Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 442 (DEL)

Union of India v. Mohd. Abid

2012-02-06

VEENA BIRBAL

body2012
JUDGMENT : VEENA BIRBAL, J. By way of this Regular Second Appeal under section 100 CPC, appellants have challenged two concurrent judgments of the courts below i.e., the original court dated 7th October, 2011 and that of first Appellate court dated 9th December, 2011 by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed and the decree of mandatory injunction has been passed directing the appellants/defendants to issue duplicate Indra Vikas Patras (in short referred to as ‘IVPs’) and thereafter encash the same or if procedure exists, the IVPs in question be encashed without issuing duplicate certificates subject to furnishing of undertaking and indemnity bond by the respondent/plaintiff. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as under:- Respondent i.e., plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellants herein i.e., defendants before the Ld. Civil Judge, alleging therein that he is the holder of IVPs bearing number 60152, 60153, 60154, 60156, 64276 and 64276. The same were eaten by white ants/rats. Accordingly, respondent/plaintiff had applied for issuance of duplicate IVPs on 20.4.1998 and vide letter dated 20.4.1998, he was asked by appellant/defendant to deposit ticket of one rupee denomination against each certificate. The said instructions were complied with by respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, despite repeated requests, duplicate certificates were not issued by the appellants/defendants. A legal notice was also sent but of no avail. Accordingly, a suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff seeking directions for issuance of duplicate IVPs and for encashment of the same. Appellants/defendants have opposed the said suit by filing written statement contending therein that IVPs in question have been mutilated beyond recognition and under the INDIRA VIKAS PATRA RULES, 1986, appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Replication was filed wherein contents of plaint were reiterated by the respondent/plaintiff. On 15th December, 2003, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in view of P.O.no.1 of WS? OPD 2. Whether the Indira Vikas Patra in question are so mutilated as being beyond recognition? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction? OPP 4. Relief. In support of his case, respondent/plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 whereas appellants/defendants had examined DW-1 Sh.Kailash Chand. After hearing arguments, issue no.1 was decided in favour of respondent/plaintiff. OPD 2. Whether the Indira Vikas Patra in question are so mutilated as being beyond recognition? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction? OPP 4. Relief. In support of his case, respondent/plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 whereas appellants/defendants had examined DW-1 Sh.Kailash Chand. After hearing arguments, issue no.1 was decided in favour of respondent/plaintiff. As regards issue no.2, the learned Civil Judge decided the same against the respondent/plaintiff and further held that even if IVPs are mutilated and are beyond recognition, same does not affect the right of respondent/plaintiff to seek mandatory injunction. On the basis of evidence, issue no.3 was decided in favour of respondent/plaintiff directing appellants/defendants to issue duplicate IVPs and thereafter encash the same and if procedure exists, the IVPs in question be encashed without issuing duplicate certificates subject to furnishing of undertaking and indemnity bond by the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved with the same, appellants/defendants filed appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi. Learned Addl. District Judge found no infirmity in the judgment of the Ld. Civil Judge and accordingly vide impugned judgment dated 9th December, 2011 dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants relying on Rule 7 of Chapter 14 of IVP Rules has contended that courts below have not correctly interpreted the same as such no directions could have been issued as are issued in the present case. There is no denial by the appellants/defendants that IVPs in question have been issued by the post office. It is also admitted by appellants/defendants that respondent/plaintiff is the holder of IVPs as mutilated or defaced IVPs were furnished to the post office. It has also come in the evidence of appellants/defendants that no claimant has come forward to claim payment of the IVPs in question and some of the portions of the IVPs are in possession of respondent/plaintiff. The record is also maintained in post office for issuance of IVPs. It has also been admitted in the evidence that same have not been encashed and same have matured long back. There is also no report about theft of IVPs by any one. The aforesaid IVPs were purchased in 1998 and same have matured in 2003 and during the past nine years, nobody has made any claim on the same. The maturity amount is lying unclaimed with the post office. There is also no report about theft of IVPs by any one. The aforesaid IVPs were purchased in 1998 and same have matured in 2003 and during the past nine years, nobody has made any claim on the same. The maturity amount is lying unclaimed with the post office. The learned Civil Judge has also issued directions to the appellants/defendants to encash them without issuance of duplicate certificates as the date of redemption has already gone. Interest of appellants/defendants has also been protected as directions have been issued that IVPs be encashed subject to furnishing of undertaking and indemnity bond by the respondent/plaintiff. In view of above discussion, no substantial question of law arises in this case, as such second appeal u/s 100 CPC cannot be entertained. The same stands dismissed. CM 2200/2012 (for stay) In view of the order passed in RSA 17/2012, no order is required to be passed in the present application. Application stands disposed of accordingly.