IN THE COURT OF MS. ARCHANA BENIWAL, M.M.

MAHILA
COURT, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-
State Vs. Rajnish Kumar Singh & Anr.

FIR No.342/2018
U/s 323/354/451/509/506/34 IPC
P.S. Jaitpur, N.Delhi
Application for discharge of the applicants/accused
Rajnish Kumar Singh and Manish Kumar.

NDOH: 01/June/2019

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the above said case is pending before this Hon’ble

Court and is now fixed for 01-June-2019 for framing
charges.

2. That the complainant in this has lodged a totally false and

frivolous case against the above accused persons in the
above said FIR/case having link with Police concerned.

3. That the above said FIR got registered against the

applicant/accused just as a counterblast of the FIR
already registered by the applicant- Manish Kumar having
FIR No.335/2018 u/s 452/323/427/506/34 IPC, PS
Jaitpur, New Delhi against the informant/complainant in
the above referred case.

4. That in fact the applicant-Manish Kumar had got

registered above said FIR against the accused persons (i)
Murari Yadave, (ii) Karan Yadav (ii) Ankit (iv) Manju, (v)
Anu (complainant in the present case), (vii) Pooja, (viii)
Neeraj and 2/3 other accomplices. FIR No.335/2018 was
registered on 19-06-2018 having DD No.55-A/2018,
 Whereas the present case/FIR No. FIR No.342/2018 at
the instance of complainant-Anu on 20-06-2018 with
DD No.67-A/2018.

5. That obviously, the case in hand FIR No.342/2018

got registered by complainant Anu, is having
subsequent number and date to the FIR lodged by the
present accused. However No 100 number was called
by the complainant before registration of FIR No.342.

6. That in FIR No.335/2018, the police took the

applicant/complainant/injured persons to the
Trauma Center but in the FIR No.342/2018 the
complainant without informing the police/dialing 100
went themselves, to the Truama Center.

7. That in the FIR No.342/2018, the case in hand, the

case is not supported by any clinching evidence to
fasten the accused with the offence. The
averments/statement of the complainant recorded by
the police and by the Ld. Magistrate differs and
contradicts one another.

In her complaint before police concerned, the

complainant says that accused Manish Kumar was in
drunkard mood while he entered the house of the
complainant but in her statement under section 164
Cr.P.C. the complainant has not said anything in
terms of his drunkenness.

In the complaint/FIR, there is no mentionof

bricks/pebbles throwing but in the statement u/s 164
of Cr.P.C. the complainant says that the accused
 threw bricks/pebbles and parents of complainant and
parents of accused were injured.

8. That mother of the complainant Manju stated in her

statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that her both daughters
namely complainant Anu Yadav and Pooja Yadav were
present on the ground floor and her husband Murari
Lal Yadav was resting on the second Floor and her
two sons namely Karan Yadav and Ankit Yadav were
outside on the Gali.

But Manju Yadav, in her statement u/s 164

Cr.P.C. states that at that time she was sleeping on
the upper room and her daughter Anu (complainant)
was alone on the ground floor. She alleged that on
alarm, she came down and saw a boy named Manish
was misbehaving and abusing Anu.

Further, Manju yadav in her statement u/s 161

Cr.P.C. no matter of abusing the complaint has come
on record but in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she
says that accused was abusing complainant-Anu
whereas informant Anu has not given such statement.

Manju Yadav further states in her statement u/s

164 Cr.P.C. that Manish and Rajnish had drew her
and informant Anu inside their house and locked it
whereas there is not such statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Informant Anu has also not given anywhere such
statement. This witness has not given any statement
regarding throwing bricks. Witness Murari Lal Yadav
has also not stated anything regarding throwing of
bricks. Except the informant/complainant, no
 witness stated that any bricks/pebbles were thrown
by the accused persons.

9. That Murari Lal Yadav is property dealer and he is

influential person of the area and he as a counter
blast of the FIR lodged by the applicant, got lodged the
FIR in question against the applicant just to adopt the
putting pressure technique on the applicant/accused.
No such occurrence ever took place as alleged in the
FIR in question and the applicant/accused is totally
innocent.

Hence, it is prayed that the both applicants/accused

may kindly be ordered to be discharged in the present

case, in interest of justice.

Applicants/accused
Rajnish Kumar Singh
Manish Kumar

Through counsel
N/Delhi, Sharad Chandra Jha & Associates
Dt.__/__/2019. Advocate
3. That despite best care and cautions, some

substantial piece of the evidence has been left

to be led on the part of the petitioner’s

earlier counsel. These piece of evidence are

part and part of evidence on the part of the

petitioner. In lack of these piece of evidence,

the petition cannot be adjudicated upon as also

substantial right of the petitioner shall be

defeated and which will also be against natural

justice with the petitioner.

4. That the petitioner now wants to lead/produce

the remained evidence which is as follows:-

the complainant mentioned in the legal notice as

well as in the compliant the address of the

accused i.e. House No.1751/ID, Block-XXIV, Islam

Ganj, Ludhiana but the said House No.1751/ID,

falls in Block No.XIV, Islam Ganj, Ludhiana. Now

this fact came to the knowledge of the

applicant. So the applicant wants to examine

concerned clerk of Municipal Corporation,

 Ludhiana for proper adjudication of this Hon'ble

Court. No prejudice shall be caused to the

complainant if this facts are brought to the

knowledge of this Hon'ble Court.

3. That the appellant wants to examine the above

said witness for the purpose of leading additional

evidence as the same are essential for just and

proper decision of the present complaint.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

applicant may kindly be allowed to examine the above

said concerned clerk of Municipal Corporation,

Ludhiana by leading additional evidence to bring

this material fact to notice of this Hon'ble Court

and for proper and effective adjudication, in the

interest of justice.

Applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana D.P.Bali
Dated:- 25/9/2010 Advocate
 In the court of Sh. Karamjit Singh Kang, ASJ,
Ludhiana

Dharampal Vs. Mukesh Kumar

In Re:-Appeal against conviction in complaint u/s

138 of N.I.Act.

Application u/s 391 Cr.P.c. for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid appeal is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for 20-5-2010.

2. That the complainant in this case has filed a

complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act and in the complaint it

was alleged that cheque no.653180 dated 1-10-2002

for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank,

Gill Road, Ludhiana was given by the accused to the

complainant as the complainant and the accused

formed a joint Hindu Family which owned and

possessed various movable and immovable properties.

It was also alleged in the complainant that an oral

family settlement was arrived at between the parties

and the accused agreed to give share in the joint

family property to the complainant. In terms of the

alleged family settlement a legal liability was

incurred towards the complainant and the cheque in

question was given to the complainant alongwith

house No.2163, opp. Shiv Shakti Mandir, Janta Nagar,

Gill Road, Ludhiana alleged being the share of the

complainant in the joint family property. The Ld.

Trial Court of Sh. K.K. Jain, JMIC, Ludhiana

convicted the appellant vide its judgment/order

dated 18-10-2006.

3. That 28-11-2003 the accused herein filed a civil

suit no.1791 of 28-11-2003 titled as “Dharam Pal Vs.

Mukesh Kumar” for mandatory injunction directing the

defendant therein i.e. Mukesh Kumar to vacate part

of the building bearing Unit NO.2163, Opp. Shiv

Shakti Mandir, Janta Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana. The

said suit was decreed by the Ld. Court of Sh.

Kanwaljit Singh, PCS, Civil Judge, Jr. Division,

Ludhiana vide its judgment and decree dated 25-9-

2007. The Ld. Trial Court inter alia held that the

arguments of the defendant that the suit property is

a joint Hindu family property and the defendant got

this very property in an oral family settlement has

no merits and there is no supporting evidence in

this regard in favour of defendant Mukesh Kumar . It

was also observed that this type of defence of

defendant Mukesh Kumar was a shallow claim of which

the defendant cannot derive any benefit. It was

further held that the defendant failed to establish

that there is joint Hindu family property.

4. That against the decree and judgment of Ld.

Court of Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, PCS, Civil Judge, Jr.

Division, Ludhiana, dated 25-9-2007, the said Mukesh

Kumar filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Ld.

Court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana by its

decision dated 24-10-2008 in C.A. No.158 of 31-10-

2007.

5. That at the time when the appellant was

convicted by the Trial Court 18-10-2006, the civil

suit was pending. The civil suit as stated earlier

was decided on 25-9-12007 and the appeal against the

judgment and decree was dismissed on 24-10-2008.

Thus the appellant herein had no opportunity to

place the decisions of the civil court and of the

appellate court before this Hon'ble Court in the

present Appellate Proceedings.

6. That the appellant/applicant wants to place on

record the certified copy of judgment and decree

dated 25-9-2007 passed by the court of Sh. Kanwaljit

Singh, CJJD, Ludhiana in Civil suit No.1791 of 28-

11-2003 and the judgment and decree of the court of

Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana dated 24-10-2008 in

CA No.158 dated 31-10-2007. These judgments and

decrees are essential for just and proper decision

of the present appeal and above detailed judgments

and decrees dated 25-9-2007 passed by the court of

Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, CJJD, Ludhiana in Civil suit

No.1791 of 28-11-2003 and the judgment and decree of

the court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana dated

24-10-2008 in CA No.158 dated 31-10-2007 are

essential and would advance the cause of justice.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

appellant may kindly be allowed to place on

record /tender in evidence judgments and decrees

dated 25-9-2007 passed by the court of Sh. Kanwaljit

Singh, CJJD, Ludhiana in Civil suit No.1791 of 28-

11-2003 and the judgment and decree of the court of

Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana dated 24-10-2008 in

CA No.158 dated 31-10-2007 in the interest of

justice.

Appellant/Applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana
Dated:- /5/2010 Advocate
 In the court of Sh. Raj Kumar Garg, Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana

State Vs. Raj Kumar

FIR No. 265 dated 1/10/2010, U/s

193/420/468/471/120-B IPC, PS City Khanna, Ludhiana

Application for supply of certified

copy of order dated 11/10/2010 passed
by this Hon'ble Court.

Sir,
The applicant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the applicant had filed application u/s 438

of Cr. P. C. for the grant of Anticipatory bail and

the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. That the applicant requires the certified copy

of order dated 11/10/2010 passed by this Hon'ble
Court for filing Anticipatory bail application
before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

Certified copy dated 11/10/2010 passed by this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be ordered to be supplied
to the applicant.

Applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana Rajesh Kumar Battish

Dated:- 11/10/2010 Advocate
 In the court of Sh. Raj Kumar Garg, Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana

State Vs. Vipan Sehgal

FIR No. 265 dated 1/10/2010, U/s

193/420/468/471/120-B IPC, PS City Khanna, Ludhiana

Application for supply of certified

copy of order dated 11/10/2010 passed
by this Hon'ble Court.

Sir,
The applicant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the applicant had filed application u/s 438

of Cr. P. C. for the grant of Anticipatory bail and

the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. That the applicant requires the certified copy

of order dated 11/10/2010 passed by this Hon'ble
Court for filing Anticipatory bail application
before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

Certified copy dated 11/10/2010 passed by this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be ordered to be supplied
to the applicant.

Applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana Rajesh Kumar Battish

Dated:- 11/10/2010 Advocate
 In the court of Ms. Deepti Gupta, JMIC, Ludhiana

Mohinderpal Vs. Vikas Kumar

In Re:- Application for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid complaint is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today i.e. 25-09-

2010.

2. That the complainant mentioned in the legal

notice as well as in the compliant the address of

the accused i.e. House No.1751/ID, Block-XXIV, Islam

Ganj, Ludhiana but the said House No.1751/ID, falls

in Block No.XIV, Islam Ganj, Ludhiana. Now this fact

came to the knowledge of the applicant. So the

applicant wants to examine concerned clerk of

Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for proper

adjudication of this Hon'ble Court. No prejudice

shall be caused to the complainant if this facts are

brought to the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court.

3. That the appellant wants to examine the above

said witness for the purpose of leading additional

evidence as the same are essential for just and

proper decision of the present complaint.

 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

applicant may kindly be allowed to examine the above

said concerned clerk of Municipal Corporation,

Ludhiana by leading additional evidence to bring

this material fact to notice of this Hon'ble Court

and for proper and effective adjudication, in the

interest of justice.

Applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana D.P.Bali
Dated:- 25/9/2010 Advocate
 In the court of Ms. Deepti Gupta, JMIC, Ludhiana

Mohinderpal Vs. Vikas Kumar

In Re:- Application for additional evidence.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Vikas Kumar, aged 32 years, s/o sh.

Balkishan, resident of House No.375, Gali No.4,
Nanak, Nagar, Ludhiana do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-

1. That the aforesaid complaint is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today i.e. 25-09-
2010.

2. That the complainant mentioned in the legal

notice as well as in the compliant the address of
the accused i.e. House No.1751/ID, Block-XXIV, Islam
Ganj, Ludhiana but the said House No.1751/ID, falls
in Block No.XIV, Islam Ganj, Ludhiana. Now this fact
came to the knowledge of the applicant. So the
applicant wants to examine concerned clerk of
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for proper
adjudication of this Hon'ble Court. No prejudice
shall be caused to the complainant if this facts are
brought to the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court.

3. That the appellant wants to examine the above

said witness for the purpose of leading additional
evidence as the same are essential for just and
proper decision of the present complaint.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Ludhiana on this 25th day of Sept.

2010 that all the contents of my above said
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 In the court of Ms. Deepti Gupta, JMIC, Ludhiana

Mohinderpal Vs. Vikas Kumar

In Re:- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act.

Application for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid complaint is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today i.e. 25-09-

2010.

2. That the complainant mentioned in the legal

notice as well as in the compliant the address of

the accused i.e. House No.1751/ID, Block-XXIV, Islam

Ganj, Ludhiana but the said House No.1751/ID, falls

in Block No.XIV, Islam Ganj, Ludhiana. Now this fact

came to the knowledge of the applicant. So the

applicant wants to examine concerned clerk of

Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for proper

adjudication of this Hon'ble Court. No prejudice

shall be caused to the complainant if this facts are

brought to the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court.

3. That the appellant wants to examine the above

said witness for the purpose of leading additional

evidence as the same are essential for just and

proper decision of the present complaint.

 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

applicant may kindly be allowed to examine the above

said concerned clerk of Municipal Corporation,

Ludhiana by leading additional evidence to bring

this material fact to notice of this Hon'ble Court

and for proper and effective adjudication, in the

interest of justice.

Applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana D.P.Bali
Dated:- 25/9/2010 Advocate
 In the court of Sh. Karamjit Singh Kang, ASJ,
Ludhiana

Dharampal Vs. Mukesh Kumar

In Re:-Appeal against conviction in complaint u/s

138 of N.I.Act.

Application u/s 391 Cr.P.c. for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid appeal is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for 20-5-2010.

2. That the complainant in this case has filed a

complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act and in the complaint it

was alleged that cheque no.653180 dated 1-10-2002

for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank,

Gill Road, Ludhiana was given by the accused to the

complainant as the complainant and the accused

formed a joint Hindu Family which owned and

possessed various movable and immovable properties.

It was also alleged in the complainant that an oral

family settlement was arrived at between the parties

and the accused agreed to give share in the joint

family property to the complainant. In terms of the

alleged family settlement a legal liability was

incurred towards the complainant and the cheque in

question was given to the complainant alongwith

house No.2163, opp. Shiv Shakti Mandir, Janta Nagar,

Gill Road, Ludhiana alleged being the share of the

complainant in the joint family property. The Ld.

Trial Court of Sh. K.K. Jain, JMIC, Ludhiana

convicted the appellant vide its judgment/order

dated 18-10-2006.

3. That 28-11-2003 the accused herein filed a civil

suit no.1791 of 28-11-2003 titled as “Dharam Pal Vs.

Mukesh Kumar” for mandatory injunction directing the

defendant therein i.e. Mukesh Kumar to vacate part

of the building bearing Unit NO.2163, Opp. Shiv

Shakti Mandir, Janta Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana. The

said suit was decreed by the Ld. Court of Sh.

Kanwaljit Singh, PCS, Civil Judge, Jr. Division,

Ludhiana vide its judgment and decree dated 25-9-

2007. The Ld. Trial Court inter alia held that the

arguments of the defendant that the suit property is

a joint Hindu family property and the defendant got

this very property in an oral family settlement has

no merits and there is no supporting evidence in

this regard in favour of defendant Mukesh Kumar . It

was also observed that this type of defence of

defendant Mukesh Kumar was a shallow claim of which

the defendant cannot derive any benefit. It was

further held that the defendant failed to establish

that there is joint Hindu family property.

4. That against the decree and judgment of Ld.

Court of Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, PCS, Civil Judge, Jr.

Division, Ludhiana, dated 25-9-2007, the said Mukesh

Kumar filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Ld.

Court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana by its

decision dated 24-10-2008 in C.A. No.158 of 31-10-

2007.

5. That at the time when the appellant was

convicted by the Trial Court 18-10-2006, the civil

suit was pending. The civil suit as stated earlier

was decided on 25-9-12007 and the appeal against the

judgment and decree was dismissed on 24-10-2008.

Thus the appellant herein had no opportunity to

place the decisions of the civil court and of the

appellate court before this Hon'ble Court in the

present Appellate Proceedings.

6. That the appellant/applicant wants to place on

record the certified copy of judgment and decree

dated 25-9-2007 passed by the court of Sh. Kanwaljit

Singh, CJJD, Ludhiana in Civil suit No.1791 of 28-

11-2003 and the judgment and decree of the court of

Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana dated 24-10-2008 in

CA No.158 dated 31-10-2007. These judgments and

decrees are essential for just and proper decision

of the present appeal and above detailed judgments

and decrees dated 25-9-2007 passed by the court of

Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, CJJD, Ludhiana in Civil suit

No.1791 of 28-11-2003 and the judgment and decree of

the court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana dated

24-10-2008 in CA No.158 dated 31-10-2007 are

essential and would advance the cause of justice.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

appellant may kindly be allowed to place on

record /tender in evidence judgments and decrees

dated 25-9-2007 passed by the court of Sh. Kanwaljit

Singh, CJJD, Ludhiana in Civil suit No.1791 of 28-

11-2003 and the judgment and decree of the court of

Sh. Ashok Kumar, ADJ, Ludhiana dated 24-10-2008 in

CA No.158 dated 31-10-2007 in the interest of

justice.

Appellant/Applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana
Dated:- /5/2010 Advocate
 In the court of Sh. Ashish Saldi, CJJD, Ludhiana

Bhupinder Singh Vs. Iqbal Singh

Application for abatement of the suit against

defendant no.2.
Sir,
The applicant/plaintiff submits as under:-

1. That the above noted case/suit is pending before

this Hon'ble Court and is now fixed for today.

2. That this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 30-11-

2009 allowed an application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC filed by
the defendant no.2 and directed the plaintiff to file an
amended title, though, plaintiff sought no relief against
the defendant no.2.

3. That the said defendant no.2 expired on ______. It

is worthy to mention here that the plaintiff sought no
relief against the defendant no.2 (presently deceased).
Hence no cause of action accrued against the defendant
no.2 so his name is required to be deleted from array of
the defendants while abating the suit against him. Death
Certificate of defendant no.2 is attached.
It is, therefore, prayed that suit against the
defendant no.2 may kindly be abated while deleting his
name from the array of the defendants while in invoking
powers of this Hon'ble Court granted under relevant
provisos of CPC read with section 151 of CPC, in the
interest of justice.

Applicant/plaintiff
Through counsel

Ldh. Dated:3/5/2010 K. M. Sethi, Advocate

In the court of Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, CJJD,
Ludhiana

Tavleen Singh Vs. Balkar Singh etc.

In Re:-Suit for declaration.

Application for permission to lead secondary

evidence.

Sir,
The applicant/plaintiff respectfully submits as
under:-

1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit

for cancellation of adoption deed dated 24-6-1994.
The original of said Adoption Deed is in possession
of defendants No.1 and 2 who are adoptive parents of
the plaintiff but they have refused to hand over the
original to the plaintiff. Photocopy of said
Adoption deed is already on the file.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

permission may kindly be granted to lead secondary
evidence, in the interest of justice.

Applicant/plaintiff

Through Counsel

Ludhiana Ravinder Singh Rana

Dated:-31-03-2009 Advocate
 In the court of Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, CJJD,
Ludhiana

Smt. Manjinder Kaur Vs. Smt. Ranvinder Kaur

In Re:-Suit for declaration and permanent inj.

Application for permission to lead secondary

evidence.

Sir,
The applicant/plaintiff respectfully submits as
under:-

1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit on

the basis of one agreement/family settlement dated
11-6-2006. Admittedly the parties are real sisters
and the original of said agreement/family settlement
was handed over to a close relative of the parties
namely Jagtar Singh who has also deposed/ admitted
before this Hon'ble Court the factum of having the
original of said agreement/ family settlement in his
possession but he has refused to hand over the
original to the plaintiff and also refused to
produce the original in this Hon'ble Court. In fact
said Jagtar Singh is siding the defendant due to
which he has refused to hand over the same to the
plaintiff or the produce before this Hon'ble Court.
Photocopy of said agreement/ family settlement is
already on the file.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

permission may kindly be granted to lead secondary
evidence, in the interest of justice.

Applicant/plaintiff
Through Counsel

Ludhiana Ravinder Singh Rana

Dated:-30-03-2009 Advocate

Verification:-
Verified that the contents of Para no.1 of this
application are true and correct to best of my own
knowledge and belief and last para is prayer to this
Hon'ble Court.
Verified at Ludhiana on 30-03-2009.

Applicant/plaintiff
 In the court of Sh. G.S.Saran, Additional
Distt.Judge, Ludhiana

Kailash Thapar Vs. Shankar Lal Tarsem Lal

In Re:-Civil appeal.
Application for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid appeal is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today.

2. That the appellant wants to prove the bank

account of respondents. The respondents had issued

cheques which are Ex.P-4, Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 in

favour of the appellant, Bank Memo Ex.P-7 to P-11 of

Canara Bank, Malerkotla, Ludhiana, but in evidence

the respondents have denied the cheques which he had

already issued in favour of the appellant.

3. That the appellant also wants to summon the

record of transport company ie. Bharat Motor

Transport through the goods were dispatched to the

respondent and respondents have taken the delivery

of the goods from the transport company.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

appellant my be allowed lead addition evidence and

to prove the bank account of respondents. The

respondents had issued cheques which are Ex.P-4,

Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 in favour of the appellant, Bank

Memo Ex.P-7 to P-11 of Canara Bank, Malerkotla,

Ludhiana, but in evidence the respondents have

denied the cheques which the respondents had already

issued in favour of the appellant, in the interest

of justice.

Applicant/Appellant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana Roshan Lal Rana

Dated:-17/2/2009 Advocate
In the court of Sh. Kawaljit Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana

GE Money Financial Svs. Ltd. Vs. Yashpal Chauhan

In Re:-complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act.

Application for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid complaint is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today.

2. That in the preliminary evidence attorney of the

applicant Sh. Naveen Kumar tendered his affidavit
alongwith documents and closed his preliminary
evidence. Since the bank has given photocopy of the
memo so the applicant/complainant wants to summons
officials of the bank to prove the memo.

3. That the applicant wants to summons for the

above said purpose concerned clerk of State Bank of
Patiala, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana along with relevant
records of the cheque in question. The complaint is
at initial stage and no prejudice may be caused to
the accused if the additional evidence is allowed.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

officials/witness may kindly be summoned for
additional evidence and application be allowed, in
the interest of justice.

applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana Sarbdeep Singh

Dated:24/5/2008 Advocate
In the court of Sh. Kawaljit Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana

GE Money Financial Svs. Ltd. Vs. Harcharan Singh

In Re:-complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act.

Application for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid complaint is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today.
2. That in the preliminary evidence attorney of the
applicant Sh. Naveen Kumar tendered his affidavit
alongwith documents and closed his preliminary
evidence. Since the bank has given photocopy of the
memo so the applicant/complainant wants to summons
officials of the bank to prove the memo.

3. That the applicant wants to summons for the

above said purpose concerned clerk of State Bank of
India, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana along with relevant
records of the cheque in question. The complaint is
at initial stage and no prejudice may be caused to
the accused if the additional evidence is allowed.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

officials/witness may kindly be summoned for
additional evidence and application be allowed, in
the interest of justice.

applicant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana Sarbdeep Singh

Dated:24/5/2008 Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF SMT. MANDEEP KAUR BEDI, CJJD,
LUDHIANA

Harbant Kaur Vs. Balwant Singh,

In Re:-Suit for possession by way of specific
performance and permanent injunction.
Application for amendment in plaint of
some typographical error.
Madam,
The applicant/plaintiff respectfully submits as
under:-

1. That the aforesaid suit is pending in this Hon'ble

Court and is fixed for today for rebuttal/argument.

2. That on the last date the plaintiff changed his

counsel and the counsel after going through the court
file in the court itself noticed that there are some
inadvertent typographic error in headnote of the plaint
and in para no. 3 line no.4 of the plaint and without
amending which there may be error in the judgment that my
be passed by this Hon'ble Court on merits.

3. That in the headnote of the plaint the applicant

wants to incorporate the word “constructive” after the
word “suit for” and before the word “possession” in the
first line and wants to substitute in the line 4 of the
para no.3 the name “Smt. Satwant Kaur” with “Smt. Harbant
Kaur”.

4. That these amendments are on the basis of evidence

which has already been led and which are in accordance
with the conclusion of the pleading.

5. That the above said amendments are material ones but

without affecting without the cause of action and this
amendment does not introduce any new case and no serious
prejudice is going to be cause to the opposite party and
the amendment is being sought to do justice.

6. That this application is being filed bonafidely.

It is, therefore, prayed that above mentioned

typographic amendments may kindly be allowed which is
material for just and proper decision of this suit.

Submitted by
Plaintiff
Harbant Kaur

Through counsel
Ludhiana Arun Bajaj, Advocate
Dated:-28-2-2008
In the court of Smt. Mandeep Kaur Bedi, CJJD,
Ludhiana

Harbant Kaur Vs. Balwant Singh,

In Re:-Suit for possession by way of specific

performance and permanent injunction.

Application u/o 14 rule 5 for framing additional

issue.

Madam,
The applicant/plaintiff respectfully submits as
under:-

1. That the aforesaid suit is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today for

rebuttal/argument.

2. That on the last date the plaintiff changed his

counsel and the counsel after going through the

court file in the court itself noticed that one more

issue could have been framed for just and proper

decision by this Hon'ble Court which have bearing on

the case without prejudice to any party.

3. That this suit is for specific performance on

the basis of agreement to sell but the defendant

no.1 has categorically denied and has alleged that

the said document in question is forged and

fabricated in last line of para no. 1 of preliminary

objections of written statement filed by the

defendant no.1. That again in para no.2 of the

preliminary objections in the written statement he

has alleged that agreement is forged and fabricated

and is a result of misrepresentation.

4. That due to above said reason it has become

imperative for this Hon'ble Court to give finding on

this point so the following issue may be framed onus

of which may be rested on the defendant no.1.

“Whether the alleged agreement to sell is forge,

fabricated and is a result of misrepresentation”

5. This application is being moved bonafidely.

Hence, it is requested before this Hon'ble Court

that above mentioned issue may kindly be framed

which is material for just and proper decision of

this suit.

Submitted by
Plaintiff
Harbant Kaur

Through counsel

Ludhiana Arun Bajaj

Dated:-28-2-2008 Advocate
 In the court of Sh. H.P.S. Mahal, Additional
Distt.Judge, Ludhiana

Kulwant Singh & Ors. Vs. Niranjan Singh,

In Re:-Civil appeal.
Application for additional evidence.

Sir,
The appellant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the aforesaid appeal is pending in this

Hon'ble Court and is fixed for today.

2. That the appellant wants to tender Certified

Copy of judgment and Decree passed by the court of

Sh. B.J. Nangli, Sub-Judge First Class, Ludhiana

dated 12-05-1994 whereby the present appellant was

declared to be owner. The said judgment and decree

was never challenged by the plaintiff either in the

present proceedings or in any other proceedings and

the said decree is binding between the parties.

Photocopy of the said Judgment and Decree is on the

file of the Ld. Trial Court but it was not relied

upon by the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that it is

only the Photocopy.

3. That the said Judgment and Decree passed by the

Ld. Court of Sh. B.J. Nangli, Sub-Judge first Class,

Ludhiana is essential for the just and proper

decision of the present dispute. No prejudice is

likely to be caused to the respondent in this case

and the said Judgment and Decree is admissible per

se being Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree

passed by the Ld. Court.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

appellant my be allowed to tender into evidence the

Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree dated

12/05/1994 passed by the court of Sh. B.J. Nangli,

Sub- Judge First Class, Ludhiana, in the interest of

justice. Copy attached.

Appellant

Through Counsel

Ludhiana P.K. Wadhera.

Dated:25/9/2006 Advocate