Upload
vinaykumarjain
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
COURT CASES.
Citation preview
1 IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL GOGNE : SCJ/RC:SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
C.S.No.224/14
VikramSingh&Anr ...Plaintiff
Versus
DDA&Anr. ...Defendants
ORDER
1. ThisorderdecidestheapplicationoftheplaintiffunderOrder
39Rule1&2CPC.
2. Thesuitseeksthedeclarationasnullandvoidofletterdated
09.07.2013 bearing No. F 31(50)/315/93/L & B/ALT/5684 issued by
defendantNo.2i.etheLand&BuildingDepartment,Govt.ofNCTof
Delhi, wherebytheapplicationof thefather of theplaintiffs, namely
Inder Singh, for allotment of an alternative residential plot in
consequence of the acquisition of his agricultural land in village
Kakrola, Delhi was rejected. The second prayer in the suit is for a
mandatoryinjunctiondirectingthedefendantstoallotaresidentialplot
totheplaintiffsaspertheirentitlement.
3. The present application prays for an adinterim injunction
restraining the defendants from allotting the alternative plot of the
plaintiffstoanyotherperson.
24. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs, relying on the plaint,
submitted that after the landof Inder Singh, measuring65bighas 4
biswasandsituatedintherevenueestateofvillageKakrola,NewDelhi,
was acquired under award No. 1/199394 dated 02.04.1993 vide
notificationNo.F.10.(6) 88L&Bdated06.06.1991heappliedfora
residential alternative plot as per the policy of the defendants.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs purportedly became entitled to the
alternativeplotbyvirtueofbeingthesonsofInderSingh.Theplaintiffs
alsorepresentthattheybecamesoentitledonaccountofaregistered
will dated 23.12.1999 executed by Inder Singh in their favour with
respecttohisimmovableproperties.InderSinghexpiredon08.06.2013.
5. Theplaintiffsarenowaggrievedthatdespitethecompletionof
allformalitiesquatheapplicationforallotmentofanalternateplotby
their father, the said application was declined vide letter dated
09.07.2013 bearing No. F 31(50)/315/93/L & B/ALT/5684 issued by
defendantNo.2. Thisletterconveyedthatsincepossessionof51bigha
and11biswasoutofthetotalacquiredland(constitutingmorethan40%
oftheacquiredland)measuring116bighasand15biswashadnotbeen
takenoverbydefendantNo.2,theallottingcommitteenotedthecircular
dated30.01.1987whichrequiredpossessionof80%oftheacquiredland
tobetakenoverfortheapplicanttobeconsideredforallotmentofan
alternateplot.Hence,theapplicationwasdeclined.
6. TheLd.Counselfortheplaintiffsarguedthatthefatherofthe
plaintiffswastheownerandinpossessionofonly65bighas4biswas
3whereas the remaining 51 bighas 11 biswas had been sold to other
parties by the predecessors of the father of the plaintiffs. It was
submitted that since the entire area of 65bighas 4 biswashadbeen
possessedbydefendantNo.2,thecirculardated30.01.1987didnotbar
theallotmentofanalternateplottotheplaintiffs.Itwasfurtherclarified,
citingtheplaint,thatthepurchasersoftheareaof51bigha11biswas
were presently residing in the same in a colony by the name Patel
Colony/Patel Garden, Kakrola, New Delhi and had not applied for
mutationofownershipintheirnames.Consequently,therevenuerecord
continued to reflect the name of the father of the plaintiffs as the
Bhumidaralongwithothercoownerswithrespecttotheentireareaof
116bighasand15biswas.
7. Inresponse,defendantNo.2i.eLand&BuildingDepartment
statedinitswrittenstatementthattheplaintiffswerenotentitledtoan
alternate plot onaccountof circular dated30.01.1987whichrequired
possessionoflandtotheextentof80%oftheacquiredlandtobetaken
overbeforegrantofanalternateplot. Further,thatthepetitionershad
evenfailedtofileanysaledeedinfavourofthepurportedpurchasersof
thelandmeasuring51bighaand11biswas.
8. TheDDAvizdefendantNo.2statedonitspartthatithadnot
allottedanyalternateplottotheplaintiffsasnorecommendationletter
hadbeenreceivedfromdefendantNo.2.
9. The court has considered the pleadings and documents on
record.
410. It is apparent at the outset that the claim of sale of land
measuring51bigha11biswasbythepredecessorsofthefatherofthe
plaintiffs remained an unsubstantiated assertion. No document of
transfer of title was cited or filed alongwith the plaint. The plaint
recordsthespecificavermentthatthelandrecordscontinuetoreflect
their father as the bhumidar qua the entire portion of 116 bigha 15
biswas.Inthisscenario,thecourtwouldprimafacieconcludethatthe
acquisition vide award No. 1/199394 dated 02.04.1993 upon
notification No. F.10.(6) 88L & B dated 06.06.1991 related to land
measuring 116 bigha 15 biswas admittedly under the
bhumidari/tenure/ownershipofthefatheroftheplaintiffs.
11. Moreover,incontrasttotheirclaimoftransferof51bigha11
biswasbytheirpredecessorswaybeforetheawardintheyear1991,the
plaintiffsstillrelieduponawilldated23.12.1999executedbytheirfather
namelyInderSinghintheirfavourwithrespecttohisentireimmovable
properties.Aperusalofthesaidwillwouldrevealthatitincludeseven
someofthekhasrasformingpartofthepurportedlytransferred51bigha
and11biswasofland.Iftheplaintiffswerestillclaimingsuccession,in
theyear1999,tosomeofthelandspurportedlytransferredpriorto1991
bytheirpredecessorsininterest,theclaimoflossofrightsin51bighas
11 biswas becomes discredited. As noted earlier, the land records
admittedlyreflectthefatheroftheplaintiffsasthe bhumidar quathe
entireareaof116bigha15biswaandnodocumentoftransferoflandby
thepredecessorsoftheplaintiffshasbeenfiled.
512. It is thus a reasonable application of the circular dated
30.01.1987thattheplaintiffsbefounddisentitledtotheallotmentofan
alternativeplotinasmuchaspossessionofover40%oftheacquired
land(amountingto51bighas15biswas)wasnottakenoverbydefendant
No.2. Sincepossessionoflandtotheextentof80%wasevidentlynot
taken over by defendant No.2, the letter dated 09.07.2013,
communicating the declining of the application of the father of the
plaintiffs,canprimafacienotbetermedperverse.
13. The court would also reproduce the prayer made in the
applicationunderOrder39Rule1&2CPCtohighlighttheapparent
nonmaintainabilityofthesame.Theprayerreadsasunder:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'blecourtbepleasedtopassanadinterimexparte injunctionorderrestrainingthedefendantsoritsagents nottoallotthealternativeplotoftheplaintifftoanyone, intheinterestofjustice.
15. Theaboveprayerisentirelypresumptive.Theplaintiffshave
prayedthattheiralternativeplotmaynotbeallotedtoanyoneelse.The
admittedfact,however,isthatnoallotmentwasmadebytheDDA,nor
anyrecommendationforallotmentforwardedbythelandandbuilding
department to the DDA. Infact, the application of the father of the
plaintiffsforallotmentofanalternateplothasbeendeclineduponletter
dated 09.07.2013. Consequently, the interim prayer seeks to obtain
nothinglessthanthefinaldecreeitselfinasmuchastheprayerinthe
6suitisforamandatoryinjunctiontothedefendantstoallotaresidential
plot to the plaintiff. Theprayer in the interimapplication cannot be
grantedforthesolereasonthatitwouldamounttodecreeingthesuit.
16. Moreover,ameaningfulreadingoftheinterimprayerwould
revealthattheplaintiffisessentiallyseekinganadinterimmandatory
injunction. The interim relief of restraint upon the defendants from
allottingthealternativeplottoanyoneelseessentiallyinvolvesfirstthe
identificationofaprospectiveplotandthenitssettingasideforbeing
alloted to the plaintiff. This exercise is effectively a direction to the
defendantstoexecuteamandatoryinjunction.Itisthesettledpositionof
the lawthat an interimmandatory injunctioncanbegrantedonly to
preserveorrestorethepreviousstatusquo. Referencemaybemadeto
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Barun Kumar
NaharVs.ParulNahar&Anr.2013(199)DLT1whereitwasheldas
under:
22.Itwouldbeseenfromtheaforesaidobservationof the Apex Court in the said case that the relief of interlocutorymandatoryinjunctionisgrantedgenerally topreserveorrestorethestatusquoofthelastcontested status. The expression 'generally' in the above observation gives a clear indication that thegrant of interimmandatoryinjunctiondoesnotonlyconfineto restorethestatusquoofthelastcontestedstatus.The ApexCourtinthesaidjudgmentfurtherobservedthat beingessentiallyanequitablereliefthegrantorrefusal CS(OS)No.2795/2011Page17of32ofaninterlocutory mandatoryinjunctionshallultimatelyrestonthesound judicial discretionof theCourt tobeexercisedin the lightofthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.The
7Court also observed that there may exist exceptional circumstancesforthegrantorrefusalofsuchinjunction anditwouldultimatelydependonthefactsofeachcase for theCourt to exercise the equitable jurisdiction in favourofonepartyinpreferencetotheotherparty.
17. Inthepresentfacts,theplaintiffswereneverallotedaplotand
thereneverexistedastatusquatheallotmentwhichoughttobenow
restored.Theinterimmandatoryinjunctionprayedforcanthusnotbe
granted.
18. Thecourtalsofindsitselfinagreementwiththesubmissionof
thecounselsforthedefendantsinteraliathatallotmentofanalternate
plotisamatterofdiscretionbeingpartofawelfarepolicyandcannotbe
claimedasamatterofrightbyapersonwhenhislandisacquiredbythe
government.
19. ThedecisioninRamanandVs.UnionofIndia&Ors.1993
(26)DRJ594settledthepositionofthelawwithregardtotheclaimfor
alternateplotsbypersonswhoselandhadbeenacquired.TheHon'ble
HighCourtofDelhiheldasunder:
(40) For the foregoing reasons, we overrule the decisioninthecaseofRajinderKumar(supra).Wehold that an individual, whose land is acquired, does not haveanabsolute right to the allotment of alternative plot of landforresidential purposes, andthatsucha personisonlyeligibletobeconsideredforallotmentof aplot,subjecttocertainconditions.
820. Since the applicant i.e. the father of the plaintiffs did not
possessanabsoluteorvestedrightforallotmentofanalternativeplot,
thatdoesnotexistaprimafaciecaseforgrantofthesamereliefbyway
of an interim injunction. An interlocutory injunction is granted upon
equitableconsiderationsandisamatterofdiscretion.Suchdiscretion
cannotbeexercisedinfavouroftheplaintiffsintheabsenceofaprima
faciecase.Themeritsoftherejectionvideletterdated09.07.2013would
beasubjectoftrial.Intheinterim,theplaintiffscannotbeaccordedthe
benefitofanalternativeplotbeingsetaside.
21. Thebalanceofconvenienceintheabovescenariodoesnotlie
with the plaintiffs as no mischief is caused to thembydenial of an
injunctiondirectingthedefendantstosetasideaplotforallotment.The
defendants, however, would be subjected to substantial mischief if
defendant No.2 is compelled to recommend allotment and defendant
No.1isdirectedtosetasideanalternativeplot.Suchanexercisewould
beinequitableatthestageofadjudicationofonlyanapplicationunder
Order39Rule1&2CPC.Forthesamereasons,noirreparablelosscan
bepostulatedbytheplaintiffs.
22. Theapplicationisdismissed.
23. Thisorderisnotareflectiononthemeritsofthecase.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
9CSNo.41/15AnubhavKaushalvsCommodreRajivSharma
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.RajeshKumarVats,Proxycounselforplaintiff.
Sh.N.K.Aggarwal,Counselfordefendant.
WShasbeenfiledalongwithanapplicationunderOrder7Rule
11CPCbythedefendant.Copysupplied.
PutupforreplyandargumentsontheapplicationunderOrder7
Rule11CPCon09.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
10
Ex.No.27/14SarojDevivsMaheshwariParsad&Anr.
15.05.2015
Present: DHwithcounselSh.A.Alam.
Noneforobjector.
Beawaited.
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
Present: DHwithcounselSh.A.Alam.
Sh.ArvindKumar,counselforobjector.
On joint submissions, put up for further arguments on
20.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
11
Ex.No.98/13DalipKhatrivsGopalTiwari
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.AnkitDixit,CounselforDH.
FreshaddressesofJDhavebeenfiled. Issuefreshwarrantsof
attachmentagainstmovablepropertyoftheJDonthenewaddressesonPF.
Let DHappear before Ld. ACJon20.05.2015and report to the court on
05.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
12
Ex.No.31/14NandLalvsIshwarSingh
15.05.2015
Present: DHinperson.
Issuefreshwarrantsofattachmentagainstmovablepropertyof
theJDonPFandlistofgoodsbeingfiled.LetDHappearbeforeLd.ACJon
25.05.2015andreporttothecourton05.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
13
Ex.No.32/14SBIvsHariKantSharma
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.A.K.Diwedi,ProxycounselforDH.
TheDHdidnotappearformarkingoftheballif.
Issuefreshwarrantsofattachmentagainstmovablepropertyof
theJDonPFandlistofgoodsbeingfiled.LetDHappearbeforeLd.ACJon
25.05.2015andreporttothecourton05.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
14
Ex.No.42/14VikramSinghvsKuldeepShokeen
15.05.2015
Present: NoneforDH.
Asperreportonthepreviouswarrantsofattachment,theJDis
incustody.
DHisatlibertytoclarifyregardingfurthermodeofexecution.
Liston31.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
15
Ex.No.51/14
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.K.V.Gopi,ProxycounselforDH.
Sh.HimanshuBohra,ProxycounselforJDNo.3.
ThemaincounselforJDNo.3isreportedtobesufferingfrom
seriousailment.
Adjourn for consideration upon the pending applications on
24.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
16
Ex.No.22/15M/sIndiabullsHousingFinanceLtdvsRudregowda&Anr.
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.RajeshJangra,CounselforDH.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
17
Ex.No.23/15M/sIndiabullsHousingFinanceLtdvsAlthafBegh&Ors
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.RajeshJangra,CounselforDH.
It is seen that the award in question in the present execution
petition is foranamountofRs. 9,45,938/ which is beyondthepecuniary
jurisdictionofthiscourt.
LetthefilebeputupbeforeLd.District&SessionsCourt,SW,
DwarkaCourtsforappropriateorderson25.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
18
CSNo.56/14SBIvsBijayaKumarRout&Anr.
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.NavneetKumar,Counselforplaintiff.
DefendantNo.1alsoappearingfordefendantNo.2alongwith
CounselSh.SameerSharmaforbothdefendants.
Vakalatnamahasbeenfiledbycounselfordefendants.
Onjointsubmissions,partiesarereferredtomediationcentrefor
30.05.2015anddirectedtoreporttothiscourtinthepostlunchsessiononthe
sameday.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
19
CSNo.136/14SBIvsSuratSingh
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.NavneetKumar,Counselforplaintiff.
Nonefordefendant.
The counsel for plaintiff has submitted that four installments
amountingtoatotalofRs.40,000/havebeenreceivedfromthedefendant
andasumofRs.20,000/remainstobepaid.
Itisseenfromthemediation agreementdated24.11.2014,the
lastinstallmentisdueon20.05.2015.
Adjournforreportregardingpaymentoftheremainingamount
on30.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
20
ShakuntlaBali@ShakuntlaBakshivsSatishKumar@SatishGupta
15.05.2015
Freshexecutionfiled.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present: CounselforDH.
Nazirtoreporton22.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
21
Sukhbir&OrsvsRajeshwar&Ors.
15.05.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present: Sh.AmitChauhan,Counselforplaintiff.
Issue summons for settlement of issues and notice of the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 Cr.PConfiling of PF &RCfor
23.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
22
SUMANGUMBER&ANRVSANUJPAWAR
15.05.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present: Ms.PriyankaDagar,Counselforplaintiff.
IssuesummonsforsettlementofissuesonfilingofPF&RCfor
06.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
23
KARAMBIRSINGHVSMURARICANSAL&ANR.
15.05.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present: Ms.PriyankaDagar,Counselforplaintiff.
Issue summons for settlement of issues and notice of the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 Cr.PConfiling of PF &RCfor
27.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
24
CSNo.SATNARAYANVSSONU
15.05.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present: Counselforplaintiff.
Issue summons for settlement of issues and notice of the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 Cr.PConfiling of PF &RCfor
30.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
25
VIJENDERMEHRAVSRAJWANTI&ORS.
15.05.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present: Sh.VishwajeetYadav,ProxycounselforSh.PraveenKumarSingh,Counselforplaintiff.
Sincemaincounselisnotpresent,adjournforconsiderationto
20.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
26
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
27
Ex.No.22/15M/sIndiabullsHousingFinanceLtd.VsRudregowdaS&Anr.
15.05.2015
Present: CounselforDH.
Anexecutionapplicationfortransferofdecreeandissuance
ofTransferCertificatehasbeenmovedonbehalfoftheDH.
It is seen from the Memo of Parties in the suit that the
defendantsareresidentsofChikamangalore,Karnataka.Thedecreecan
thusnotbeexecutedatDelhi.
LetthedecreebetransferredforexecutionbeforetheCourtof
competent jurisdiction at Chikamangalore, Karnataka. Let transfer
certificatebeissuedtotheDH.
Filebeconsignedtorecordroom.
(VISHALGOGNE) SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI15.05.2015
28
CSNo.81/2014
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.A.K.Pandey,counselforplaintiff.
Nonefordefendantsno.1and2.
ASIRamNiwasfordefendantsno.3and4.
Sh.Manish Kumar, legal assistant for DMRC
(defendantno. 6).
Sh.PramodGupta,ARofdefendantno.5(BSES).
Certain orders passed by other courts in similar
mattershavebeenfiledonbehalfofdefendantno.5.
Counselforplaintiffseekstimetoinspectthefile.
Putupforconsiderationon04.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
29
CS/208/2014
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.MahenderSingh,counselforL.Rs.ofplaintiff.
Nonefordefendantsno.1to4.
Ms.JahnviUpadhyay,counselfordefendantno.5alongwith
Sh.Parikshit,JLOforDDA.
Sh.Vikram Singh Girsa, counsel for defendant no.6
alongwithSh.OmvirSingh,PanchayatSecretary.
Anapplicationunderorder22rule3CPChasbeenmoved
on the submission that the plaintiff expired on 01.04.2015. A
copy of death certificate of the plaintiff has been filed. The
applicationdiscloses five legal heirs of thedeceasedplaintiff.
Theapplicationisnotopposedandisallowed.Recommended
memoofpartiesbefiledbythenextdateofhearing.
Final opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs to file the
replication.
Listforreplicationandframingofissueson10.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
30
CS/209/2014
15.05.2015
Present: PlaintiffwithcounselSh.MahenderSingh.
Nonefordefendantsno.1to4.
Sh.Parikshit,JLOforDDA(defendantno.5).
Sh.Vikram Singh Girsa, counsel for defendant no.6
alongwithSh.OmvirSingh,PanchayatSecretary.
ItissubmittedonbehalfofDDAthattheWScouldnotbe
filedonaccountofillhealthofthecounsel.
FinalopportunityisgrantedforfilingofWS.
Liston10.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
31
RC/ARC/E64/2014
RajivGuptaVs.BittooSharmaandanr.
15.05.2015
Present: Proxycounselforpetitioner.
Summons have been received unserved upon both
respondents.
PetitionerisatlibertytofilePFforfreshsummonsinthe
formspecifiedintheThirdScheduleoftheDelhiRentControl
Act,1958withlibertytoaccompanytheprocessserver.
Acopyofthisorderbegivendastitopetitioner.
Liston14.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
32
CS/282/2014
15.05.2015
Present: PlaintiffwithcounselSh.LalitOhlan.
Sh.ArvindSaraswat,counselfordefendantno.1.
Ms.Jahnvi, counsel for defendant no.2 alongwith
Sh.Parikshit,JLOforDDA.
Sh.JaidevSolanki,counselforapplicantunderorder1rule
10CPC.
Defendantno.4inperson.
The reply has been filed by defendant no.4 to the
applicationunderorder1rule10CPC.Letcopybesuppliedto
applicant.
Plaintiffisgrantedfinalopportunitytofilereplytothesaid
application.
Putupforreplyandargumentson22.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
33
CS/56/2015
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.NishanChaudhary,whostateshimselftobethe
nephewofplaintiff.
Appearancehasbeenfiledbythedefendant.
Plaintiffisatlibertytofileforsummonsforjudgment.
Listagainon22.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
34
CS/47/2013
15.05.2015
Present: Plaintiffinperson.
Defendantinperson.
ThemaincounselforplaintiffSh.O.P.Bhartiisreportedto
beadmittedtothehospitalduetoanailment.
Inviewoftheabovecircumstances,adjournedforfilingof
applicationforamendmentasnotedintheordersheet dated
12.03.2015.
Liston10.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
35
CS/347/2011
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.DhruvMalik,counselforplaintiff.
Defendantno.1withcounselSh.M.K.Chaurasiya.
Sh.VijayDagar,proxycounselfordefendantno.2alongwith
Sh.Parikshit,JLOforDDA.
ItissubmittedonbehalfofDDAthatnoevidenceistobe
led.
DEisclosedonbehalfofdefendantno.2.
It is seen that vide order dated 20.02.2015, the court
recorded that the summons to the witness on behalf of
defendantno.1hadbeenreceivedunservedforwantofproper
particulars. Freshsummonsweredirectedalongwithcomplete
address. The court also clarified that no further adjournment
wouldbegranted.Thesaidorderhasnotbeencomplied.
DEisclosedonbehalfofdefendantno.1.
Putupforfinalargumentson28.05.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
36
RC/ARC/E46/2014
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.Laxmi Prasad, proxy counsel for Sh.Sanjeev
Sharma,counselforpetitioner.
Ms.AmritaKumar,counselforL.Rs.ofrespondent.
Amendedmemoofpartieshasbeenfiled.
Sincemaincounselforpetitionerisreportedtobeunwell,
list for arguments on the application for leave to defend on
10.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
37
CS/83/2013
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.A.K.Pandey,counselforplaintiff.
Sh.Parikshit,JLOfordefendantno.2.
Sh.Manish, for defendants no.3 and 4 alongwith
Sh.ChanderPrakash,counselforDMRC.
ThefileisstillwiththeLd.Appellatecourt.
Putupon04.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
38
MCA/03/2014
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.Vikram Singh, counsel for appellant alongwith
Sh.OmvirSingh,PanchayatSecretary.
Sh.Vinod Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh.Kuldeep Singh,
counselforrespondentno.1.
NoneforL.Rs.ofrespondentno.2.
Main counsel for respondent no.1 is reported to be not
attendingtocourtmattersforthelasttwodaysonaccountof
illness.
In view of the above personal grounds, adjourned for
argumentson06.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
39
CS/249/2014
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.R.K.Solanki, proxy counsel for Sh.Lal Singh
Thakur,counselforplaintiff.
Sh.Anchit Sharma,counsel for defendantno.1alongwith
Sh.Parikshit,JLO.
Nonefordefendantno.2.
Defendantno.3hasbeendeletedfromthearrayofparties
on27.11.2014.
The main counsel for plaintiff is reported to be not
availabletoday.
It isseenthattheld.AppellateCourtdirectedthatstatus
quomaybemaintainedtilltheapplicationunderorder39rule1
and2CPC,dismissedbythiscourtvideorderdated28.11.2014,
isdecidedafresh. Afterthematterwasreceivedback,multiple
adjournments have been caused for arguments on the said
application.Inviewofthestatusquoorder,itisappropriatethat
applicationisdecidedexpeditiously.
Plaintiffisgrantedfinalopportunityforargumentsonthe
saidapplicationon20.05.2015.
Letreplytotheapplicationsofdefendantno.1bealsofiled.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
40
41
CS/138/2011
15.05.2015
Present: Plaintiffinperson.
Sh.Neeraj Kumar Jha, counsel for defendant no.1
alongwithSh.R.S.Meena,AE,DelhiJalBoard.
Sh.ChetanSharma,counselfordefendantno.2.
Maincounselforplaintiffisreportedtobeunwell.
In viewof the abovesubmission, list for arguments on
19.05.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
42
CS/224/2014
15.05.2015
Present: Sh.S.K.Solanki,counselforplaintiff.
Sh.Parikshit,JLOfordefendantno.1(DDA).
Nonefordefendantno.2.
Thematterislistedtodayonlyforargumentsonbehalfofdefendant
no.2ontheapplicationunderorder39rule1and2CPCasargumentshave
previouslybeenheardonbehalfoftheplaintiffanddefendantno.1.
Beawaited.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
12.00noon
Present: Sh.S.K.Solanki,counselforplaintiff.
Sh.Parikshit,JLOfordefendantno.1(DDA).
Nonefordefendantno.2.
Beawaited.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourts New Delhi
2.30p.m.
Present:Noneforplaintiff.
Nonefordefendantno.1.
Sh.VinayKumar,counselfordefendantno.2.
Argumentsheardonbehalfofdefendantno.2.
Putupforordersat4.00p.m.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi
43
CSNo.224/14
At4.00p.m.
Present: None
Vide separate order of even date, the application of
plaintiffsunderorder39rule1and2CPCisdismissed.
Putupforframingofissueson24.07.2015.
(VishalGogne)SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourtsNewDelhi