CSNo.

29/2015

KarunaVs.ManishKumar&Anr.

20.4.2015
Present:

PlaintiffisrepresentedbycounselSh.VivekAggarwal.
Ld.counselfortheplaintiffseeksaweek'stimetoclarify

on the point of court feeaswellasthepecuniaryjurisdictionof this

court.Atrequest,thematterisadjournedfor27.4.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.216/2014
Smt.SoniaTyagi@ShubhraVs.Sh.RahulTyagi&Ors.
20.4.2015
Present:

PlaintiffisrepresentedbycounselSh.VivekAggarwal.
Defendantsareabsent.
Theyhavealreadybeenproceededexpartevideorderdated

21.2.2015. PutupforordersontheapplicationunderOrder.39Rule,1
and2CPCat4.00p.m.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

4.00p.m.
Present:

None.
Thecaseoftheplaintiffisthatshewasmarriedtodefendant

no.1. However,aftermarriagewiththedefendant,allthedefendants
started harassing her fordowry. Nevertheless, shetolerated all their
harassmentandhumiliationinordertosavethemarriage.Thedefendants
aretryingtodispossesstheplaintiffandhence,thepresentsuithasbeen
filedseekingpermanentinjunctiontorestrainthedefendantfromforcibly
dispossessingtheplaintifffromthesuitproperty.
An applicationunderOrder.39Rule,1and2CPC hasalso
beenfiledseekinginterimrelieffromforciblydispossessingtheplaintiff

2
fromthesuitproperty.Duringtheproceedings,theLocalCommissioner
wasappointedtoinquireaboutthephysicalpossessionoftheplaintiffin
the suitproperty. TheLocalCommissionerfiledreportstatingtherein
thattheplaintiffwasfoundresidinginthesuitproperty.Thedefendants
wereabsentonthelastdateofhearingandtheywereproceededexparte.
Todayalso,noneispresentonbehalfofthedefendants.Accordingly,on
thebasisoftheavermentsandonthereportoftheLocalCommissioner,
defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff, who is in
possessionofthesuitpropertybeingthewifeofdefendantno.1,fromthe
suitpropertywithoutdueprocessoflawtillthependencyofthepresent
suit. The applicationunderOrder.39Rule,1and2CPC isdisposedof
accordingly.Atthisstage,ld.counselonbehalfoftheplaintiffappears
andstatesthattheplaintiffwantsamicablesettlementofthematterwith
thedefendants. Inviewofthis,issuecourtnoticetothedefendantsfor
theirappearanceinpersonsothatthemattermaybereferredtomediation
cell.
Nowtocomeupon27.4.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E6/2012

MangatRamVs.HariOm

20.4.2015
Present:

LRofthepetitioner ispresentinpersonwithcounselSh.
AkhtarShamim.
RespondentispresentinpersonwithcounselSh.Tarun
Ahuja.
Today, in the court, both the parties have arrived at an

amicablesettlementtotheeffectthatthelandlordhasbecomeagreedto
allowthetenanttoenjoythepeacefulpossessionofthetenantedpremises
till30.4.2018attherateofrentofRs.8,000/permonthpayableby15th
dayofthetenancymonth.Itisagreedthatafterexpiryof18months,rent
ofRs.8,000/shallbeenhancedby10%fortheremainingperiodof18
months. The tenant shall vacate the tenanted premises on 30.4.2018.
Statementsofboththepartieshavebeenrecordedseparatelywhichshall
formpartoftherecord. Boththepartiesshalladheretothestatements
giveninthecourttoday.Filebeconsignedtorecordroom.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

Ex.No.22/15

Smt.MayaDevi&Ors.Vs.Sh.Deepak&Ors.

20.4.2015
FiletakenuptodayontheobjectionsoftheJD.
Present:

JDNo.1alongwithcounsel.
Heard. Let the notice of the objections be sent to the

oppositesideonfilingofPFforthedatefixedi.e.3.7.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E6/2012

MangatRamVs.HariOm

20.4.2015
StatementofSmt.KrishnaRani,W/olateSh.MangatRam,R/o1926,Ganesh
PuraMainRoad,TriNagar,Delhi35,
onS.A.
IamoneoftheLRsoflateSh.MangatRam,petitionerinthe
presentevictionpetition.IammakingthisstatementonbehalfofalltheLRs
oflateSh.MangatRam.Iamlookingaftertheaffairsofthetenantedpremises
i.e.shopno.1atgroundfloorofpremisesno.1926,GaneshPuraMainRoad,
TriNagar,Delhi35.Today,withtheinterventionofthecourt,asettlement
hasbeenreachedbetweenmeandthetenant.Ithasbeenagreedbetweenus
thatfrom1.5.2015thetenantshallpaythe rentofRs.8,000/permonthin
respect of shop no. 1, ground floor, premises no. 1926, Ganesh Pura Main
Road,TriNagar,Delhi35asshowninthesiteplanEx.P1.Itisalsoagreed
that the tenant shall enjoy uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the
tenantedshoptill30.4.2018. Thereafter,thetenantshallhandoverpeaceful
andvacantpossessionofthetenantedpremisestomeoranyotherauthorized
person.Further,itisagreedthattheadvancerentshallbepaidbeforethe15th
dayofthetenancymonthandtherentshallbepaidtothedaughterofpetitioner
no.1,namely,TriptiDhimaninherbankaccountinSyndicateBank,TriNagar
Branch,Delhi.Itisalsoagreedthatafterexpiryof18months,theexistingrent
ofRs.8,000/shallbeenhancedby10%fortheremainingperiodof18months.
Itisalsoagreedthatincaseofdefaultinpaymentofrentwithinthespecified
time,therighttogetthepremisesevictedshallimmediatelyaccrueinfavourof

E6/2012

thelandlord.Iammakingthisstatementvoluntarilywithoutanyforce,fearor
coercion.
RO&AC
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015
StatementofSh.HariOm,S/oSh.OmPrakash,R/o1589/113,GaneshPuraA,
nearAnajMandi,TriNagar,Delhi35,
onS.A.
Iamtherespondentinthepresentevictionpetition.Ihaveheard
the statement of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Krishna Rani. I have agreed to the
statementgivenbythepetitionerandIaccepttherateofrentandthetermsof
thetenancy.IamawarethatincaserentisnotpaidattherateofRs.8,000/
permonthbythe15th dayofeachtenancymonththenIshallbeliabletobe
evictedfromthetenantedpremises. Itisalsoagreedthatafterexpiryof18
months, the existing rent of Rs.8,000/ shall be enhanced by 10% for the
remaining period of18months. I shallhand over the peacefuland vacant
possessionofthetenantedpremiseson30.4.2018.Iammakingthisstatement
voluntarilywithoutanyforce,fearorcoercion.
RO&AC
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.96/2014
Mohd.KamruddinHassanVs.M/s.H2HTechnologiesCo.&Anr.
20.4.2015
Present:

Counselfortheplaintiff.
File taken up on an application moved on behalf of the

plaintiffforearlyhearing.
Heard. The defendants have not yet been served. The
applicationisallowed.
Issue summons of the suit to the defendants by ordinary
processaswellasthroughregisteredAD onfilingofPF&RCforthe
datealreadyfixedi.e.10.8.2015.Summonsbegivendastiaswell.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.64/2015

UshaRaniVs.BalwantSingh

20.4.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Letitbechecked
andregistered.
Present:

Counselfortheplaintiff.
Issuesummonsofthesuitandnoticeoftheapplicationunder

Order.39 Rule, 1 and 2 CPC by ordinary process as well as through

registeredpostacknowledgmentdueonfilingofPF&RCreturnableon
25.5.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.63/2015

HariKrishanVs.VatanSingh

20.4.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Letitbechecked
andregistered.
Present:

Counselfortheplaintiff.
Issuesummonsofthesuitandnoticeoftheapplicationunder

Order.39 Rule, 1 and 2 CPC by ordinary process as well as through

registeredpostacknowledgmentdueonfilingofPF&RCreturnableon
27.4.2015. Summonsbegivendastiaswell.Meanwhile,statusquoin
respectofthesuitpropertybemaintainedtillthenextdateofhearing.
A copy of the order be given dasti to the plaintiff, as
requested.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E9/2011

Sh.SantKumarShuklaVs.Sh.PawanKumarShukla&Anr.

20.4.2015
Present:

PetitionerisrepresentedbycounselSh.S.K.Senger.
Nonefortherespondent.
Counselforthepetitionerstatesthatthemattercouldnotbe

settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, the matter is

adjournedforcrossexaminationofPW1for10.8.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

ENo.140/2012

AvinashKumarVs.RaivJindal

20.4.2015
Present:

Petitionerispresentinperson.
Respondentispresentinperson.
Petitioner states that a compromise has been arrived at

betweentheparties.Hestatesthathiscounselisnotavailabletodayto
makeastatement.Atrequest,thematterisadjournedfor21.4.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.214/14M/s.KingsValleySchoolVs.ShriramGeneralInsurance
20.4.2015
Present:

PlaintiffisrepresentedbycounselSh.AshokKumarGarg.
DefendantisrepresentedbycounselSh.VikasShokeen.
Pleadings have been completed. On the basis of the

pleadingsoftheparties,followingissuesareframed:
1.

Whetherthepresentsuitismaintainableinthepresentform?
OPP

2.

WhethertheplaintiffisentitledtothemoneydecreeofRs.
2,21,460/alongwithpendenteliteandfutureinterest?OPP

3.

Whethertheplaintiffisentitledfordamagesandifso,at
whatrate?OPP

4.

Whethertheplaintiffisentitledtothecostofthe
proceedings?

5.

Relief.
Nootherissuearisesorpressedfor.
PutupforPEon7.7.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

SCCNo.58/2014
20.4.2015
Present:

RajKumarVs.State&Ors.

PetitionerRajKumarispresentwithcounselSh.Arun
KumarYadav.
RespondentsPremwati,RishiPal,AmitKumar,RoopBasant,
TulsiKumar,JyotiSingh,NafeSingh,ShashiBalaand
Rajwatiarepresent.
RespondentsKavita,Meenakshi,Sunil,KuntiandMonaare
absent.
Sh.V.K.Chandel,Advocateisrepresentingrespondentsno.
2,4A,6,7,8and9.
Sh.KunjBihari,KanoongoonbehalfofSDM,ModelTown.
Sh.KunjBihari,KanoongohasfiledthereportregardingtheLRs.

Thesameistakenonrecord.
An application foramendmentinthe heading ofthe petition has
beenfiled.Itisstatedintheapplicationthatduetotypographicalerror,thename
ofthedeceasedismentionedaslateSh.VedBhushanMahajanwhereastheactual
name of the deceased is Ramphal. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has no
objection to the amendment application. Accordingly, the same is allowed.
Theamendedpetitionistakenonrecord.
Replytothepetitionhasbeenfiledonbehalfofrespondentsno.2,8
and9. Copysupplied. Counterclaimtothepresentpetitionhasbeenfiledon
behalfofrespondentsno.2,4A,6,7,8and9. Copysupplied.Letreplytothe
counterclaimandreplicationtothereplyoftherespondentsbefiledbeforethe
nextdateofhearingwithadvancecopytotheoppositeside.
Putupon22.7.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E.No.7/2015

HarvanshKaurVs.Shushila

ENo.52/2010

LalitKumarSharmaVs.VinodKumar&Ors.

20.4.2015
Present:

Petitionerispresentinperson.
Respondentispresentinperson.
Petitioner states that another litigation regarding the suit

propertyispendingbeforetheHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiandhewill
proceedinthepresentevictionpetitiononthebasisoftheoutcomeofthe
proceedingspendingbeforeHon'bleHighCourtofDelhi.Herequestsfor
adjournment.
Accordingly,thematterisadjournedforfurtherproceedings
for17.8.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E.No.96/11

NeelimaKapoorVs.DeeptiSobti

20.4.2015
Present:

PetitionerisrepresentedbyproxycounselMs.SeemaSeth.
Nonefortherespondent.
Proxycounsel forthepetitionerseeksadjournment onthe

groundthatinanotherpetition,evictionorderhasalreadybeenpassed
andappealispendingbeforetheHon'bleHighCourtofDelhi.Atrequest
ofproxycounselforthepetitioner,thematterisadjournedfor6.8.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.91/2014

PurushottamTyagiVs.VardhmaanProperties

20.4.2015
Present:

Nonefortheplaintiff.
DefendantisrepresentedbycounselSh.BhimRajAcharya.
Cost has not yet been paid. Let the same be paid on or

beforethenextdateofhearing.
ReplytoapplicationunderOrder.VIIRule,11CPCfiledon
behalfoftheplaintiff.Copysupplied.
PutupforargumentsonapplicationunderOrder.VIIRule,
11CPCon16.7.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.222/2013

ManhoriVs.KaranSingh

20.4.2015
Present:

PlaintiffispresentinpersonwithcounselSh.P.K.Walia.
RespondentispresentinpersonwithcounselSh.R.K.
Burman.
EarliercostofRs.1,000/hasbeenpaid.
ReplytoapplicationunderOrder.XIIRule,6CPChasbeen

filed.Argumentsheard.
PutupforordersonapplicationunderOrder.XIIRule,6
CPCon24.4.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E138/2010

NarenderKumar&Anr.Vs.AnilKumarAggarwal

20.4.2015
Present:

Noneforthepetitioner.
Respondentispresentinperson.
Today, case is fixed for crossexamination of respondent's

witness. The present case was to be disposed of preferably within a

periodof16monthsfrom8.7.2013asobservedbyHon'bleHighCourtof
Delhi in the order dated 29.5.2013. Accordingly,boththepartiesare
directednottotakeunnecessaryadjournment.Intheinterestofjustice,
lastandfinalopportunityisgiventothepetitionerforcrossexamination
ofRW1on27.4.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E44/2012

VikramSinghVs.SumanKaushik

20.4.2015
Present:

PetitionerisrepresentedbycounselSh.PradeepKadyan.
RespondentisrepresentedbycounselSh.YogeshPandey.
Counselforthepetitionerstatesthattheaffidavitinevidence

couldnotbepreparedastheTypisthasgonesomewhereandthefileis
alsowithhimandseeksadjournmentforleadingPE. Hefurtherstates
thatarrearshavenotbeenpaid.
Atrequestofthepetitioner,thematterisadjournedforPE
for10.8.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

SCCNo.22/2015

PoojaVs.State&Ors.

20.4.2015
FreshpetitionunderSection372ofIndianSuccessionActhas
beenfiled.Letitbecheckedandregistered.
Present:

PetitionerispresentinpersonwithcounselSh.VijayKhanna.
Heard.Recordperused.
GeneralPublicbeinformedbywayofpublicationinanewspaper

havingcirculationintheareawherethedeceasedlastlyresided.
Issuesummonstotherespondentsbyordinaryprocessaswellas
throughregisteredADonfilingPF&RCforthenextdateofhearing.
IssuesummonstotheBranchManager,PunjabNationalBank,
SanjayGandhiTransportNagar,Delhitofiletheauthenticatedstatementof
accountno.3179000100173437inthenameofdeceasedlateSmt.SheelaDevi
onPF&RCreturnableon23.5.2015.
IssuesummonstotheconcernedSDMtoverifythestatusofthe
otherLRsofthedeceased,onfilingofPFreturnableon23.5.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

E.No.7/2015

HarvanshKaurVs.Shushila

20.4.2015
Present:

PetitionerispresentinpersonwithcounselSh.V.K.Jha.
Summons sent to respondent, namely, Sushila through

ordinaryprocessandregisteredpostcouldnotbeserved.Thesummons
sentthroughordinaryprocesscouldnotbeservedasnonewasfoundat
the given address and the registered cover received back unserved.
Perusal of report on ordinary process shows that the respondent is
residingatthegivenaddressbutsheleavesearlyandcomeslateatnight.
Accordingly,issuefreshsummonsthrough ordinaryprocessaswellas
throughregisteredAD.Summonsbeservedbywayofaffixationincase
ofrefusalornonavailability.
Putupon25.5.2015.
(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.66/2015

SanjaySinghVs.SurenderSingh&Ors.

20.4.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Letitbechecked
andregistered.
Present:

Counselfortheplaintiff.
Issuesummonsofthesuitandnoticeoftheapplicationunder

Order.39 Rule, 1 and 2 CPC by ordinary process as well as through

registeredpostacknowledgmentdueonfilingofPF&RCreturnableon
22.5.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.65/2015

PremKumarVs.HiraSinghNandal

20.4.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Letitbechecked
andregistered.
Present:

Counselfortheplaintiff.
Issuesummonsofthesuitandnoticeoftheapplicationunder

Order.39 Rule, 1 and 2 CPC by ordinary process as well as through

registeredpostacknowledgmentdueonfilingofPF&RCreturnableon
22.5.2015.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

SCCNo.52/2014

SunandiniPushpVs.State&Ors.

20.4.2015
Ahlmadhasplacedthefileandstatedthatlockerno.hasnot
beenmentionedinthefinalorder.
Present:

None.
It is observed here that succession certificate be issued

regardingthearticleslyinginlockerNo.418asthevalueofthearticles
lyingthereinhavealreadybeenconsideredinthefinaljudgmentforthe
purposeofcourtfee.Withtheseobservations,filebeconsignedtorecord
room.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

CSNo.193/2013 M/s.NemChandTaraChandVs.PardeepKumar

20.4.2015
Present:

PlaintiffisrepresentedbycounselMs.SeemaTej.
DefendantispresentwithcounselSh.MayankChaudhary.
Atrequestofproxycounselforthepetitioner,thematteris

adjournedforPEfor6.8.2015.Letthepreviouscostbepaidbythenext
dateofhearing.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
20.4.2015

DRNo.54/15

Smt.DaljeetKaurVs.Smt.VeenaGupta

21.4.2015
Freshpetitionfordepositofrent undersection27ofDRC
Actreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present:

Counselforthepetitioner.
Issuenoticetorespondenttobeservedbyordinarywayand

byregisteredADsimultaneously,subjecttodepositofrentwithinone
week, filing of process feeform,copies of complete record including
treasurychallanofdepositofproposedrentandregisteredADcoverwith
properpostalstampbythepetitioner,intimefor21.8.2015.
NaibNazirisdirectedtoissuetheprocesswithin03days
fromthereceiptofsuchPFformandnoticebeendorsedthatrespondent
mayfiletheobjections,ifany,within30daysfromthereceiptofnotice.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
21.4.2015

DRNo.55/15

Smt.DaljeetKaurVs.Smt.VeenaGupta

21.4.2015
Freshpetitionfordepositofrent undersection27ofDRC
Actreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present:

Counselforthepetitioner.
Issuenoticetorespondenttobeservedbyordinarywayand

byregisteredADsimultaneously,subjecttodepositofrentwithinone
week, filing of process feeform,copies of complete record including
treasurychallanofdepositofproposedrentandregisteredADcoverwith
properpostalstampbythepetitioner,intimefor21.8.2015.
NaibNazirisdirectedtoissuetheprocesswithin03days
fromthereceiptofsuchPFformandnoticebeendorsedthatrespondent
mayfiletheobjections,ifany,within30daysfromthereceiptofnotice.

(RajeshMalik)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North
21.4.2015

E. No.131/2010
N.K. Bajaj Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mishra
20.04.2015
PW1-

N.K. Bajaj recalled for further cross-examination.

XXX by Sh. Harish Chander Verma, counsel for respondent.

I did not file any complaint nor did I institute any suit
against DDA after demolition.

Vol. The Pardhan of the society

might have done it. The Pardhan has never told me about any of
the complaint or suit filed by him. It is incorrect to suggest that the
property in question does not belong to me and belongs to DDA. It
is incorrect to suggest that Dinesh Kumar Mishra is in the
occupation of the portion since the year 1995-1996 under his
present occupation. It is incorrect to suggest that defendant after
the demolition by the DDA in the year 2001 has raised the present
construction under his occupation. It is incorrect to suggest that I
used to deduct a sum of Rs.500/- from the salary of the defendant
towards the protection money from the DDA and other authorities.
It is incorrect to suggest that a sum of Rs.500/- was not deducted
towards the rent from the salary of the defendant.

Vol. the

defendant was not my employee. It is incorrect to suggest that I

have no right to institute the present suit. It is incorrect to suggest
that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between you
and the defendant. It is incorrect to suggest that respondent has
not received the alleged demand notice of rent. It is incorrect to
suggest that I have no right to issue the demand notice.

It is

incorrect to suggest that I have filed a wrong site plan of the suit

premises. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

RO&AC
(RAJESH
MALIK)
ACJ-cum-CCJARC
North Rohini,
Delhi/20.04.2015

E. No.131/2010
N.K. Bajaj Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mishra
20.04.2015
PW1-

N.K. Bajaj recalled for further cross-examination.

XXX by Sh. Harish Chander Verma, counsel for respondent.

I did not file any complaint nor did I institute any suit
against DDA after demolition.

Vol. The Pardhan of the society

might have done it. The Pardhan has never told me about any of
the complaint or suit filed by him. It is incorrect to suggest that the
property in question does not belong to me and belongs to DDA. It
is incorrect to suggest that Dinesh Kumar Mishra is in the
occupation of the portion since the year 1995-1996 under his
present occupation. It is incorrect to suggest that defendant after
the demolition by the DDA in the year 2001 has raised the present
construction under his occupation. It is incorrect to suggest that I
used to deduct a sum of Rs.500/- from the salary of the defendant
towards the protection money from the DDA and other authorities.
It is incorrect to suggest that a sum of Rs.500/- was not deducted
towards the rent from the salary of the defendant.

Vol. the

defendant was not my employee. It is incorrect to suggest that I

have no right to institute the present suit. It is incorrect to suggest
that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between you
and the defendant. It is incorrect to suggest that respondent has
not received the alleged demand notice of rent. It is incorrect to
suggest that I have no right to issue the demand notice.

It is

incorrect to suggest that I have filed a wrong site plan of the suit

premises. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

RO&AC
(RAJESH
MALIK)
ACJ-cum-CCJARC
North Rohini,
Delhi/20.04.2015

CS No.244/14
Vijay vs. Om Prakash
20.04.2015
Statement of Sh. Om Prakash s/o Mukandi Lal, aged-65 yrs., r/o
D-1473, Ground Floor, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
On SA
I am

the defendant in the present case without

admitting the contents of the plaint and without prejudice of my

rights and contentions I state that the plaintiff is in possession of
only second floor forming the part of the suit property bearing
no.D-1473, Ground Floor, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, I shall not
dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law. But I reserve
the right to initiate appropriate action/ proceedings for possession
of the suit property.
RO&AC
(RAJESH
MALIK)
ACJ-cum-CCJARC
North Rohini,
Delhi/20.04.2015

CS No.244/14
Vijay vs. Om Prakash
20.04.2015
Present:

Petitioner is represented by Sh. Roshal Lal, advocate.

Respondent in person with counsel Sh. A.H. Pasha.
Respondent submits that he shall not dispossess the

plaintiff without due process of law. His statement has been

recorded separately.
In view of his statement, present suit is disposed off as
settled.
File be consigned to record-room.
(RAJESH
MALIK)
ACJ-cum-CCJARC
North Rohini,
Delhi/20.04.2015

E. No.131/2010
N.K. Bajaj Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mishra
20.04.2015
Present:

Petitioner in person with counsel Sh. Rajan

Bhatia.
Wife of respondent is represented by counsel Sh.
Harish
Chander.
PW1 has been further cross-examined and
discharged. No other PW is present.
Let reply to the application u/s 15(7) DRC Act be
filed with copy to the opposite party.
Put up for further reply and arguments and as
well as for further PE on 01-06-15.
(RAJESH
MALIK)
ACJ-cum-CCJARC
North Rohini,
Delhi/20.04.2015

E. No.115/2012
N.K. Bajaj Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mishra
20.04.2015
Present:

Petitioner in person with counsel Sh. Rajan

Bhatia.
Wife of respondent is represented by counsel Sh.
Harish
Chander.
Put up with connected case on 01-06-15.
(RAJESH
MALIK)
ACJ-cum-CCJARC
North Rohini,
Delhi/20.04.2015

CS No.108/14
Sunil Onkar Grover etc.
vs.
Aditi Grover etc.
20.04.2015
Present:

Plaintiff is represented by Mr. K.V.S Gupta.

Respondent no.1 is represented by counsel Sh.

Md. Kanwar
Respondent no.2 is represented by counsel
Sh.N.K. Bhambri
At the very outset, Ld. Counsel for respondent
no.1 states that he has got instructions from the owner of the car
i.e. mother of respondent no.1 that she is not ready to receive the
car as

the criminal proceedings are going on before Nodia

Authorities. Hearing this, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff states that earlier
on 09-03-15 mother of respondent no.1 stated before the Court
that they were ready to receive the car if the same was brought in
the court and today counsel for respondent no.1 is retracting from
what has been told by the mother of respondent no.1. Ld. Counsel
for respondent no.1 states that present application to hand over
the Audi car to the mother of the respondent no. 1 does not come
within the purview of the present suit as the present suit has been
filed only for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property
qua the respondent no.1 and 2 only and owner of the car has not
been impleaded as the party in the present case.
-2-

In view of the submissions of both the parties, it is

observed here that returning of car is not a subject matter before
this Court. The present application was filed to which mother of the
respondent no.1 showed her willingness to receive but now she
has not come forward and counsel for respondent no.1 are not
willing to accept the car in view of the investigation pending before
the Noida police. Since, the application does not fall within the
ambit of the present case, accordingly, the same needs not be
entertained and stands disposed of.
Last and final opportunity is given to the plaintiff to file
replication with advance copy to the opposite side for 09-07-15.
(RAJESH MALIK)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-ARC
North Rohini, Delhi/20.04.2015