Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 229/2023 & I.As. 6702-03/2023, 6705/2023, 6707-08/2023, 10854-55/2023, 20266-68/2023
Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Barnali Paul and Ms. Hardikaa Kalia, Advocates
Through: Mr. Suhail Khan, Mr. Farid Ahmed Khan, Ms. Vratika Mittal and Mr. Junaid Khan, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by M/s Ockleaf Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff Company), thereby, seeking a decree of possession and permanent injunction in its favour and against the Defendants qua property bearing N-, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi [‘suit property’]. The Plaintiff Company has relied upon the sale deeds dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011 to substantiate its claim of ownership over the suit property.
2. In pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the predecessor bench of this Court, the matter was listed on 22.08.2024 for arguments on Prayer clause ‘A’ in the plaint refers to property bearing No. N-27, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, which is admittedly an error and the said property is not the subject matter of this suit. the maintainability of the present suit. Submissions on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2
3. Mr. Suhail Khan, learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that that the present suit, which was re-filed on 06.04.2023 could not be instituted and maintained as the Plaintiff Company has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies [‘RoC’] vide Notice No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated 08.08.2018 published on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India.
3.1. He stated that the Master Data of the Plaintiff Company as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs also reflects the status of the Plaintiff Company as "Strike Off". He stated that the Director Identification Number [‘DIN’] status of both the Directors of the Plaintiff Company i.e., Mr. Ram Dilawri and Mrs. Swarna Dilawri also shows as "Deactivated due to non-filing of DIR-3 KYC". He stated that therefore, the affidavits filed by Mr. Ram Dilawri holding himself out as a Director of the Plaintiff Company are incorrect and misleading. He stated that neither the Plaintiff Company nor its Directors are competent to swear any affidavit for or on behalf of the Plaintiff Company.
3.2. He further stated that the present suit in not maintainable, as the alleged documents relied upon by the Plaintiff Company herein, which forms the basis of Plaintiff Company’s title over the suit property have already been declared null and void vide Judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned ADJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi [‘District Court’] in the Civil Suit No. 208149/2016. He stated that the said civil suit was filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein (plaintiffs therein).
3.3. He stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present suit be dismissed as not maintainable by this Court.
3.4. He submitted that though the Plaintiff Company has preferred an appeal before National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi [‘NCLT, Delhi] for restoration of its name on the Register of RoC and however, even if the Plaintiff Company is restored, the same would not make the suit maintainable in light of the judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge. Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff
4. In response, Mr. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Mr. Ram Dilawri, the Director of the Plaintiff Company, was not aware of the ‘Striking off’ Notice dated 08.08.2018 issued by the RoC, resultant of which the Director could not make any efforts to revive the Plaintiff Company. He stated that a struck-off company can be revived by filing a petition under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 and acting upon the said legal remedy, the Plaintiff Company has filed an appeal bearing Company Appeal 157/2024 [‘Appeal’], which is pending adjudication before NCLT Delhi. He stated that vide Order dated 21.08.2024, NCLT Delhi had issued notice in the said appeal and the matter is next listed for hearing on 11.11.2024.
4.1. He contended that since, the Appeal is pending adjudication before NCLT, the present suit be kept pending till the final disposal of the said Appeal.
4.2. He stated that with respect to the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the District Court, the Plaintiff Company has filed an RFA 251/2023, which is pending before the High Court. He fairly admits that no notice has been issued in the said appeal and there is no stay on the operation of the said final order and judgment. Findings and Analysis
5. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
6. The Plaintiff Company has filed the present suit on 23.08.2022 seeking recovery of possession of the suit property admeasuring 300 sq. yards consisting of 2½ floors built thereon and further seeking relief of permanent injunction and mesne profits w.e.f., 25.08.2019.
7. This suit was first listed before this Court on 12.04.2023, on which date, the Court issued directions for registering the plaint as a suit and issued summons to the Defendants.
8. It is undisputed that one Sh. Purushottam Nagesh Oak (‘Sh. P.N. Oak’) was the original allottee of this plot and Sh. P. N. Oak had purchased the plot from DLF Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale deed dated 03.03.1962.
9. The Plaintiff Company has filed this suit and claimed relief against the Defendants on the basis of absolute title in the suit property. For establishing its title, the Plaintiff Company has relied upon the following documents: i. Registered Sale deed dated 30.10.1987 executed by Sh. P.N. Oak in favour of Sh. Raj Singh Malik. ii. Registered Sale deed dated 25.08.2011 executed by Sh. Raj Singh Malik in favour of the Plaintiff Company herein.
10. It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff Company was put in actual physical possession of the suit property on 25.08.2011. It is stated that Sh. Raj Singh Malik handed over the possession of the suit property to Mr. Ram Dilawri, the Director of the Plaintiff Company. It is stated that in October, 2011, the Plaintiff Company learnt that the suit property has been trespassed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with the other Defendants on the basis of registered documents, which to the knowledge to the Plaintiff Company are forged and fabricated. The relevant paragraph 5 and 6 of the plaint, which forms the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim reads as under: -
11. It is stated in the plaint that in October, 2011, Defendant No. 1 filed FIR No. 137/2011 with P.S. Greater Kailash, Delhi against the Plaintiff Company and other persons on the allegation that the Plaintiff Company and other miscreants had tried to illegally grab the suit property. It is stated that the FIR was investigated and Sh. Raj Singh Malik as well as other accused were arrested. It is stated that in the said proceedings, the concerned Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 18.02.2020 observed that Mr. Ram Dilawri, the Director of the Plaintiff Company himself had been defrauded by Sh. Raj Singh Malik and Mr. Ram Dilawri himself was not guilty of the offences alleged in the said FIR. And, thus charges against Mr. Ram Dilawri were dismissed.
12. It is stated in the plaint that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in January, 2012 filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 208149/2016 against the Plaintiff Company and other Defendants for declaration of title qua the suit property and specifically, seeking cancellation of the sale deeds dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011, relied upon by the Plaintiff Company to claim title in the suit property. It is stated that the said suit was initially filed before this Court and was thereafter transferred to the District Court on account of the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction and is now pending before the District Court. The relevant paragraph 17 of the plaint reads as under: -
13. It needs to be noted here that the averment in the plaint as regard pendency of the aforesaid suit in the District Court is falsified by Document No. 7 filed along with the plaint, which is the final order and judgment of the District Court dated 15.09.2022, whereby, the said Civil Suit filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 stands decreed against the Plaintiff Company and in favour of the said Defendants. In the said judgment, the District Court has returned a categorical finding that the Plaintiff Company is precluded from ascertaining any title rights in the suit property and has declared that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 is a bogus document and consequently, any title could not have been transferred in favour of the Plaintiff Company vide sale deed dated 25.08.2011. The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 15.09.2022 reads as under: - “Observation 3
25. Even if it is assumed that the defendant no. 2 company is not precluded, as aforesaid, from inter-alia asserting that it has any rights in respect of the suit property, (a) the failure of the defendant no. 1 to contest this suit and to prove that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW1/83} was genuinely executed by Sh. P.N. Oak in his favour, (b) the testimony of DW2/1 Sh. Hira Lal, Preservation Assistant, Department of Delhi Archives to the effect that there is no sale deed dated 30.10.1987 in respect of the suit property, registered as document no. 4733, Book No. I, Vol. No. 4812, pages no. 185 to 187 and that at the said page numbers a lease deed dated 10.03.1983, executed between Sh. N.K. Jain and the Central Bank of India qua ground floor of property no. D-1 A, Green Park, New Delhi, is registered, (c) the failure of the defendant no. 2 company to lead any credible evidence to prove that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW1/83) was duly executed by Sh. P.N. Oak in favour of the defendant no. 1 and
(d) the stand taken by the defendant no. 3 (director of the defendant no. 2 company) in the Court of Sh. Harun Pratap, the then Ld. MM, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, during the hearing of arguments on charge, in the criminal case arising from FIR No. 137/11, PS G.K.-1, to the effect that he as well as the defendant no. 2 company were inter-alia defrauded by the defendant no. 1, Sh. Raj Singh Malik, collectively establish (i) that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW1/83) was/is a bogus/sham document, (ii) that on 25.08.2011, the defendant no. 1 had absolutely no title qua the suit property, (iii) that resultantly, no title qua the suit property had transferred from the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no. 2 company, on account of execution of the registered sale deed dated 25.08.2011, Ex.DW3/2(OSR), (iv) that as such, the defendant no. 2 company has no basis to claim title qua the suit property and (v) that the appropriate remedy for the defendant no. 2 company is to sue the defendant no.1, for cancellation the registered sale deed dated 25.08.2011, Ex.DW3/2(OSR) on ground of fraud and consequent recovery of Rs.1,80,00,000/- along with interest.” ISSUE NO.3 "3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration that the sale deed dated 30111 October, 1987 allegedly registered and executed between Sh. Purshottam Nagesh Oak and defendant no.1 and the sale deed dated 28th June, 2011 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 as fake, forged, fabricated and null & void? OPP”
34. In view of the observation no. 3 made in paragraph 25 of this judgment and particularly in view of the failure of the defendants no. 1 to 4 to prove the due execution and registration of the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW[1] /83), this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no. 1 to 4. It is held that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW1/83), allegedly executed by Sh. P.N. Oak in favour of the defendant no. 1, is null and void. Also, it is held that the sale deed dated 25.08.2011, Ex.DW3/2(OSR), having been executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 2 company, without any title qua the suit property, is also null and void."
14. Though, the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022 was filed with the paper book; however, at the very outset, the plaint fails to make any reference to the said judgment and infact, a misleading submission has been made at paragraph 17 of the plaint that the said Civil Suit filed before the District Court is pending.
15. The plaint has been drawn on 28.09.2022 as per the date mentioned at the foot of the plaint after the prayer clauses at printed page 38 of the plaint and at the foot of the synopsis at printed page 13 of the plaint. The verification clause as signed by the Director of the Plaintiff Company at printed page 39 of the plaint bears the date of 15.09.2022. The affidavit of the Director, Sh. Ram Dilawri, filed in support of the plaint bears the Notary seal date of 15.09.2022. The plaint is accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate dated 28.09.2022, certifying that all documents filed with the suit are true copies. The discrepancy in the dates shows that the filing of the plaint was highly irregular; however, notwithstanding the contradictions in the dates; in view of the admitted fact that as on 15.09.2022, the Plaintiff Company was aware that the title documents dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011 relied upon by the Plaintiff Company for maintaining its claim in the suit property had been declared null and void by a Court of Competent jurisdiction after trial and thus, the filing of this suit thereafter, was without any cause of action and is an abuse of process of law.
16. The fact of the passing of the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022 in Civil Suit No. 8419/2016 also finds no mention in the list of dates and synopsis accompanying the plaint. The said synopsis was drawn subsequently on 28.09.2022 as is apparent from printed page 13 of the plaint and ought to have made a full disclosure of the passing of the said judgment against the Plaintiff Company. On the contrary, the list of dates made a contra representation to this Court that the said Civil Suit is pending and is at the stage of final arguments. The relevant portion of the list of dates, which is misleading reads as under: - “Suit bearing no. 8419/2016. Which was filed by Defendant No. 1 & 2 is at the stage of Final Argument.”
17. Though the plaint bears the date of 28.09.2022, it is a matter of record that the plaint was kept pending in the Court’s registry after the filing and no steps were taken for its listing up until 12.04.2023 i.e., after seven (7) months. The matter was first listed and taken up on the said date and even on this date, the Plaintiff did not bring to the learned Single Judge’s attention, the passing of the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022, which categorically held that Plaintiff Company has no right, title and interest in the suit property. The reliefs sought in the present suit on basis of the title could not have been entertained by this Court in view of the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022, which was then subsisting and continues to operate till date. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order for registering the suit and issuance of summons on 12.04.2023 was obtained by the Plaintiff Company by defrauding the learned Single Judge.
18. The Plaintiff Company is stated to have filed an appeal against final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, which has been numbered as RFA 251/2023. However, it is a matter of record that no notice has been issued by the Appellate Court in the said appeal till date and this fact was also not brought on record. Further, this fact has been disclosed by the learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and has been verified from the Court’s official website.
19. In addition, in the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 137/2011, it is categorically recorded that the purported sale deed dated 30.10.1987 relied upon by the Plaintiff Company has been found to be forged and fabricated, as no such documents exist in the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar. To the contrary, at the relevant serial number a document pertaining to a distinct property between distinct persons is registered. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: - “During the course of Investigation, the photocopies of sale deeds furnished by revisionist Manish Aggarwal were got verified from the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate and it was reported by the concerned authorities that as per Peshi register, index register and corporation register, the particulars mentioned in the sale deeds did not match with record available in the office of Sub Registrar. It was also reported that instead the sale deed having registration no. 4733 and Addl. Book I, Volume No. 4812, page no. 185-187 dt. 30.10.1987 was indeed executed between Sh. Hari Chand Gupta S/o Sh. Hazari Lal in favour of Sh. Lachhman Dass S/o Shiv Ram in respect of property no. XII/1867, Maika Ganj.”
20. The Plaintiff Company despite pleading this order at paragraph 11 of the plaint and relying upon the same, failed to refer to this relevant portion of the said order. The Plaintiff Company does not dispute finding of the fact that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 alleged to have been executed between Sh. P. N. Oak and Sh. Raj Singh Malik is non-existent and, on this fact, alone, the entire edifice of the claim of the Plaintiff Company to the suit property fails and it could not have maintained the present suit.
21. The District Court in its final order and judgment dated 15.09.2020 after perusing the evidence led by the parties therein, including the office of the Sub-Registrar returned a finding that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 is non-existent and therefore, the subsequent sale deed dated 25.08.2011 cannot pass on any title in favour of the Plaintiff Company. The said findings were returned under the heading ‘Observation-3’ and ‘issue no. 3’ in the said judgment. In fact, the District Court has issued a permanent injunction against the Plaintiff Company restraining it from relying upon the sale deeds dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011. In view of the said permanent injunction, the Plaintiff Company could not have instituted this suit in the first instance and the institution of this suit is thus barred. The findings of the District Court for Issue No. 4, thereby granting the permanent injunction reads as under: - “ISSUE NO.4 "4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP"
35. In view of the fact that all the documents propounded by the defendants no. 1 to 4 as well as all the documents propounded by the defendants no. 5 to 7 have been found to be sham, bogus and null/void documents, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. All the defendants of this suit are permanently restrained (a) from indulging in any transaction qua the suit property on the basis of the documents, propounded by them qua the suit property; (b) from manufacturing/creating any more documents qua the suit property and
(c) from illegally interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs qua the suit property.”
22. Therefore, the grant of the aforesaid permanent injunction was well in the knowledge of the Plaintiff Company. The present suit has been filed in the teeth of the said injunction and is thus, barred in law.
23. Mr. Ram Dilawri, the Director of the Plaintiff Company while seeking dismissal of charges against him in FIR No. 137/2011 and conceding to the fraud of Sh. Raj Singh Malik in fabricating the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 alleged to have been executed between Sh. P. N. Oak and Sh. Raj Singh Malik, pleaded that the Plaintiff Company had been defrauded by Sh. Raj Singh Malik. The effect and intent of the arguments before the said Court was that the Plaintiff Company has been defrauded by Sh. Raj Singh Malik into executing the sale deed dated 10.08.2011 and parting with valuable consideration of Rs. 1.80 crores. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was persuaded by submissions of Mr. Ram Dilawri and the Plaintiff Company, which led to the dismissal of criminal charges against the said Director. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.02.2020 reads as under: - “Finally, as far as the role of accused Ram Dilawri is concerned, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the said accused happens to be an NRI who ordinarily does not reside In India and that he had appointed accused Manlsh Aggarwal as the AR of his company M/s. Oakleaf Developers Pvt Ltd. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs 1,80,00,0001- has been indeed transferred from the account of the said company in the account of accused Raj Singh Malik and that there is no direct allegation against accused Ram Dilawari being involved in this case. The case of the prosecution against accused Ram Dilawari is entirely based on circumstantial evidence consisting of the fact that he and his wife have provided their residential address of a property wrongly as they had already sold it long time ago. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the said accused that it is indeed the latter who has suffered the actual loss in the present case as he has been cheated by the other accused in a criminal conspiracy. It has been also contended that an amount of Rs 1,80,00,000/- has been indeed transferred from the account of the company of accused Ram Dilawari to the account of accused Raj Singh Malik through pay orders and had he been involved in the present case, he would not have transferred the money through pay orders so as to leave a trail of the payment connecting him with the property. It has been finally argued that while the other accused have got enriched by wrongful gains and the complainant has retained the possession of the property in question, but accused Ram Dilawari has suffered huge monetary loss apart from the proceedings in the present case. It is pertinent to note that despite alleging furnishing of a wrong address by a person who is admittedly a NRI, the prosecution has not brought any material on record to show that accused Ram Dilawari or his wife were either not residing in the property at Panchsheel Park at the time of furnishing the relevant details with the registrar of companies or that they had not made any arrangements for receiving correspondence pertaining to heir company at the said address while it is an admitted fact that the wife of the accused Ram Dilawari had indeed owned the same property previously. It is also to be noted that the prosecution has not even alleged that the address of the company M/s, Oakleaf Developers Pvt Ltd furnished by accused Ram Dilawari is wrong or false. At the same time, the contention of the prosecution regarding accused Ram Dilawari not taking due diligence in verifying the previous owner and not taking over the physical possession of the property in question from Raj Singh Malik cannot be prima facie termed to show any culpability on part of the said accused especially when he has admittedly appointed a professional advocate to be an attorney for his company to do all the legal acts, Therefore, it is apparent on record that the version put forth by accused Ram Dilawari being himself a victim cannot be negated on Its face value merely on surmises and conjectures of probabilities as advanced by the prosecution. The fact that neither any witness has alleged about any role being played directly or indirectly by accused Ram Dilawari In the entire transaction in their statement u/s 161 CrPC and the fact that there is lack of material on record to show meeting of minds between accused Ram Dilawari with other accused persons to Indeed commit the alleged offences as part of a criminal conspiracy negate the gravity of suspicion towards accused Ram Dilawari, which is otherwise also duly explained by the said accused.”
24. In the said order dated 18.02.2020, the concerned Court was dealing with FIR No. 137/2011 filed by Defendant No. 1 on account of an incident pertaining to forcible dispossession of the residents from the suit property at the instance of the authorized representative of the Plaintiff Company and goons hired by the said authorized representative. The order records that the residents resisted their forcible dispossession with the intervention of the police and the possession remains with Defendant No. 1. In this regard, the District Court as well in its final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022 after recording evidence of the parties has returned a finding that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the persons in possession of the suit property and has granted a possessory title in their favour. In view of the aforesaid order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the concerned Criminal Court and judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the District Court, the assertion made by the Plaintiff Company at paragraph 6 of the plaint that it was handed over the actual physical property of the suit property by Sh. Raj Singh Malik is ex-facie false.
25. The present suit has been filed for seeking recovery of possession of the suit property from the Defendants on basis of the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 and sale deed dated 25.08.2011. However, as noticed hereinabove, the District Court on 15.09.2022 has granted a permanent injunction against the Plaintiff Company from relying upon the said documents and from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Defendants. In view of this permanent injunction, the present suit for recovery of possession is barred in law.
26. The disputes between the parties arose in the year 2011 as acknowledged in the plaint at paragraphs 29 and 30. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were in possession and were threatened by the Plaintiff immediately to recourse to due legal process and filed the Civil Suit in year 2012, which culminated in the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as against the Plaintiff Company. The present suit filed after the passing of the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 is a gross abuse of process and is intended to nullify the binding effect of the said Judgment.
27. In addition, it has been pointed out that the Plaintiff Company was struck-off by the ROC on 08.08.2018 and the DIN status of the two (2) Directors including Mr. Ram Dilawri, who has signed the pleadings was deactivated. In these facts, the plaint, which was affirmed by Mr. Ram Dilawri on 15.09.2022 and filed in the Registry, could not have been instituted in the name of the Plaintiff Company, since the said company stood dissolved and had ceased to exist as a juristic person.
28. Upon being confronted with the said fact, the Plaintiff Company while admitting the same; has however, pleaded ignorance of the said facts. It is stated that Mr. Ram Dilawri learnt about the said facts in the year 2024 only upon the objection being raised by the Defendants in the present proceedings.
29. In this regard, this Court is of the opinion that such an explanation offered by the Plaintiff Company cannot be accepted and has to be rejected outrightly. A corporate entity is liable under the Companies Act, 2013 to make annual compliances with respect to its affairs by filing statutory returns. The Plaintiff Company would have been obliged between the year 2018 to 2024 to make several filings and would have immediately learnt that it is unable to do so since the company has been struck-off. This Court, therefore, finds no substance in the explanation offered by the Plaintiff Company.
30. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the captioned suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court is also of the opinion that continuation of these proceedings would tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court as well as lead to a waste of valuable judicial time and cause undue hardship to Defendant nos. 1 and 2, who have lawfully pursued the legal process in Civil Suit No. 208149/2016, which led to the passing of the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, after a full trial.
31. In these facts, the present suit is dismissed with actual costs awarded in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Since, Plaintiff Company has been struck-off, Mr. Ram Dilawri will be personally liable for the costs awarded.
32. Keeping in view the Section 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Rules 1(i) & 2 of Chapter XXIII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi & Others v. Nirmala Devi & Others[2], this Court deem it appropriate to impose actual costs on the Plaintiff Company and payable to the Defendant nos. 1 and 2. For the purpose of determining the actual cost incurred by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to be paid by the Plaintiff Company herein, the Taxing Officer of this Court is directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
33. List before the Taxing Officer/concerned Joint Registrar on 14.01.2025.
34. In addition, the Plaintiff Company and Mr. Ram Dilawri shall be liable for an additional cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to Delhi State Legal Service Authority (‘DSLSA’) within four (4) weeks and proof of the payment shall be filed with the Registry.
35. Accordingly, the present suit stands rejected.
36. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 16, 2024/rhc/MG