DO Retrieved.asp(3)

Suitno.291/14

15.11.2014

DW1: Statementof Sh. AshuKhan, agedabout31years, s/oSh.ZakruddinaliasFakhruddin,proprietorofM/sA.S.Motors,at349/2,MainRoad,Burari,Delhi110084.

OnSA

I tendermyevidencebywayofaffidavitwhichis Ex.D1 it

bears mymysignatures at point A&B. Theaffidavit Ex. D1was

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 issuedby theplaintiff which is already

exhibitedasEx.PW1/B.

xxxxbySh.K.P.Singh,Ld.counselplaintiff.

Iamdoingthebusinessofrepairingandsalepurchaseofcar.I

parkthecarswhichcomesforrepairinginsidemyshop.Amongthe

shop inquestion is sufficient toaccommodatetwocars, onebig

andonesmallcar.VolIhavetwomoreworkshops.Oneissituatedin

GhaziabadandotherinSahibabad.Theshopinquestion

2

approximatelyismeasuring18x40/42.Thefrontis18sq.feet.andin

themiddle it is close to20sq. feetwide. Theshop 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 whichwasprovidedtomebyNaveenTyagi. At the

timeof taking thepremises on rent my firmwasa proprietorship

concern,lateronwhenmybusinesswasexpandedIenteredintoa

partnershipwithmywife. Presently myfirmagain is proprietorship

concern. When the telephone connection was applied it was a

proprietorshipconcern. The rent agreementwashandedoverby

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

providebyNaveenTyagidirectlytoconcernpersonofthebank.I

donotknowastowhetherthedocumentswerehandedoverby

Naveen Tyagi on the same day or on any other day. I did not

handedoveranydocumentexceptmyIDtothebank.Volsincethe

documents were with NaveenTyagi 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 wrongtosuggest that the

premiseswereletouttomebySh.RamphalTyagiorthattherent

wasRs. 20,000/ permonth. It is correct that I receivedthe legal

noticepriortofilingofthepresentsuit.VolIevenreplythesaidlegal

notice.Thesaidreplyhoweverisnotinthejudicialfile.Itiswrongto

suggestthat I havemadeafalseaverments inpara10ofEx. 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

RamphalTyagi, NaveenTyagi andArvindTyagi. Thesaidsuit was

filedinthelastof2010howevercorrectmonthIdonotremember

maybeSeptemberorOctober2010. It is wrongtosuggest that I

madeanstatementinthesaidsuitthatIwillvacatethepremises

within6months.BeforesigningIhadgonethroughEx.D1.Thesame

5

was attested in Tis Hazari Court Complex. I am an Income tax

assesse.A.S.MotorsbeingproprietorshipconcernthereforeI have

beenfilingmyincometaxandtheA.S.Motors.Ihavebeenfilingof

incometaxsincelongagoandmuchpriortolettingoftheshopin

myfavour. Rightnow I haveonlyonepancard.Therewasone

morepancardwhichwaspreparedwhenIenteredintopartnership

withmywife.Myearlierpancardoncewasmisplacedintheyear

2007or2008.Myincometaxreturnsareuptodate.Pancardno.I

cannottellorally.IsentmoneyordersinthenameofRamphalTyagi

addressinghim.

Crossisdeferred.

RO&AC

(RavinderSingh1)ADJ08(Central)/THCDelhi/15.11.2014

Suit no. 787/14HDFC 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. 790/14HDFC 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. 791/14HDFC 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. 789/14HDFC 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. 788/14HDFC 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

15.11.2014Present: 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

90days formthedateof serviceof summonor till 19.04.2014. So

consideringthefactandinviewofaboveIfindnogroundtorecall

order dated 19.04.2014. Accordingly, application of defendant

undersection151CPCisdismissed.

Putupforreplytotheapplicationofplaintiffunderorder

39rule6CPCaswellasforplaintiff'sevidenceon02.01.2015.

(RavinderSingh1)ADJ08(Central)/THCDelhi/15.11.2014

Suitno.29/14

15.11.2014

Present: Sh.DeepakBhora,Ld.counselforplaintiff.Sh.ArunArora,Ld.counselfordefendant.

Ld.counselforplaintiffsubmittedthatheisnotpressing

his applicationunder order xvi CPC for summoningof additional

witnessfiledondated14.12.2013atthisstage.Hefurtherstatedthat

hewantexamineremainingwitnessinthiscase.

Ld. counsel for defendant opposed the submission

statingthatapplicationofplaintiff bedismissed. Hencecasefile

perused.Plaintiff isallowedtoexaminetheremainingwitnessand

application of plaintiff under order 16 CPC for summoning of

additionalwitnessiskeptpending.

Putupforplaintiff'sevidenceon27.01.2015.

(RavinderSingh1)ADJ08(Central)/THCDelhi/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 forplaintiff statedthatdefendanthasnot

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)/THCDelhi/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)/THCDelhi/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

availableforcrossexaminationLd.Counsel forplaintiff is notavailable.

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 upforargumentonapplicationU/O IXRule7 CPCon

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.

Issuenoticeof appeal to the respondentvidePF&RCfor

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 DhananjayJain, 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/o8020,galiTyrewali,BaraHinduRao,Delhi110006.

OnSA

Itendermyevidencebywayofaffidavitwhich is nowEx.PW1/Aand

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

thedefendantAnisurRehman. I also receivedcopyof thecomplaint

alongwith the summonat that timeandafter sameday copyof the

complaintIcametoknowaboutthecomplaintsmadeagainstmebythe

defendant. I never filedanyappealor revisionagainst thesummoning

orderoftheLd.M.M.Ialsocametoknowfromthecopyofthecomplaint

that Tarik Raza, Ved Prakash and Aadil are the eye witnesses to that

occuranceforwhichthecomplaintwasfiled.Inevergiveanynoticeof

defamationanddamagestoTarik Raza,VedPrakashandAadil. My

counselSH.S.K.Sharmawasalsoappearingwithmeduringproceedingof

thecomplaintcase.Mycounselalsodidnotaskedmetofileappealor

revisionagainstthesummoningorderofLd.M.M. Itoldmycounselthat

nosuchincidenttookplaceasallegedinthecomplaintcase,eventhen

it is notadvicedmetogoforanappealor revision. I nevergiveany

noticeofdamagesordefamationtothedefendantbeforehewithdraw

thecomplaint. Itiscorrectthatthedefendantwithdrawthecomplaint

againstmeandAnisurRehmanontheorderofHon'bleHighCourt.(Vol.

ThoseordersoftheHon'bleHighCourtwasagainstAnisusRehmanonly

andnotagainstme).IusedtomeetAnisurRehmaninthecourt.Ihave

notfiledanycertificateofSH.S.K.Sharmaaboutthefeepaidbymeto

him. ThefeesofSH.S.K.Sharma,Adv.forcontestingthecomplaintcase

wasRs. 1000/ perhearing. I haveneverpaidthesaidfeesbywayof

cheque.Inevertookanyreceiptformakingthepayment.Itiswrongto

suggestthatIneverpaidanyfeestoSh.S.K.Sharmatherefore,Icouldnot

filedany receipt in this respect. I havenoproperty disputewith 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

hetoldtousthatapartitionsuit betweenhimandother legalheirsof

Mohd.Yunusisgoingoninthecourtandthereforeatthisstagehecannot

execute thesaledeed. Beforereceivingthesummonof thecriminal

complaintcasefiledbythedefendantagainst meI wasorally looking

afterthepropertyofmybrotherHaiderRaza. I cannotgiveafterhow

muchtimeofreceivingthesummonsmybrotherHaiderRazagaveGPAin

my favour in writing. The father of the defendant were the tenant in

propertyin5645to5646andthemezzaninefloorofthepropertyandthis

propertybelongstoLateMohd.YunusKhan.

I cametoknowthatdefendanthadpersonal grudgewith

AnisurRehmanafterireceivedthesummons.ItiswrongtosuggestthatI

knewAnisurRehmanfrombeforeandIhavegivenfalsestatementtothe

effect that I hardly knowAnisurRehmanor never a friend of Anisur

Rehman. I never sawthecopyof CWPno. 12266/09titledasAnisur

Rehman vs unionof Indiawhich is Ex. PW1/10. I cametoknowthat

defendant has personal grudge against AnisurRehman and had

litigationwithhimwhen I appearedbefore theSDM inaKalendraU/s

107/150Cr.P.C.asoneofthepartyalongwithAnisurRehman. Theother

party in those proceeding were Mahir Raza and Tahir Raza. The

defendant wants to settle personal scorewithmeas I refusedtogive

agreementtosellofpropertyno.564546tohim. Thedefendantnever

personallyaskedmetogiveagreementtosellofthepropertybutthese

talksweregoingoninmyfamily. Icannotgivethedatemonthoryear

whenIheardthesetalksinmyfamily. ItiswrongtosuggestthatIam

makingfalsestatement in this case. It is furtherwrongtosuggest that

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

further wrong to suggest that I had personal grudge against the

defendant fromthedatewhenhefiledcivil caseagainst meandmy

familymembersregardingunauthorizedconstructioninourproperty.

Itiscorrectthaton2152003IwastakentoPSSadarBazarby

thepolicefromtheshopofthedefendant.ItisalsocorrectthatAnisur

Rehmanwasalsobrought in thePSonthatday. It is alsocorrect that

MahirRazaandTahirRazawasalsopresentinthePS. Thepolicemade

metosit forabout45hoursandtherefore, I wasallowedtogo. The

policewantedmysignatureonsomepapersbutirefusedtogive. After

sometimeproceedingU/s107/150Cr.P.Cwas initiatedagainst us. On

2152003accusedMahir RazaandTahir Razaforcibly tookmetotheir

shopasIwaspassingthroughinfrontoftheirshop.IdidnotseeAnisur

Rehmanthere. ItiswrongtosuggestthatIamdeposingfalselyinthat

respect.Itisfurtherwrongtosuggestthaton2152003atabout4.15p.m.

IandAnisurRehmanwhowashavingknifeinhishandforciblyenteredin

theshopof thedefendantandthreatenedhimand I beatTariqRaza

there. Itiscorrectthatthecomplainantmadeacalltopoliceandone

constablereachedtherewhotookmetothePS.

IwasrunningaweldingshopinBaraHinduRaochowkinthe

year2003.StillIamdoingtheweldingworkfromthatshop.Iusedtopay

incometaxsince1998to2011.IhavenotfiledanycopyoftheIncometax

return.Idonotrememberhowmuchincometaxipaidintheyear2003.

ItiswrongtosuggestthatIammakingfalsestatementregardingmaking

incometaxreturnandthereforeIhavenotfiledanycopyofincometax

returnwiththiscase.Idonotknowthemeaningofmalice.Iamhaving

thesamereputation inmy family before theyear2003. It is wrongto

suggest I have not suffered in any respect due to the filing of the

complaintcasebythedefendantagainsttheAnisurRehman.Itiswrong

tosuggest that nomonotary loss wascausedtome incontesting the

complaintcasefiledbythedefendantagainstme.Itiswrongtosuggest

that the occurrencedated2152003 was a true occurrenceand 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