Suitno.

291/14
15.11.2014
DW1: Statement of Sh. Ashu Khan, aged about 31 years, s/o Sh.
ZakruddinaliasFakhruddin,proprietorofM/sA.S.Motors,at349/2,
MainRoad,Burari,Delhi110084.
OnSA
I tender my evidence byway of affidavit whichis Ex. D1 it
bears my my signatures at point A & B. The affidavit Ex. D1 was
preparedonmyinstructions.TheexhibitmarkedinmyaffidavitasEx.
DW1/1toDW1/4andDW1/6toDW1/8havedulybeendetailedby
me in my affidavit. All exhibit marks may kindly be read as (Ex.
DW1/1asmarkA,Ex.DW1/2asmarkB,Ex.DW1/3asmarkC, Ex.
DW1/6asmarkD,Ex.DW1/7asmarkEandEx.DW1/8asmarkF.Ex.
DW1/4 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff which is already
exhibitedasEx.PW1/B.
xxxxbySh.K.P.Singh,Ld.counselplaintiff.
Iamdoingthebusinessofrepairingandsalepurchaseofcar.I
parkthecarswhichcomesforrepairinginsidemyshop.Amongthe
shop in question is sufficient to accommodate two cars, one big
andonesmallcar.VolIhavetwomoreworkshops.Oneissituatedin
GhaziabadandotherinSahibabad.Theshopinquestion

2
approximatelyismeasuring18x40/42.Thefrontis18sq.feet.andin
the middle it is close to 20 sq. feet wide. The shop in question is
situatedat100feetwideRoad. IlastlypaidtherentinDecember
2010andthesamewaspaidthroughchequefortheperiodw.e.f.
November2010tillMarch2011ofRs.17,000/inthenameofNaveen
Tyagi.IhadtakingtheshoponrentfromNaveenTyagi.BeforethatI
didnotpayrentthroughcheque.Telephoneconnectionisinstalled
inthenameofmyworkshop,andthedocumentsforinstallationof
telephoneconnectionwereprovidedbyNaveenTyagi.Itiscorrect
that the rent agreement was submitted with the concerned
department which was provided to me by Naveen Tyagi. At the
time of taking the premises on rent my firm was a proprietorship
concern,lateronwhenmybusinesswasexpandedIenteredintoa
partnership with my wife. Presently my firm again is proprietorship
concern. When the telephone connection was applied it was a
proprietorship concern. The rent agreement was handed over by
NaveenTyagiHimselftosomeexecutiveofMTNL,whowascalledby
NaveenTyagyhimself.IjustsignedasIwasrequiredtosign.Iwasnot
allowedtoreadtherentagreement.IwasjustasktosignbyNaveen
Tyagiandonmysigningthereof,NaveenTyagihimselfhandedover
thesametoexecutiveofMTNL.StatementofAccountinBankof

3
Barodawasgotopenedonthebasisofguaranteeofownmanof
NaveenTyagiwhowasalsosomeTyagi.Thedocumentsforthesaid
purposewerealsoprovidedbyNaveenTyagi.Idonotrememberas
towhethertelephoneconnectionwasinstalledpriortoopeningof
BankAccountorviceversa,butthesetowereopenedoneafter
otherwithinaperiodoffewdaysonly.Thetransactionsinthebank
wereconductedbymesincethiswasinmynameandonlyIcould
have operated the same. The form was filled by own man of
Naveen Tyagi but the same was signed by me on the basis of
guaranteewhichwasprovidedbyNaveenTyagi.NaveenTyagihad
alsoaccompaniedmetothebank.TheIDproofIhandedoverto
the bank whereas the rent agreement was handed over and
providebyNaveenTyagidirectlytoconcernpersonofthe bank.I
donotknowastowhetherthedocumentswerehandedoverby
Naveen Tyagi on the same day or on any other day. I did not
handedoveranydocumentexceptmyIDtothebank.Volsincethe
documents were with Naveen Tyagi therefore, only he would tell
whether documents were handed over to the bank. I signed
wherever Naveen Tyagi had asked me to sign be that rent
agreement,accountopeningformorMTNLforms.Itiscorrectthat
therentagreementpertainstoshopno.349/2,MainRoad,Burari,

4
Delhi110084.IandNaveenTyagiusedtotalkontelephone(mobile
andlandline)alsoandIcannottellastoforhowmanytimeswehad
talksontelephoneinrespectofrent.Itiswrongtosuggestthatthe
rentoftheshopinquestionwasRs.20,000/permonthorthatIever
had any talks telephonically or otherwise with Naveen Tyagi
admitting the rent as Rs. 20,000/. It is wrong to suggest that the
premiseswereletouttomebySh.RamphalTyagiorthattherent
was Rs. 20,000/ per month. It is correct that I received the legal
noticepriortofilingofthepresentsuit.VolIevenreplythesaidlegal
notice.Thesaidreplyhoweverisnotinthejudicialfile.Itiswrongto
suggestthatIhave made a falseaverments in para 10 ofEx. D1
regardingcomplaintdated29.11.2010.Icanproducetheoriginalof
complaintdated29.11.2010.Thesaidcomplaintpresentlyinoriginal
isnotinthejudicialfile.VolIfiledapetitionu/s200Cr.PCr/wsection
156(3)Cr.PC,andtheoriginalcomplaintispartofthesaidcase.Itis
correct the I have filed a suit for permanent injunction against
Ramphal Tyagi, Naveen Tyagi and Arvind Tyagi. The said suit was
filedinthelastof2010howevercorrectmonthIdonotremember
may be September or October 2010. It is wrong to suggest that I
madeanstatementinthesaidsuitthatIwillvacatethepremises
within6months.BeforesigningIhadgonethroughEx.D1.Thesame

5
was attested in Tis Hazari Court Complex. I am an Income tax
assesse.A.S.MotorsbeingproprietorshipconcernthereforeIhave
beenfilingmyincometaxandtheA.S.Motors.Ihavebeenfilingof
incometaxsincelongagoandmuchpriortolettingoftheshopin
my favour. Right now I have only one pan card. There was one
morepancardwhichwaspreparedwhenIenteredintopartnership
withmywife.Myearlierpancardoncewasmisplacedintheyear
2007or2008.Myincometaxreturnsareuptodate.Pancardno.I
cannottellorally.IsentmoneyordersinthenameofRamphalTyagi
addressinghim.
Crossisdeferred.
RO&AC
(RavinderSingh1)
ADJ08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

Suit no.
787/14
HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Yogesh Singh Jadon
15.11.2014
Present:

Sh. Abhinav Pandey, Ld. counsel for petitioner.

None for respondent.
Process received back unserved with report that premises of

respondent found closed.

Ld. counsel for petitioner prayed for change of name of receiver in
as instead of Sh. Pankaj Satya Kumar, Sh. Ankush Saini AR of petitioner was
appointed as receiver vide order dated 25.09.2014. Heard. In view of the
submission made by Ld. counsel for petitioner order dated 25.09.2014 is
modified to the extent that in place of Ankush Saini, Sh. Pankaj Satya Kuamr is
appointed as receiver to seize the vehicle i.e. Hyundai I-10 ERA M Registration
No. DL10 CA5374.
The petitioner filed the instant petition u/sec. 9 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act and vide order dated 25.09.2014

ex-parte receiver was

appointed. Thereafter notice of petition was order to be served upon respondent

but respondent could not serve as his premises was found closed.
The present petition is only for the purpose of grant of interim relief
by way of appointment of receiver. The receiver has already been appointed vide
order dated 25.09.2014. Today Ld. counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that
arbitral proceeding is initiated against respondent.
Considering the fact that

relief claimed by the petitioner in the

instant petition has already been granted and arbitral proceeding against
respondent is also initiated. Hence, order dated 25.09.2014 is made absolute as
receiver has not seized the vehicle till date. Copy of order be given dasti as
prayed for.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ravinder Singh-1)
ADJ-08(Central)/THC

Delhi/15.11.2014

Suit no.
790/14
HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Arvind Kumar
15.11.2014
Present:

Sh. Abhinav Pandey, Ld. counsel for petitioner.

None for respondent.
Process sent through registered cover received back unserved with

report that no such person is residing.

Ld. counsel for petitioner prayed for change of name of receiver in
as instead of Sh. Pankaj Satya Kumar, Sh. Ankush Saini AR of petitioner was
appointed as receiver vide order dated 25.09.2014. Heard. In view of the
submission made by Ld. counsel for petitioner order dated 25.09.2014 is
modified to the extent that in place of Ankush Saini, Sh. Pankaj Satya Kuamr is
appointed as receiver to seize the vehicle i.e. Hundai Santro Xing GLS S
Registration No. DL7CP 5083.
The petitioner filed the instant petition u/sec. 9 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act and vide order dated 25.09.2014

ex-parte receiver was

appointed. Thereafter notice of petition was order to be served upon respondent

but respondent could not serve as his premises was found closed.
The present petition is only for the purpose of grant of interim relief
by way of appointment of receiver. The receiver has already been appointed vide
order dated 25.09.2014. Today Ld. counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that
arbitral proceeding is initiated against respondent.
Considering the fact that

relief claimed by the petitioner in the

instant petition has already been granted and arbitral proceeding against
respondent is also initiated. Hence, order dated 25.09.2014 is made absolute as
receiver has not seized the vehicle till date. Copy of order be given dasti as
prayed for.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ravinder Singh-1)
ADJ-08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

Suit no.
791/14
HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Vivek Kumar Chaudhary
15.11.2014
Present:

Sh. Abhinav Pandey, Ld. counsel for petitioner.

None for respondent.
Process sent through registered cover received back unserved with

report that incomplete address.

Ld. counsel for petitioner prayed for change of name of receiver in
as instead of Sh. Pankaj Satya Kumar, Sh. Ankush Saini AR of petitioner was
appointed as receiver vide order dated 25.09.2014. Heard. In view of the
submission made by Ld. counsel for petitioner order dated 25.09.2014 is
modified to the extent that in place of Ankush Saini, Sh. Pankaj Satya Kuamr is
appointed as receiver to seize the vehicle i.e. Maruti Swift VDI Registration No.
UP14 CB 5455.
The petitioner filed the instant petition u/sec. 9 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act and vide order dated 25.09.2014

ex-parte receiver was

appointed. Thereafter notice of petition was order to be served upon respondent

but respondent could not serve as his premises was found closed.
The present petition is only for the purpose of grant of interim relief
by way of appointment of receiver. The receiver has already been appointed vide
order dated 25.09.2014. Today Ld. counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that
arbitral proceeding is initiated against respondent.
Considering the fact that relief claimed by the petitioner in the
instant petition has already been granted and arbitral proceeding against
respondent is also initiated. Hence, order dated 25.09.2014 is made absolute as
receiver has not seized the vehicle till date. Copy of order be given dasti as
prayed for.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ravinder Singh-1)
ADJ-08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

Suit no.
789/14
HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Tara Chand Sagar
15.11.2014
Present:

Sh. Abhinav Pandey, Ld. counsel for petitioner.

None for respondent.
Process not received back.
Ld. counsel for petitioner prayed for change of name of receiver in

as instead of Sh. Pankaj Satya Kumar, Sh. Ankush Saini AR of petitioner was
appointed as receiver vide order dated 25.09.2014. Heard. In view of the
submission made by Ld. counsel for petitioner order dated 25.09.2014 is
modified to the extent that in place of Ankush Saini, Sh. Pankaj Satya Kuamr is
appointed as receiver to seize the vehicle i.e. Maruti Swift VDI Registration No.
DL5CK 5898.
The petitioner filed the instant petition u/sec. 9 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act and vide order dated 25.09.2014

ex-parte receiver was

appointed. Thereafter notice of petition was order to be served upon respondent

but respondent could not serve as his premises was found closed.
The present petition is only for the purpose of grant of interim relief
by way of appointment of receiver. The receiver has already been appointed vide
order dated 25.09.2014. Today Ld. counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that
arbitral proceeding is initiated against respondent.
Considering the fact that relief claimed by the petitioner in the
instant petition has already been granted and arbitral proceeding against
respondent is also initiated. Hence, order dated 25.09.2014 is made absolute as
receiver has not seized the vehicle till date. Copy of order be given dasti as
prayed for.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ravinder Singh-1)
ADJ-08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

Suit no.
788/14
HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Varun Arora
15.11.2014
Present:

Sh. Abhinav Pandey, Ld. counsel for petitioner.

None for respondent.
Summon of respondent received back with due service form his

Faridabad address. Despite service none appeared on behalf of respondent.

Ld. counsel for petitioner prayed for change of name of receiver in
as instead of Sh. Pankaj Satya Kumar, Sh. Ankush Saini AR of petitioner was
appointed as receiver vide order dated 25.09.2014. Heard. In view of the
submission made by Ld. counsel for petitioner order dated 25.09.2014 is
modified to the extent that in place of Ankush Saini, Sh. Pankaj Satya Kuamr is
appointed as receiver to seize the vehicle i.e. Chevrolet AVEO LT EIII
Registration No. HR 26BD 6237.
The petitioner filed the instant petition u/sec. 9 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act and vide order dated 25.09.2014

ex-parte receiver was

appointed. Thereafter notice of petition was order to be served upon respondent

but respondent could not serve as his premises was found closed.
The present petition is only for the purpose of grant of interim relief
by way of appointment of receiver. The receiver has already been appointed vide
order dated 25.09.2014. Today Ld. counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that
arbitral proceeding is initiated against respondent.
Considering the fact that relief claimed by the petitioner in the
instant petition has already been granted and arbitral proceeding against
respondent is also initiated. Hence, order dated 25.09.2014 is made absolute as
receiver has not seized the vehicle till date. Copy of order be given dasti as
prayed for.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ravinder Singh-1)
ADJ-08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014


Suitno.437/14
15.11.2014
Present: Sh.PuneetBhalla,Ld.counselforplaintiff.
Sh.SailenderOjha,Ld.counselfordefendant.
Argumentonapplicationofdefendantundersection151
CPCforrecallingoforderdated19.04.2014heard.Casefileperused.
Itisadmittedfactthatthesummonofthesuitwasserved
upon defendant and he appeared before Court on 29.11.2013,
14.02.2014and18.03.2014buthehasnotfiledhiswrittenstatement.
Defendant engaged the present counsel who appeared on
19.04.2014 and filed his vakalatnama on that day however, no
writtenstatementwasfiledonthatdayalso.Defendanthasnotgive
anyspecificreasonwhywrittenstatementhasnotbeenfiledwithin
90 days form the date of service of summon or till 19.04.2014. So
consideringthefactandinviewofaboveIfindnogroundtorecall
order dated 19.04.2014. Accordingly, application of defendant
undersection151CPCisdismissed.
Putupforreplytotheapplicationofplaintiffunderorder
39rule6CPCaswellasforplaintiff'sevidenceon02.01.2015.
(RavinderSingh1)
ADJ08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

Suitno.29/14
15.11.2014
Present:

Sh.DeepakBhora,Ld.counselforplaintiff.
Sh.ArunArora,Ld.counselfordefendant.
Ld.counselforplaintiffsubmittedthatheisnotpressing

his application under order xvi CPC for summoning of additional

witnessfiledondated14.12.2013atthisstage.Hefurtherstatedthat
hewantexamineremainingwitnessinthiscase.
Ld. counsel for defendant opposed the submission
statingthat application of plaintiff be dismissed. Hence case file
perused.Plaintiffisallowedtoexaminetheremainingwitnessand
application of plaintiff under order 16 CPC for summoning of
additionalwitnessiskeptpending.
Putupforplaintiff'sevidenceon27.01.2015.

(RavinderSingh1)
ADJ08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

Suitno.291/14
15.11.2014
Present:

K.P.Singh,Ld.counselforplaintiff.
Sh.SahidAli,Ld.counselfordefendant.
DW1 Ashu Khan examined, crossexamined partly.

Furthercrossexaminationisdeferredasitislunchtime.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff stated that defendant hasnot
paidthecostimposedvideorderdated25.03.2014contrarytothe
submission of Ld. counsel for plaintiff Ld. counsel for defendant
statedthatcostwaspaidtoLd.counselforplaintiffSh.AnilKumar
on20.05.2014andthereafter,witnesswascrossexaminedbyhimon
thatday.Heard.
Record reveals that there is no observation regarding
paymentornonpaymentofcostinorderdated20.05.2014.Hence,
partiesaredirectedtofiletheiraffidavitsregardingpaymentornon
paymentofcost.
Putupfor05.01.2015forDE.

(RavinderSingh1)
ADJ08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

RCANo.26/14
15.11.2014
Present:

Sh.K.P.MavimLd.counselforappellant.
Sh.AtulSachar,Ld.counselforrespondentno.2.
Noneforotherrespondent.
Ld. counsel for parties sought adjournment for

arguments.Heard.Matteradjourned.
Put up on 27.11.2014 for remaining arguments. Interim
ordertobecontinue.

(RavinderSingh1)
ADJ08(Central)/THC
Delhi/15.11.2014

Suitno.616/14
15112014
Present:

SH.Sombir,proxyCounselforplaintiff.
Nonefordefendant.
Summon of defendant served through publication in

newspaperTheHindudated17102014.Despitecallsandwaitingsnone
appearedfordefendant.
Heard. Matteradjournedforappearanceofdefendantfor
0812015.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.615/14
15112014
Present:

SH.Sombir,proxyCounselforplaintiff.
Nonefordefendant.
Summon of defendant served through publication in

newspaperTheHindudated17102014.Despitecallsandwaitingsnone
appearedfordefendant.
Heard. Matteradjournedforappearanceofdefendantfor
0812015.

(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)

Delhi/15112014

Suitno.117/14
15112014
Present:

Sh.PradeepKumarGuptaS/oplaintiff.
Sh.R.K.Verma,Ld.Counselfordefendantno.4.
SonofplaintifffiledanapplicationofLd.Counselforplaintiff

for seeking adjournment. He has further stated that witness is not

availableforcross examinationLd. Counselforplaintiff is not available.
Adjournmentnotopposed.Heard.
Consideringthefact,thematteradjourned.
Putupforcrossexaminationofplaintifffor0912015.

(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.496/14
15112014
Present:

Plaintiffinperson.
Defendantalsoinperson.
Ld.Counselforplaintiffsoughtadjournmenttoexaminesome

morewitnessinthiscase.
Defendantalsoprayedforadjournmentashiscounselisnot
available.Heard.Matteradjourned.
PutupforPEon0922015.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.152/14&151/14
15112014
Present:

Sh.RajeevSachdeva,proxyCounselforplaintiff.
Sh.AmitSrivastava,proxyCounselfordefendant.
Ld.Proxycounselsforpartiesprayedforadjournmentstating

thatmaincounselisnotavailable.
Ihaveheardthesubmissionandperusedtherecord.
TodaycaseislistedforargumentonapplicationU/oiXRule4
CPC.Recordrevealsthatthesaidapplicationofplaintiffwasdisposedof
byLd.Predecessorvideorderdated26102013.However,applicationof
defendantU/o9Rule7CPCisstillpendingfordisposal.
Put up for argument on application U/O IX Rule 7 CPC on
1512015.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)

Delhi/15112014

Suitno.123/14
15112014
Present:

Sh.V.K.Goyal,Ld.Counselforplaintiff.
VinodKumar,ClerkofLd.Counselfordefendant.
Ld.CounselforplaintifffiledreplytotheapplicationU/s151

CPCandSection5ofLimitationAct.Copysupplied.ClerkofLd.Counsel
for defendant prayed for adjournment as his counsel is not available.
Heard.Matteradjourned.
Put up for argument on the aforesaid application for
1712015.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

RCANo.30/14
15112014
Present:

Ms.PriyaVohra,proxyCounselforAppellant.
Sh.S.K.Srivastava,Ld.Counselforrespondent.
Ld. Counsel for respondent filed the reply alongwith his

vakalatnama.Copysupplied.
Put up for Argument on appeal. TRC be summoned for
1712015.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

RCAno.35/14,38/14,36/14&37/14
15112014
Present:

Sh.PuneetBhalla,Ld.CounselforAppellant.
Ld.Counselforappellantfiledcourtfees.Heard.
Issue notice of appeal to the respondent vide PF & RC for

0212015.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.586/14
15112014
Present:

Plaintiffinperson.
SonofdefendantwithcounselSh.BharatBhushanJain.
Ld.Counselfordefendantfiledhisvakalatnama.Plaintifffiled

his special power of attorney in favour of Dhananjay Jain, who is also

present in court. Plaintiff also filed his fresh evidence/affidavit as the
earlierevidence/affidavithehasnotmentionedabouttheexhibits.Copy
ofevidence/affidavitsupplied.
PlaintiffpaidcostofRs.2000/tothecounselfordefendant.
Plaintiff prayed adjournment stating that his counsel is not available.
Heard.Consideringthefact,matteradjourned.
Put up for PE on 2412015. This is last opportunity to the
plaintifftoexamineallitswitnesses.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.185/14
15112014
Present:

Sh.ArvindBharati,Ld.Counselforplaintiff.
DefendantisEx.Parte.
Ld.Counselforplaintiffprayedforadjournmentasplaintiffis

notavailable.Heard.Matteradjourned.
PutupforPEon0222015.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)

Delhi/15112014

Suitno.731/14
PW1StatementofWahidRazaS/oMehmoodRazaAge:59yearsR/o
8020,galiTyrewali,BaraHinduRao,Delhi110006.
OnSA
Itendermyevidenceby wayof affidavit whichis nowEx.PW1/A and
signedbymeatpointA&B. Irelyondocumentswhicharedetailedin
my affidavit as Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/20. (objected to). Ex. PW1/9 is a
photocopyofGPAdated2942003executedbymybrotherHaiderRaza
inmyfavour.IhavebroughttheoriginalGPA(OSR).

XxxxxBySh.R.P.Tyagi,Ld.counselfordefendant.
IdonotrememberastowhenIreceivedthesummonforappearance
fromthecourtofLd.MetropolitanMagistrateinacomplaintcasefiledby
the defendant AnisurRehman. I also received copy of the complaint
alongwith the summon at that time and after same day copy of the
complaintIcametoknowaboutthecomplaintsmadeagainstmebythe
defendant. I never filed any appeal or revision against the summoning
orderoftheLd.M.M.Ialsocametoknowfromthecopyofthecomplaint
that Tarik Raza, Ved Prakash and Aadil are the eye witnesses to that
occuranceforwhichthecomplaintwasfiled.Inevergiveanynoticeof
defamation and damages to Tarik Raza, Ved Prakash and Aadil. My
counselSH.S.K.Sharmawasalsoappearingwithmeduringproceedingof
thecomplaintcase.Mycounselalsodidnotaskedmetofileappealor

revisionagainstthesummoningorderofLd.M.M. Itoldmycounselthat
nosuchincidenttookplaceasallegedinthecomplaintcase,eventhen
it is not adviced me togo foran appeal or revision. I never giveany
noticeofdamagesordefamationtothedefendantbeforehewithdraw
thecomplaint. Itiscorrectthatthedefendantwithdrawthecomplaint
againstmeandAnisurRehmanontheorderofHon'bleHighCourt.(Vol.
ThoseordersoftheHon'bleHighCourtwasagainstAnisusRehmanonly
andnotagainstme).IusedtomeetAnisurRehmaninthecourt.Ihave
notfiledanycertificateofSH.S.K.Sharmaaboutthefeepaidbymeto
him. ThefeesofSH.S.K.Sharma,Adv.forcontestingthecomplaintcase
was Rs. 1000/ per hearing. I have never paid the said fees by way of
cheque.Inevertookanyreceiptformakingthepayment.Itiswrongto
suggestthatIneverpaidanyfeestoSh.S.K.Sharmatherefore,Icouldnot
filed any receipt in this respect. I have no property dispute with the
defendantandtherefore,Ihadnotfiledanycaseagainsthimregarding
anyproperty. Thedefendanthadfiledacivilcaseagainstmeandmy
familymembersregardingunauthorizedconstructionintheyear1966.My
fatherHaiderRazahadpurchasethepropertyfromMohd.Yunuswhichis
number564546,&5645A&BGandhiMarket,SaraiHafizBanna,Sadar
Bazar,Delhi6intheyear1984bywayofagreementtosale. Nosale
deedwasexecutedaboutthisproperty. TilltodayasMohd.Yunushad
died. Mohd.ShamimissonofMohd.YunusandMohd.Yunushadfour
daughtersalso.WeaskedMohd.Shamimtoexecutethesaledeed.But
hetoldtousthatapartitionsuitbetweenhimandotherlegalheirsof

Mohd.Yunusisgoingoninthecourtandthereforeatthisstagehecannot
execute the sale deed. Before receiving the summon of the criminal
complaint casefiledbythe defendant against meIwasorally looking
afterthepropertyofmybrotherHaiderRaza. Icannotgiveafterhow
muchtimeofreceivingthesummonsmybrotherHaiderRazagaveGPAin
my favour in writing. The father of the defendant were the tenant in
propertyin5645to5646andthemezzaninefloorofthepropertyandthis
propertybelongstoLateMohd.YunusKhan.
I came to know that defendant had personal grudge with
AnisurRehmanafterireceivedthesummons.ItiswrongtosuggestthatI
knewAnisurRehmanfrombeforeandIhavegivenfalsestatementtothe
effect that I hardly know AnisurRehman or never a friend of Anisur
Rehman. I never saw the copy of CWP no. 12266/09 titled as Anisur
Rehman vs union of India which is Ex. PW1/10. I came to know that
defendant has personal grudge against AnisurRehman and had
litigation with him when I appeared before the SDM in a Kalendra U/s
107/150Cr.P.C.asoneofthepartyalongwithAnisurRehman.Theother
party in those proceeding were Mahir Raza and Tahir Raza. The
defendant wants to settle personal score with me as I refused to give
agreementtosellofpropertyno.564546tohim. Thedefendantnever
personallyaskedmetogiveagreementtosellofthepropertybutthese
talksweregoingoninmyfamily. Icannotgivethedatemonthoryear
whenIheardthesetalksinmyfamily. ItiswrongtosuggestthatIam
making falsestatement in this case. It is further wrong to suggest that

defendant never wanted to make personal settlement with me. It is

further wrong to suggest that I had personal grudge against the
defendant from the date when he filed civil case against me and my
familymembersregardingunauthorizedconstructioninourproperty.
Itiscorrectthaton2152003IwastakentoPSSadarBazarby
thepolicefromtheshopofthedefendant.ItisalsocorrectthatAnisur
Rehman was also brought in the PS on that day. It is also correct that
MahirRazaandTahirRazawasalsopresentinthePS. Thepolicemade
me to sit for about 45 hours and therefore, I was allowed to go. The
policewantedmysignatureonsomepapersbutirefusedtogive. After
some time proceeding U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C was initiated against us. On
2152003 accused Mahir Razaand Tahir Raza forcibly took me to their
shopasIwaspassingthroughinfrontoftheirshop.IdidnotseeAnisur
Rehmanthere. ItiswrongtosuggestthatIamdeposingfalselyinthat
respect.Itisfurtherwrongtosuggestthaton2152003atabout4.15p.m.
IandAnisurRehmanwhowashavingknifeinhishandforciblyenteredin
the shop of the defendant and threatened him and I beat Tariq Raza
there. Itiscorrectthatthecomplainantmadeacalltopoliceandone
constablereachedtherewhotookmetothePS.
IwasrunningaweldingshopinBaraHinduRaochowkinthe
year2003.StillIamdoingtheweldingworkfromthatshop.Iusedtopay
incometaxsince1998to2011.IhavenotfiledanycopyoftheIncometax
return.Idonotrememberhowmuchincometaxipaidintheyear2003.
ItiswrongtosuggestthatIammakingfalsestatementregardingmaking

incometaxreturnandthereforeIhavenotfiledanycopyofincometax
returnwiththiscase.Idonotknowthemeaningofmalice.Iamhaving
the same reputation in my family before the year 2003. It is wrong to
suggest I have not suffered in any respect due to the filing of the
complaintcasebythedefendantagainsttheAnisurRehman.Itiswrong
to suggest that no monotary loss was caused to me in contesting the
complaintcasefiledbythedefendantagainstme.Itiswrongtosuggest
that the occurrence dated 2152003 was a true occurrence and the
defendantwithdrawthecomplaintfromthecourtaftertheorderfromthe
Hon'bleHighCourtagainstmealsoasthedefendantwasadvisedbyhis
familymemberstowithdrawthecomplaintagainstmebeingrelativeof
thedefendantandthemainaccusedwasAnisurRehman. Itisfurther
wrongtosuggestthttheapplicationforbailcancellationwasfiledbythe
defendant against me on valid ground but it was withdrawn at the
instanceoffamilymemberasIaminrelationwiththedefendant.Iam
memberofYoungEktaCommitteeoftheareasincelastabout56years.
ItiswrongtosuggestthatIhavefiledafalsecaseagainstthedefendant
inordertoblackmailhimandtoextractmoneyfromhim.
KhalidRazaismybrother.IhaveheardthemybrotherKhalid
Razahadfiledasimilardefamation/damagessuitagainstthedefendant
intheyear2004.Idonotknowifthatsuitwasdismissedon722007from
thecourtofSh.ManojJain,ADJ,Delhi.

ROAC(RavinderSinghI)

ADJ08(Central)

Delhi/15112014

Suitno.472/14
15112014
Present:

None.
Despitecallsandwaitingnoneappearedforparties.Itis1.20

p.m.
Considering the fact, matter adjourned in the interest of
justice.
Tocomeupforfinalargumenton0222015.

(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.42/14
15112014
Present:

Sh.GarudM.Vijay,Ld.Counselforplaintiff.
SH.AjayShanker,Ld.Counselfordefendant.
Finalargumentheard.
Tocomeupfororderon20112014.

(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.731/14
15112014
Present:

PlaintiffwithcounselSh.Mohd.Abid.
DefendantwithcounselSh.R.P.Tyagi.
Plaintiff examined himself as PW1, cross examined and

discharged.Nootherwitnessispresent.
TocomeupforremainingPEon0222015.

(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014

Suitno.136/14
15112014
Present:

Sh.PramodGuptaLd.Counselforplaintiff.
Defendantisexparte.
Exparteargumentsheard.
Putupfororderson21112014.
(RavinderSinghI)
ADJ08(Central)
Delhi/15112014