RSA No.4684 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 109 RAGHU NATH AND ORS Vs SMT. KELA (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. Present: Mr. Saajan Singla, Advocate Ms. Parveen Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Vipul Khurna, Advocate Mr. Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) CM-7762-C-2022 Prayer made in the application is for impleading the applicant(s) as legal heir(s) of respondent No.1 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicant(s) as mentioned in paragraph of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal heir(s) of Smt. Kela (deceased) in Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to do the needful. RSA No.4684 of 2011 (O&M) [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 09.12.2010 and 16.08.2011 whereby, the suit 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4684 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: NATH AND ORS ...... (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS ....Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Saajan Singla, Advocate Ms. Parveen Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Vipul Khurna, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 2022 Prayer made in the application is for impleading the applicant(s) as respondent No.1-Smt. Kela, who died on For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicant(s) as mentioned in paragraph of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal heir(s) of (deceased) in order to pursue the present case. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to do the needful. RSA No.4684 of 2011 (O&M) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments dated 09.12.2010 and 16.08.2011 whereby, the suit filed at the instance of appellants IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4684 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 ......Appellants (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS AND ANR ....Respondent(s) JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA for the appellants. for respondent No.1. Prayer made in the application is for impleading the applicant(s) as , who died on 01.03.2020. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicant(s) as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal heir(s) of respondent No.1 order to pursue the present case. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments dated 09.12.2010 and 16.08.2011 passed by the Courts below, filed at the instance of appellants-plaintiffs for declaration qua 1 Prayer made in the application is for impleading the applicant(s) as For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, No.2 respondent No.1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments passed by the Courts below, qua MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RSA No.4684 of 2011 ownership of their share left in village Teha, Tehsil Ga [2]. In short, the declaration sought for in the plaint at the instance of appellants-plaintiffs was entered in the name of respondent No.1 on the basis of Will dated 28.02.19 the estate of deceased fraudulent document was liable to be ignored and estate of deceased to devolve upon provisions of the [3]. Upon appearance, the defendants contested the suit while opposing the same being barred by limitation, besides relying upon Will dated 28.02.1974 executed in favour genuine documents and the same be 22.06.1998. [4]. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: “1. defendant No.1 with respect to the land measuring 5 being 1/12 share pertaining to deceased Smt. Ramkali daughter of Niadar is liable to declared illegal, null and void, if so to what effect? OPP 2. form? OPD 3. and have suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPD 4. 5. 2011 (O&M) ownership of their share left in the estate of deceased Ram in village Teha, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat, In short, the declaration sought for in the plaint at the instance of plaintiffs was qua the validity of M entered in the name of respondent No.1 on the basis of Will dated 28.02.19 the estate of deceased-Ram Kali. It was further pleaded that the Will being fraudulent document was liable to be ignored and estate of deceased to devolve upon her all the natural heir including the appellants the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Upon appearance, the defendants contested the suit while opposing the same being barred by limitation, besides relying upon Will dated 28.02.1974 executed in favour of defendant No.1 by deceased genuine documents and the same being the basis of Mutation No.999 dated On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:- Whether the mutation No.999 dated 22 defendant No.1 with respect to the land measuring 5 being 1/12 share pertaining to deceased Smt. Ramkali daughter of Niadar is liable to declared illegal, null and void, if so to what effect? OPP Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the plaintiff have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPD Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time Relief.” in the estate of deceased Ram Kali daughter of Niadar pat, stands dismissed. In short, the declaration sought for in the plaint at the instance of Mutation No.999 dated 22.06.199 entered in the name of respondent No.1 on the basis of Will dated 28.02.1974 Ram Kali. It was further pleaded that the Will being fraudulent document was liable to be ignored and estate of deceased-Ram Kali was natural heir including the appellants-plaintiffs as per the Upon appearance, the defendants contested the suit while opposing the same being barred by limitation, besides relying upon Will dated 28.02.1974 by deceased-Ram Kali being a valid and ing the basis of Mutation No.999 dated On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the Whether the mutation No.999 dated 22-6-98 in favour of the defendant No.1 with respect to the land measuring 5 Kanals 15 Marlas being 1/12 share pertaining to deceased Smt. Ramkali daughter of Niadar is liable to declared illegal, null and void, if so to what effect? OPP Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present the plaintiff have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPD Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time-barred? OPD 2 ali daughter of Niadar In short, the declaration sought for in the plaint at the instance of utation No.999 dated 22.06.1998 4 for Ram Kali. It was further pleaded that the Will being Ram Kali was plaintiffs as per the Upon appearance, the defendants contested the suit while opposing the same being barred by limitation, besides relying upon Will dated 28.02.1974 a valid and ing the basis of Mutation No.999 dated On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the 98 in favour of the Kanals 15 Marlas being 1/12 share pertaining to deceased Smt. Ramkali daughter of Niadar Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present the plaintiff have not come to the court with clean hands MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RSA No.4684 of 2011 [5]. The learned Trial Court without even Will dated 28.02.1974 to dismiss the suit being barred by limitation 09.12.2010. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants the same was also dismissed by the Court of Sonipat vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011. [6]. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and d counsel for the appellants Will dated 28.02.1974 was upon respondent No.1 discharged in terms of Section witness was ever produced also submits that the Courts below went wrong while non plaintiffs by dismissing their suit being barred by limitation of mutation was not to be taken as the date of commencement of cause of action No other argument has been addressed. [7]. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-defendant appellants-plaintiffs was 22.06.1999 was challenged in the year 2006 for with the concurrent fin [8]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. [9]. In the present facts wherein the relationship betwee not disputed or denied besides even admitting the dispute being of the estate left by deceased Ram Kali, 2011 (O&M) The learned Trial Court without even Will dated 28.02.1974 in accordance with law, to dismiss the suit being barred by limitation vide . Aggrieved thereof, the appellants-plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and d counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that the burden to prove the validity of Will dated 28.02.1974 was upon respondent No.1 discharged in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1 witness was ever produced by her so as to prove the valid execution of Will. He also submits that the Courts below went wrong while non plaintiffs by dismissing their suit being barred by limitation utation was not to be taken as the date of commencement of cause of action No other argument has been addressed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiffs was clearly barred by limitation 22.06.1999 was challenged in the year 2006 and thus, no interference was called for with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In the present facts wherein the relationship betwee not disputed or denied besides even admitting the dispute being of the estate left by deceased Ram Kali, in view of settled law, the respondent No.1 The learned Trial Court without even adjudicating upon the validity of , placed on record as Ex.P1, went on vide its judgment and decree dated plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees, learned plaintiffs submits that the burden to prove the validity of Will dated 28.02.1974 was upon respondent No.1-beneficiary, which was never f the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as no attesting so as to prove the valid execution of Will. He also submits that the Courts below went wrong while non-suiting the appellants plaintiffs by dismissing their suit being barred by limitation as the date of entering utation was not to be taken as the date of commencement of cause of action On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the suit for declaration filed at the instance of barred by limitation as the mutation sanctioned on and thus, no interference was called dings of fact recorded by the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In the present facts wherein the relationship between the parties was not disputed or denied besides even admitting the dispute being of the estate left by of settled law, the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 3 the validity of went on judgment and decree dated plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, learned Additional District Judge, ecrees, learned plaintiffs submits that the burden to prove the validity of beneficiary, which was never sting so as to prove the valid execution of Will. He suiting the appellants- as the date of entering utation was not to be taken as the date of commencement of cause of action. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the suit for declaration filed at the instance of as the mutation sanctioned on and thus, no interference was called I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. n the parties was not disputed or denied besides even admitting the dispute being of the estate left by No.1 MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RSA No.4684 of 2011 being the beneficiary of the Will dated 28.02.1974 executed in deceased Ram Kali Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As such, it was essential for 28.02.1974 by two attesting witnesses. On the contrary, none of the attesting witness was ever produced to prove valid attestation of Will terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [10]. In view of above, once the Will dated 28.02.1974 executed by deceased Ram Kali in favour of respondent No.1 was not proved in accordanc instance of appellants/plaintiffs 22.06.1998 based on the Will dated 28.02.1974 was required to be decreed. Moreover, the Courts below failed to sanctioned on 2 Ram Kali and that too without serving any notice upon the other appellants, who were her natural successors. [11]. Further, the findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellants while laying challenge to the mutation Entry No.999 dated 22.06.1998 was barred by limitation is commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues, which in fact is the day when there is infringement of rights or a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the rights of the suitor on the basis from the date of entering or sanctioning of the same. Similar view has been 2011 (O&M) being the beneficiary of the Will dated 28.02.1974 executed in deceased Ram Kali was required to prove the same in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As such, it was essential for her to prove valid attestation of Will dated 28.02.1974 by two attesting witnesses. On the contrary, none of the attesting witness was ever produced by respondent No.1- to prove valid attestation of Will; though the same bein terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of above, once the Will dated 28.02.1974 executed by am Kali in favour of respondent No.1 oved in accordance with the law, the suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellants/plaintiffs questioning the validity of based on the Will dated 28.02.1974 was required to be decreed. Moreover, the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that Mutation No.999 sanctioned on 22.06.1998 i.e. after more than twenty four years of the death of Ram Kali and that too without serving any notice upon the other appellants, who were her natural successors. Further, the findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellants while laying challenge to the mutation Entry No.999 dated 22.06.1998 was barred by limitation is wholly incorrect. As per Article 58, the limitation of three years commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues, which in fact is the day when there is infringement of rights or a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the rights of the suitor on the basis of such a mutation, and not merely from the date of entering or sanctioning of the same. Similar view has been being the beneficiary of the Will dated 28.02.1974 executed in her favour by the required to prove the same in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, to prove valid attestation of Will dated 28.02.1974 by two attesting witnesses. On the contrary, none of the attesting -defendant No.1 in the witness bo ; though the same being as an essential mandate in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of above, once the Will dated 28.02.1974 executed by am Kali in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 qua her estate he suit for declaration filed at the the validity of Mutation No.999 dated based on the Will dated 28.02.1974 was required to be decreed. appreciate the fact that Mutation No.999 was i.e. after more than twenty four years of the death of Ram Kali and that too without serving any notice upon the others including the Further, the findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellants-plaintiffs in the year 2006 while laying challenge to the mutation Entry No.999 dated 22.06.1998 was barred As per Article 58, the limitation of three years commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues, which in fact is the day when there is infringement of rights or a clear and unequivocal threat to of such a mutation, and not merely from the date of entering or sanctioning of the same. Similar view has been 4 by the required to prove the same in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, to prove valid attestation of Will dated 28.02.1974 by two attesting witnesses. On the contrary, none of the attesting in the witness box as an essential mandate in In view of above, once the Will dated 28.02.1974 executed by qua her estate he suit for declaration filed at the o.999 dated based on the Will dated 28.02.1974 was required to be decreed. was i.e. after more than twenty four years of the death of including the Further, the findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that plaintiffs in the year 2006 while laying challenge to the mutation Entry No.999 dated 22.06.1998 was barred As per Article 58, the limitation of three years commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues, which in fact is the day when there is infringement of rights or a clear and unequivocal threat to of such a mutation, and not merely from the date of entering or sanctioning of the same. Similar view has been MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RSA No.4684 of 2011 expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., paragraphs 7 to 9 of the same are reproduced hereunder: “7. whether the mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records had given rise to cause of action as conte accrued when the right was infringed or threatened to be infringed. Let us, therefore, consider whether the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act in the background of the facts stated in the plain Part III of the schedule which has prescribed the period of limitation relates to suits concerning declarations. Article 58 of the Act clearly says that to obtain any other declaration, the limitation would be three years from the date when the r contention that the suit was filed within the period of limitation, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants before us submitted that there could be no right to sue until there is an a asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. In support of this contention the learned senior counsel strongly relied o Council 270 [Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and others]. In this decision their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows : asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted." 8. Syed Unnissa and othe Court observed: "the period of 6 years prescribed by Article 120 has to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrued and there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right." 9. cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when 2011 (O&M) expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daya Singh & Anr. Versus Gurdev Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., reported as 2010(1) Civil Court Cases 290 paragraphs 7 to 9 of the same are reproduced hereunder: As noted herein earlier, the only question, therefore, to be decided is whether the mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records had given rise to cause of action as conte accrued when the right was infringed or threatened to be infringed. Let us, therefore, consider whether the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act in the background of the facts stated in the plain Part III of the schedule which has prescribed the period of limitation relates to suits concerning declarations. Article 58 of the Act clearly says that to obtain any other declaration, the limitation would be three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. In support of the contention that the suit was filed within the period of limitation, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants before us submitted that there could be no right to sue until there is an a asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. In support of this contention the learned senior counsel strongly relied on a decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR 1930 Privy Council 270 [Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and others]. In this decision their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows : "There can be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the righ asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted." A similar view was reiterated in the case of C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa and others [AIR 1961 Supreme Court 808] in which this Court observed: "the period of 6 years prescribed by Article 120 has to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrued and there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right." In the case of C. Mohammad Yunus (supra), this Court held that the cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when Daya Singh & Anr. Versus Gurdev Singh 2010(1) Civil Court Cases 290 and relevant paragraphs 7 to 9 of the same are reproduced hereunder:- As noted herein earlier, the only question, therefore, to be decided is whether the mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records had given rise to cause of action as contemplated under Article 58 or it had accrued when the right was infringed or threatened to be infringed. Let us, therefore, consider whether the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act in the background of the facts stated in the plaint itself. Part III of the schedule which has prescribed the period of limitation relates to suits concerning declarations. Article 58 of the Act clearly says that to obtain any other declaration, the limitation would be three years ight to sue first accrues. In support of the contention that the suit was filed within the period of limitation, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants before us submitted that there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. In support of this contention the learned senior counsel strongly n a decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR 1930 Privy Council 270 [Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and others]. In this decision their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows :- "There can be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the righ asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is A similar view was reiterated in the case of C. Mohammad Yunus v. rs [AIR 1961 Supreme Court 808] in which this Court observed: "the period of 6 years prescribed by Article 120 has to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrued and there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that In the case of C. Mohammad Yunus (supra), this Court held that the cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when 5 Daya Singh & Anr. Versus Gurdev Singh d relevant As noted herein earlier, the only question, therefore, to be decided is whether the mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records had mplated under Article 58 or it had accrued when the right was infringed or threatened to be infringed. Let us, therefore, consider whether the suit was barred by limitation in view of t itself. Part III of the schedule which has prescribed the period of limitation relates to suits concerning declarations. Article 58 of the Act clearly says that to obtain any other declaration, the limitation would be three years ight to sue first accrues. In support of the contention that the suit was filed within the period of limitation, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants before us submitted ccrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. In support of this contention the learned senior counsel strongly n a decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR 1930 Privy Council 270 [Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and others]. In this decision their "There can be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is A similar view was reiterated in the case of C. Mohammad Yunus v. rs [AIR 1961 Supreme Court 808] in which this Court observed: "the period of 6 years prescribed by Article 120 has to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrued and there could be in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that In the case of C. Mohammad Yunus (supra), this Court held that the cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RSA No.4684 of 2011 the rig unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of action.” In the present case there of plaintiffs over the land in dispute was ever disturbed by respondent No.1 as an effect of mutation in question. [12]. As a by the Courts belo instance of appellants/plaintiffs accordingly. [13]. Appeal stands allowed in the application(s), if any, shall August 27, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2011 (O&M) the right asserted in the suit is infringed or there is at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of action.” In the present case there is no evidence on record that the possession over the land in dispute was ever disturbed by respondent No.1 as an effect of mutation in question. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration instance of appellants/plaintiffs stands decreed. Decree sheet be prepared Appeal stands allowed in the , if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No ht asserted in the suit is infringed or there is at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of is no evidence on record that the possession over the land in dispute was ever disturbed by respondent No.1 as an aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees passed w are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the stands decreed. Decree sheet be prepared Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 6 ht asserted in the suit is infringed or there is at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of is no evidence on record that the possession over the land in dispute was ever disturbed by respondent No.1 as an aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees passed filed at the stands decreed. Decree sheet be prepared All pending MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt