DO Retrieved.asp5

CS no. 91/2014

15.11.2014

Present : None for the plaintiff.

Be awaited.

(Raj Kumar) ADJ-17, CentralDelhi/15.11.2014

At 11. 40 amPresent : Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, who undertakes

to deposit the previous costs and placed on record the receipt

by the next date of hearing.

After depositing of the receipt and showing the receipt of the

costs, let the defendant be served again on filing of PF and RC by the

plaintiff for the next date of hearing.

Now, to come up on 15.01.2015. (Raj Kumar) ADJ-17, CentralDelhi/05.09.2014

CS no. 386/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. Narender Verma, Ld. Proxy counsel for the plaintiff.

Defendants are unserved, time and again on the Court notices

issues to the defendant.

Now, to come up for arguments on the point of the final decree

on 20.12.2014.


CS no. 506/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Clerk for the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Clerk for the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

Clerk for the Ld. Counsel for the defendant states that the Ld.

Counsel for the defendant has met with some fracture and as such, he will

not be available in the court as on date.

PW1, who is to be cross-examined is also not available.

In these circumstances, at the joint request of both the clerksfor the Ld. Counsel for the parties, the matter is adjourned for cross-examination of PW1 on 22.12.2014.


CS no. 768/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. Anand Vardhan, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Sh. R.N. Vats, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1.

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the LR's of the deceased defendant no.2.

Amended memo of parties filed on record. Copy supplied. Ld.

Counsel for the plaintiff undertakes to pay the previous costs of Rs. 4,000/-

to the Ld. Counsel for the defendant positively on the next date of hearing.

Evidence by way of affidavit of PW1 is already there on record. Let the

copy of the PW1 be supplied to the defendants within 15 days from today.

Now, to come up for cross examination of PW1 and for

payment of costs of Rs. 4,000/- by the plaintiff on 08.01.2015.


CS no. 276/2014

15.11.2014


DW5, who is to be further cross-examined is present in person.

Be awaited.


At 11.15 amPresent : Sh. Devender Singh, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff at this stage

has appeared and he states that he is suffering from throat infection

for the last 15 days and as such, he is not in a position to cross

examine DW5.

Ms. Ankita Prabhakar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.5 along

with the defendant no.5.

Request for adjournment is not opposed.Now, to come up for further cross examination of DW5 on

03.01.2015.


CS no. 11/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.One of the DWs namely Smt. Leena Verma, who is to be cross

examined is present in person.

None for the defendants.

Be awaited for the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.


At 1.15 pmPresent : Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Sh. Navlendu Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

DW2 has been cross examined and discharged. DW3 is also

present but it is going to be lunch time and as such, the cross-examination

of DW3 could not be done as on date.

Now, to come up for cross-examination of DW3 on 06.01.2015.


CS no. 112/2014

15.11.2014


Sh. Karan Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the defendant, along with

DW1 who is to be further cross examined.

Be awaited for the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.


At 11.45 amPresent : Sh. Anil Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Sh. Karan Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

Previous costs of Rs. 2,000/- stand paid by the defendant to the

Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The affidavit of DW1 has been tendered in part.

Rest of the examination-in-chief has been deferred at the request of the Ld.

Counsel for the defendant on the ground that he wants to place on record

the original receipt dated 20.08.2008, photocopy of which is already there

on record.

Now, to come up for further examination-in-chief of DW1 and

for her cross-examination on 24.01.2015.


CS no. 363/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. M.G. Vachhar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Sh. M.M. Siddiqui, Ld. Proxy counsel for the defendant no.1,

who states that the main counsel for the defendant no.1 shall be

available at 11.30 am.

Sh. Anuroop Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2.

Be awaited for the main counsel for the defendant no.1 at 11.30

am.


At 11.50 amPresent : Sh. M.G. Vachhar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Sh. J.P. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1.

Sh. Anuroop Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2.

At the joint request, now, to come up for reply and argumentson the application of the plaintiff U/o 6 Rule 17 of the CPC as well as

arguments on all the pending applications on 08.01.2015.


CS no. 294/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. S.K. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Sh. S.K. Patnayak, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

At the request of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, now, to come

up for verification of the contents of the letter and for arguments on the

application of the defendant U/s 22 SICA on 20.01.2015.


RCA no. 11/2014

15.11.2014

Present : None for the appellant.

Respondent in person.

Be awaited.


At 11.30 amPresent : None for the appellant.

Sh. Y.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

Be awaited for the appellant.


At 12.10 amPresent : Sh. Adesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, who has filed

on record the rejoinder.None for the respondent.

At the request of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, now, to

come up for arguments in the present appeal on 13.01.2015.


MCA no. 01/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. Gulzari Lal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.


Be awaited.


At 11.30 amPresent : Sh. Gulzari Lal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.


The respondent states at this stage that her counsel shall not

be available before 12.30 pm. Ld. Counsel for the appellant is not available

at 12.30 pm.

In these circumstances, the matter is adjourned for argumentsin the present appeal on 09.01.2015. Interim orders to continue.


RCA no. 13/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, who states that

no other address of the respondent no.2 except the address which have

been disclosed by the appellant in the present appeal is available. Ld.

Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that Sh. Anupam Gupta was

the counsel for both the defendants/respondent before the Ld. Trial Court.

In these circumstances, respondent no.2 is hereby directed to

be served by way of affixation at the address which have been disclosed in

the present appeal and through an Advocate Sh. Anupam Gupta for the next

date of hearing.

Now, to come up on 16.12.2014.


CS no. 144/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Plaintiff in person, who is an Advocate.

Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.3.Sh. Amit Singh Chadha, Ld. Sr. Advocate and Sh. Kunal Sinha,

Advocate , on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2.

The present suit has been fixed for orders by this Court as on

date after hearing the arguments on the two applications filed by the

plaintiff, one U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC and the other U/o 14 Rule 2 of the

CPC. But in the meantime, the plaintiff herein once again preferred to file

on record one more application U/s 151 of the CPC r/w section 152 r/w

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment in the earlier application

filed on record by him U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC.

Ld. Counsels for the defendants have addressed the arguments

on the aforesaid applications without filing any reply thereto.

I have carefully gone through the entire material available on

record the heard the rival submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the

defendants and arguments submitted by the plaintiff, who is appearing in

person and who is an advocate.

Before discussing the said applications on merits, I would like to

state, in brief, the chronology of the events leading to the filing of the said

application by the plaintiff. The present suit is of the year 2000. The

Hon'ble

-2-

High Court of Delhi vide orders dated 21.03.2014 passed in the Transfer

Petition bearing no. 28/2012 and the Transfer Petition bearing no. 14/2013

has already directed that the two suits including the present one are to be

disposed off by this Court preferably within a period of six months. Issues

in the present suit were framed by this Court on 10.05.2014 and the matter

was listed for PE thereafter. Evidence by way of PW1 was already filed and

the matter was fixed for cross examination of PW1 but in the meantime, the

plaintiff preferred to file on record one application U/o 1 Rule 10 of the CPC,

one more application for injunction U/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and thedefendants no.1 and 2 had also filed on record one application U/s 151 of

the CPC. Vide common orders dated 01.10.2014, all the above said three

applications which were filed by the parties to the present suit at the stage

of PE, were disposed off. The application for injunction filed by the plaintiffwas allowed, the application U/o 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was dismissed and

the application U/s 151 of the CPC for placing on record two documents by

the defendants no.1 and 2 was also allowed. Against the said orders dated

01.10.2014, the plaintiff herein preferred to file CM (Main) no. 957/2014.The aforesaid CM (Main) no. 957/2014 was dismissed by the Hon'ble HighCourt of Delhi vide orders dated 29.10.2014 with costs. The Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi has observed in the said orders dated 29.10.2014 as under :-

-3-

In view of the above, the present petition is completely lacking

in substance and an endeavour to malafidely delay and drag

the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff himself and thus cause

harassment and prejudice to the respondents/defendants. The present petition is accordingly dismissed with actual costs and

which costs will be the costs for today's hearing incurred

by the respondents. Certificate of fees on behalf of the

respondents be filed within a period of one week from today.

Payment of costs by the petitioner to the respondents which have

been imposed by this judgment will be a condition precedentfor the petitioner to continue with the suit in the trial court.

Now again, after the decision on all the above said three

applications as stated by me herein above, the plaintiff has preferred to file

on record two more applications, one U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC and the

other U/o 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed on record one

more application U/s 151 r/w 152 of the CPC for the amendment in the

application, which was filed by him U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC.

Now coming to the said applications on merits, the plaintiff in

the previous application U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC dated 01.11.2014 has

stated that in the case in hand, he has filed on record the certified copies of

the

-4-

documents but the original of the documents are lying in OS no. 867/1997

which is pending disposal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,

Lucknow Bench. The prayer of the plaintiff in the said application is that the

file of the said suit be summoned by this court in order to enable the plaintiff

to prove the certified copies filed on record by him in the present suit.

Now, by way of the subsequent application U/s 151 of the CPC

r/w section 152 r/w Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the plaintiff wants the

amendment in the aforesaid previous application U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC.

One of the prayers as contained in the present application U/s 151 r/w

section 152 of the CPC is verbatim the same as is the prayer in the previous

application U/o 16 rule 1 of the CPC. However, the plaintiff wants, by way of

the present application that the original file bearing F.C.N.R Account no. F

2477 be summoned from the concerned Bank of Baroda, Overseas Branch,

Parliament Street, Delhi. The plaintiff also wants that the original record of

the Perpetual Sub-Lease dated 18.02.1994 and the Conveyance Deed as

well be summoned from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vikas Sadan, Delhi.

On careful perusal of the present application and the previous application U/

o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC, to my mind, it is revealed that in addition to the

prayer as contained in the previous application U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC,

the plaintiff has added two more prayers. The prayers are to the effect that

the

-5-

file of the F.C.N.R Account no. F 2477 be summoned from the concerned

Bank of Baroda, Overseas Branch, Parliament Street, Delhi and the original

record of the Perpetual Sub-Lease dated 18.02.1994 and the Conveyance

Deed be summoned from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vikas Sadan,

Delhi. The plaintiff has vehemently argued that the summoning of the

original documents are necessary for the disposal of the controversy

involved in the present suit.

Whereas on the other hand, Ld. Counsels for the defendants

have argued that the plaintiff has been deliberately delaying the

proceedings of the present suit and the plaintiff has been filing on record

one or the other application in order to protract and delay the proceedings of

the present suit. In order to cut short the controversy, Ld. Counsels for the

defendants have argued that they do not dispute that the certified copies

which have been placed on record in the present suit are the certified

copies of the documents which have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit

which is pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad,

Lucknow Bench. However, it has been argued that necessarily, the plaintiff

will be required to prove the genuineness of the contents of the documents.

But Ld. Counsels for the defendants have conceded that the certified

copies are the certified copies of the documents which have been placed by

the plaintiff in the suit which is

-6-

pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow

Bench. Ld. Counsels for the defendants have further stated that despite the

categorical directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the

effect that the present suit and the other suit as well, which is pending

disposal before this Court, at this stage, are to be disposed off preferably

within the period of six months, the plaintiff has been successful in delaying

the proceedings of the present suit.

So far as the pleadings of the parties are concerned, the

present suit is a suit for Declaration, Permanent and Mandatory Injunctionsfiled by the plaintiff on the ground that his father Dr. Swami Rama had

purchased certain agricultural land in Village Asola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New

Delhi by virtue of the Sale Deeds dated 01.06.1989, the Sale Deed dated

03.10.1989 etc. It has been further stated by the plaintiff that the father of

the plaintiff was having the absolute ownership and full possession of the

land situated in various Khasras (the description of which has been given bythe plaintiff in para no. 1 of the plaint) within the Revenue Estate of Village

Asola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The plaintiff has asserted in the plaint

that his father was an Internationally Renowned Yogi and founder Chairman

of the Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust in Dehradun. It has been further

stated by the plaintiff that he has been looking after the affairs and the work

of his deceased father

-7-

after his death. The plaintiff has further stated that he himself and his late

father were always in possession of the land in question till 11.01.2003, but

on 12.01.2003, during the pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff was

illegally dispossessed by the defendants. It has been further stated that the

defendant no. 2 visited the plaintiff in July 1998 and he disclosed that the

land in question was purchased by him from one Sh. Roshan Lal Kanodia

(defendant no. 3 herein), the attorney holder of the father of the plaintiff inFebruary 1996. The plaintiff has alleged that Sh. Roshan Lal Kanodia was

never appointed as an attorney by his late father and the sale deeds in

favour of the defendants are without any consideration. The plaintiff has

further alleged that the sale deeds which are there in favour of the

defendants are invalid and bogus. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree of

Declaration and cancellation of the Power of Attorney dated 23.03.1995 as

null and void, declaration of the Sale Deeds dated 05.02.1996 as null and

void. The relief of Possession has also been sought for by the plaintiff along

with the relief of Permanent Injunction. The defendants have filed their written statements stating

therein that the defendant no. 3 Sh. Roshan Lal Kanodia had been acting as

an attorney of late Sh. Swami Rama right from the year 1989 and the suit

property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff in 1989. The

defendants

-8-

have taken the further stand that the suit property was sold to the defendant

no. 1 by late Sh Swami Rama under various registered sale deeds for

valuable considerations through the defendant no. 3 as an attorney by virtue

of the Power of attorney dated 23.03.1995.

Going by the aforesaid factual position and the pleadings of the

parties, the vital question to be considered by this Court is as to whether the

summoning of the file from the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow

Bench is necessary or not. The answer of the above said question depends

on the answer given by the Ld. Counsels for the defendants. Ld. Counsels

for the defendants, as stated by me herein above, have categorically stated

that they do not dispute that the certified copies of the documents placed on

record in the present suit are the certified copies of the documents which

have been filed by the plaintiff in the said suit which is pending disposal

before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. It has also

been stated by the Ld. Counsels for the defendants that the certified copies

may be exhibited during the tendering of the affidavit of PW1. I am of the

opinion that the abovesaid submission of the Ld. Counsels for the

defendants resolves the entire controversy. To my mind, it was obligatory

upon the plaintiff to summon the aforesaid file had the defendants denied

the factual position that the certified copies placed on record by the plaintiff

in the

-9-

present suit are not the certified copies of the documents placed by the

plaintiff in the suit which is pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court

of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. I am of the opinion that once the defendants

state before the Court at bar that they do not dispute that the certified

copies placed on record by the plaintiff in the present suit are the certified

copies of the documents which have been filed by the plaintiff in the

aforesaid suit pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad,

Lucknow Bench, the grievance of the plaintiff does not survive any more.

The defendants, at the time of the final arguments, shall be debarred from

pleading that the original documents were not summoned by the plaintiff by

way of summoning of the file which is pending disposal before the Hon'ble

High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. As stated by the defendants, the

plaintiff shall be at liberty to exhibit the abovesaid certified copies which

have been placed on record by the plaintiff in the present suit. So far as the

summoning of the record from the Bank of Baroda and the summoning of

the record from Vikas Sadan is concerned, Ld. Counsels for the defendants

have fairly stated that the plaintiff shall be at liberty to summon the relevant

record.

In the light of the abovesaid discussion, I hereby dismiss the

previous application of the plaintiff U/o 16 Rule 1 of the CPC and the

second application U/s 151 of the CPC r/w section 152 of the CPC is partly

allowed

-10-

with the liberty to the plaintiff to summon the relevant witnesses along with

the requisite record from the Bank of Baroda and from Vikas Sadan, Delhi.

In the case in hand, one more application of the plaintiff U/o 14

Rule 2 of the CPC is pending disposal. The grievance of the plaintiff in the

said application is that issue no.7 has been specifically framed in the

present suit qua the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court which goes to theroot of the case. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the orders

dated 14.01.2010 passed in CM(Main) no. 36/2010 passed by the Hon'bleHigh Court of Delhi wherein it has been held as under :-

This petition has been preferred against an order dated 1st

October, 2009 whereby the Ld. Trial Court had observed that

the issue of valuation of the suit shall be decided on the basis of

evidence of the parties. The petitioner has placed on record

sale deeds of the adjoining properties showing the valuation of the similar property being much more than the jurisdiction of

the trial court.

Since, the matter is already fixed for evidence, the trial

court is directed to decide the issue of valuation of the suit as a

preliminary issue and after giving decision on the valuation

should proceed further.

-11-

Perusal of the record of the case reveals that an

application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff and the application for

amendment was allowed by this Court vide orders dated 15.02.2014, prior

to the framing of the issues on 10.05.2014 by this Court and relief of

possession was added in addition to the relief which were already sought

for by the plaintiff in the present suit. However, during the course of the

arguments, Ld. Counsels for the defendants have fairly stated that the onus

to prove issue no.7 be placed upon the defendants instead of the plaintiff.

Otherwise also, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is a question of fact and lawwhich cannot be decided without leading evidence. However, keeping in

view the fact that the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction was taken by thedefendants in the written statements, issue no.7 framed on 10.05.2014 is

hereby re-framed as under :-

Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the

purposes of the Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.Now, to come up for tendering of affidavit of PW1 and for the

cross-examination of PW1 on 04.12.2014 and 05.12.2014 at 12 noon.


Ex no. 3/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. P.D. Adlkaha, Ld. Counsel for the DH.

Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who states that he is the father of the JD

no. 4.

Ld. Counsel for the DH has pointed out that the cheque bearing

no. 423869 dated 25.10.2014 which was handed over to the DH on

15.10.2014 was bounced, on presentation. The aforesaid father of the JD

no.4 has paid the amount of Rs. 74,000/- in cash to the Ld. Counsel for the

DH today in the Court.

Ld. Counsel for the DH has filed on record an application for

Contempt U/s 2,10 and 12 of the Contempt Act. Copy supplied to the

aforesaid father of the JD no.4. The father of the JD no.4 states that the

next installment which was due as on date shall be paid by him within 4-5

days fro today. The amount of Rs. 74,000/- has been received by the DH

without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the DH. JD shall also filereply on record and address the arguments on the application of the DH on

the next date of hearing.

Now, to come up on 24.11.2014 at 2 pm.


CS no. 387/2014

15.11.2014

Present : Sh. P.D. Adhlakha, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who states that he is the father of the

defendant no.4.

Let, this matter be also taken up along with the connected

execution petition bearing no. 03/2014 on 24.11.2014 at 2 pm.


CS no.

15.11.2014

Present : Sh.


CS no. Dated : PW-1 : Statement of Sh. , aged about ___ years. ON SA.

I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which bears my

signatures at points A and B. I state that the contents stated therein are true

and correct. My affidavit is exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, the

XXXXXXby Sh. _________, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

RO&AC (RAJ KUMAR)ADJ-17/Central

THC,Delhi/__.2014

Documents

DO Retrieved.asp5