarding compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh

to the respondent-decree holders.

Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, prayed

that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly

be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

The petitioners have opposed the application filed by

the respondent-decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32

(5) CPC before the Executing Court on three grounds i.e.

(11 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

(A) that the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC

is not maintainable as it is not accompanied with the

application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC; (B) that the

judgment preceding the decree cannot be looked into for

the purpose of interpreting it and (C) that the petitioners

before evicting the respondent-decree holders from the

property in question have followed the due process of law

as given under Section 203 of the Act of 1959, which

applies for eviction of encroachers upon any property

belonging to the Municipality.

The Executing Court has rejected ground (A) raised

by the petitioners while holding that the application under

Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC can be filed independently

without filing any application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2)

CPC. The Executing Court has also concluded that as the

respondent-decree holders were out of possession from

the disputed property and for the purpose of recovery of

the possession, only remedy available to them was to file

application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC, which is

more efficacious remedy available to them. It is also held

that it is the sole discretion of the respondent-decree

holders whether they want to get assistance of the court

under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC or they want to proceed

under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. The Executing Court has

(12 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

further observed that the application under Order 21 Rule

32 (5) CPC was filed by the respondent-decree holders

during the pendency of application under Order 21 Rule

11 (2) CPC filed by them prior to it and the Executing

Court has dismissed the application under Order 21 Rule

11 (2) CPC with a direction to separately register the

application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC in the

presence of the petitioners, however, they have not

raised any objection at that point of time and, as such,

the said objection of the petitioners is without any basis.

This Court is of the opinion that the learned

Executing Court has rightly held that the application

under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC can be filed

independently without even filing application under Order

21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. It is to be noticed that in any decree

for injunction, the Executing Court can exercise powers

under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Admittedly, the respondent-

decree holders are in possession of a decree of injunction

and, as such, they have every right to move separate

application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC. Otherwise

also, Order 21 of CPC, dealing with the execution of

decree and orders, nowhere prohibits a decree holder

from filing independent application under Order 21 Rule

32 (5) CPC.

(13 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

Apart from that, the Executing Court has ordered for

registering the application of the respondent-decree

holders preferred under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC

independently in the presence of petitioners and they

have not raised any objection at that point of them,

therefore, now they cannot claim that the application

under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC is not maintainable as it

is not accompanied by application under Order 21 Rule

11 (2) CPC. It is noticed that while dismissing the

application of the respondent-decree holders filed under

Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC vide order dated 30.9.2013,

the Executing Court has held as under :

"19- mDr mica/k dh jks'kuh esa ns[kk tk; rks ekuuh; vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; o fMØh dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr gqbZ ;k ugha] /kkjk 47 lhihlh ds rgr tkWp dk fo"k; gSA bu lc rF;ksa dh fLFkfr ckn tkWp gh Li"V gksxhA ijUrq fMØhnkj }kjk izLrqr fMØh fu"iknu izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 21 fu;e 11 lhihlh mijksDr foospukuqlkj iks"k.kh; ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ftlds laca/k esa fMØhnkj vf/koDrk dh Hkh lgefr jgh gSA vr% izkFkhZ JhoYyHk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fMØh fu"iknu iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 21 fu;e 32 ¼5½ lhihlh i`Fkd ls ntZ dj tkWp fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA

@@vkns'[email protected]@

20- Qyr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj ewy fu"iknu izkFkZuk i= iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS o flfoy fyfid dks funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd] fMØhnkj JhoYyHk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 21 fu;e 32 ¼5½ lhihlh i`Fkd ls fofo/k nhokuh izdj.k ntZ dj U;k;ky; ds le{k tkWp gsrq is'k djsA ewy fu"iknu izkFkZuk i= ls lacf/kr i=koyh Qsly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQ~rj jgsA "

(14 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

The petitioners have not challenged the said order

passed by the Executing Court on 30.9.2013 at any point

of time. It is well settled that the principles of res

judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings

as held in Bhanu Kumar Jain and Chhabil Das's cases

(supra). In such circumstances, the petitioners are

estopped from raising such objection that the application

filed by the respondent-decree holders under Order 21

Rule 32 (5) CPC is not maintainable as it is not

accompanied by application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2)

CPC.

Otherwise also, this Court is of the opinion that the

court while dealing with the execution matters need not

to take a narrow view and should always ignore the little

technical errors as the principal function of a court is to

deliver justice and not to deny justice on technical

grounds.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the view

that the findings of the Executing Court while dealing

with ground (A) raised by the petitioners are not liable to

be interfered with.

Rejecting the ground (B) raised by the petitioners,

the Executing Court while referring to several decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of this

(15 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

Court has held that a decree is nothing but a formal

expression of judgment and reasoning provided in the

judgment can be imported to understand the true

meaning of a decree.

I am also of the opinion that for the purpose of

drawing true meaning of a decree, it would always be

useful to take into consideration the reasonings provided

in the judgment. In such circumstances, the findings

arrived at by the Executing Court on this issue are not

liable to be interfered with.

The Executing Court while rejecting the ground (C)

raised on behalf of the petitioners has observed as

under :

"A careful reading of the above-

mentioned paragraphs of the DJ Court Judgment would make it clear that the District Court, Jaisalmer held that over the disputed property, open and continuous possession of DH is evident and proved; that it is also evident and proved that DH had a petrol pump over the disputed property in the past; that there is no evidence which shows that DD had dispossessed DH from the disputed property in the past; that it is also proved and evident that DD had knowledge of the continuous and uninterrupted possession of DH over the disputed property; that DD didn't produce any title document to show that the disputed property is part of Khasra no.193 and that this disputed property was handed over to them by the

(16 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

revenue department; that for the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that DH had forged title documents in relation to the disputed property and on the basis of those forged documents DH is claiming possession over the disputed property, even in that case DD don't have power to dispossess DH from the disputed property without showing their ownership over the disputed property; that in the absence of any evidence to show the ownership rights over the disputed property on the part of DD, DH cannot be termed as encroachers over the disputed property until and unless DD gets their ownership right proved over the said property; that according to the Municipal Act provisions, any open land within the limits of municipal area is termed as land belonging to that municipality, but it is not found that the disputed property had been an open land; that DH is entitled to obtain a perpetual injunction against DD in relation to the disputed property, and DD can dispossess DH from the disputed property if DD can prove its ownership over the said property by following due process of law.

The above analysis of the DJ Court Judgment makes it clear that there was a real dispute regarding ownership over the disputed property between the parties and that the possession of DH over the disputed property was categorically affirmed."

Lastly, after taking into consideration the various

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Executing

Court has concluded as under :

(17 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

"In the light of the principles laid down in the above-mentioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that whenever there is a real and bonafide dispute regarding the title of any property, the due process of law would mean to approach ordinary civil court and get the issue of ownership adjudicated by such court. In the present case, as already discussed, the long, continuous and settled possession of DH was approved by the DJ Court Judgment (which attained finality). By no stretch of imagination, they were encroachers upon the disputed property. And going by the mandate of the decree-in-question, the due process of law for DD would mean that they should have approached the ordinary civil court first for the adjudication of title over the disputed property in their favour and only after obtaining favourable order from such court they were legally entitled to dispossess DH from the disputed property. But this course was not followed by DD. And hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the act of DD evicting DH from the disputed property by resorting to Section 203 of the Act was illegal and in clear violation of the decree-in-question. DD disobeyed the decree-in-question. DD had no right to evict DH from the disputed property summarily as is ordinarily done in the case of an encroacher over any government property."

After careful reading of the findings of the Executing

Court, I do not find any illegality in the same as the

Executing Court has rightly observed that a bonafide

(18 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

dispute regarding title of the property exits between the

petitioners and the respondent-decree holders and the

same is evident from the judgment and decree passed by

the District Judge and, in such circumstances, without

proving the ownership over the property in question, the

petitioners cannot resort to the procedure laid down

under Section 203 of the Act of 1959 for the purpose of

dispossessing the respondent-decree holders.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to

satisfy this Court that without proving their ownership

over the property in question, the petitioners can resort

to the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act

of 1959 for evicting the respondent-decree holders from

the property in question.

So far as the finding of the learned Civil Judge

regarding ineffective or non service of notice upon the

respondent-decree holder Shri Vallabh under Section 250

of the Act of 1959 is concerned, the same is based on

certain facts, which are not in dispute, hence, the same is

also not liable to be interfered with.

So far as the direction issued by the Executing Court

of paying compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh to

the respondent-decree holders is concerned, I am of the

(19 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

opinion that the Executing Court has erred in issuing the

said direction.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly

argued that without determination of actual loss caused

to the respondent-decree holders, the Executing Court

has illegally ordered for paying compensation to them to

the tune of rupees one lakh. The Executing Court has

failed to elaborate that as to how it has come to the

conclusion that the respondent-decree holders had

suffered a loss to the tune of rupees one lakh.

In the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC,

the respondent-decree holders have vaguely mentioned

that they had suffered a loss of rupees one lakh fifty

thousand on account of their illegal eviction from the

property in question, however, no proof is produced to

prove the actual loss suffered by them.

It appears that the Executing Court has ordered for

awarding compensation to the respondent-decree holders

while resorting to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 (3)

CPC, however, Order 21 Rule 32 (3) CPC speaks about

attached property and provides that the compensation

may be awarded to the decree holder out of the proceeds

in case the attached property is sold. In the present case,

neither the property in question has been attached nor

(20 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

the same has been sold and, in such circumstances, I am

of the opinion that the Executing Court has erred in

awarding compensation to respondent-decree holders to

the tune of rupees one lakh while resorting to the

provisions under Order 21 Rule 32 (3) CPC.

So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and of this Court, on which, learned counsel for the

petitioners has placed reliance are concerned, they are of

no help to the petitioners.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asikali Akbarali

Gilani's case (supra) was considering the matter

regarding encroachments on different places, however, in

the present case, as observed earlier, the decree holders

cannot be termed as encroachers until and unless the

petitioner - Municipality proves its ownership over the

disputed property.

In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater

Mumbai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing

with the matter wherein the Municipal Corporation

concerned has violated the procedure while demolishing a

building and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that if there was any illegality in the procedure of

demolishing the building, the Municipal Corporation can

be asked to pay compensation, however, the illegal

(21 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]

structure raised earlier cannot be permitted to be re-

erected. In the present case, the situation is all together

different as the Executing Court has not granted any

permission to the respondent-decree holders to raise

construction but only restored their possession.

In Kanti Chand Sharma's case (supra), this Court

has rejected the claim of the petitioner while observing

that the petitioner has himself removed the

encroachments and goods from the disputed land and he

acknowledged those facts by giving a receipt of this effect

to the municipal authorities. The facts of the present case

are all together different from the facts of the above-

referred case.

In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is

partly allowed and the direction given by the Executing

Court of restoring possession of the disputed property to

the respondent-decree holders and other consequential

directions are hereby affirmed, however, the direction to

pay compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh to the

respondent-decree holders is set aside.

Stay petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

ms rathore

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)