List New2.ASP

CivilSuitNo:338/11
GiteshNayyarVsAmarSharma
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforpartiesdespiterepeatedcalls.
In the interest of justice no adverse orders are being
passedagainstanyofthepartiesinviewofthefactthat lawyersare
abstainingfromworktoday.
Putupforfinalargumentson20.05.2015at2.30pm.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilJudge(SW)/DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi/11.05.2015(mk)
ExecutionNo:59/13
L&TFinanceLtdVSSanjayKumar&Another
11.05.2015
StatementofShriAmitGuptaS/oLateShriSPGupta,Age38
years,R/oBG24,ShivaEnclaveA4,PaschimVihar,NewDelhi.
ARoftheDecreeholder.EmployeeCodeNo.20037569issuedby
L&TFinanceLtd.
OnSA
IamARfordecreeholderinthepresentexecutionpetitionand
Ihavebeenauthorisedtomakestatementonbehalfofdecreeholder.
CopyofmyidentitycardisExP1.IhavedirectionsfromtheDecree
Holdertowithdrawthepresentexecutionpetitionasallclaimsofthe
petitionintermsofArbitrationAwarddated25.06.2012passedbyLd
SoleArbitratorShriM.SankaraNarayananinArbitrationproceedings
No.RPD/ARB/5948of2012havebeensatisfiedbyJudgmentDebtors.
Imaybeallowedtowithdrawthepresentexecutionpetitionagainst
theJudgmentDebtorsandthesamemaybedisposedofastheaward
has already been satisfied. I shall remain bound by my aforesaid
statement.
RO&AC
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
ExecutionNo:59/13
L&TFinanceLtdVSSanjayKumar&Another
11.05.2015
Atrequest,filetakenupat12.45pm.
Present:
Sh.AmitGupta,ARofDecreeHoldercompany.
JudgmentDebtorno.2inperson.
ItissubmittedbyARofdecreeholdercompanythathe
has instructions from the Decree Holder companytowithdrawthe

presentexecutionpetitionagainstJudgmentDebtorssinceallclaims
ofpetitionerintermsofArbitrationAwarddated25.06.2012passed
by Ld Sole Arbitrator Shri M. Sankara Narayanan in Arbitration
proceedings No.RPD/ARB/5948 of 2012 have been satisfied by
Judgment Debtors. Separate statement of AR of decree holder
companyhasbeenrecordedinthisregard.InviewofstatementofAR
of Decree Holder company, present execution petition is hereby
disposedofassatisfied. Filebeconsignedtorecordroomafterdue
compliance.
(ArunKumarGarg)
ExecutionNo:72/13
L&TFinanceLtdVsVinodKumar
11.05.2015
StatementofShriAmitGuptaS/oLateShriSPGupta,Age38
years,R/oBG24,ShivaEnclaveA4,PaschimVihar,NewDelhi.
ARoftheDecreeholder.EmployeeCodeNo.20037569issuedby
L&TFinanceLtd.
OnSA
I am AR for decree holder in the present execution
petitionandIhavebeenauthorisedtomakestatementonbehalfof
decreeholder.CopyofmyidentitycardisExP1.Ihavedirections
fromtheDecreeHoldertowithdrawthepresentexecutionpetitionas
allclaimsintermsofArbitrationawarddated30.04.2013passedby
Ld Sole Arbitrator Shri Manoj B Dalvi in Arbitration proceedings
No.RPD/ARB/8039/LOT6/69 of 2013 have been satisfied by the
Judgment Debtors. I may be allowed to withdraw the present
executionpetitionagainsttheJudgmentDebtorsandthesamemaybe
disposedofastheawardhasalreadybeensatisfied.Ishallremain
boundbymyaforesaidstatement.
RO&AC
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
ExecutionNo:72/13
L&TFinanceLtdVsVinodKumar&Another
11.05.2015
Atrequest,filetakenupat12.45pm.
Present:
Sh.AmitGupta,ARofDecreeHoldercompany.
ItissubmittedbyARofdecreeholdercompanythathe
has instructions from the Decree Holder companytowithdrawthe

presentexecutionpetitionagainstJudgmentDebtorssinceallclaims
ofpetitionerintermsofArbitrationAwarddated30.04.2013passed
byLdSoleArbitratorShriManojBDalviinArbitrationproceedings
No.RPD/ARB/8039/LOT6/69 of 2013 have been satisfied by
Judgment Debtors. Separate statement of AR of decree holder
companyhasbeenrecordedinthisregard.InviewofstatementofAR
of Decree Holder company, present execution petition is hereby
disposedofassatisfied. Filebeconsignedtorecordroomafterdue
compliance.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:413/11
ShobhNathVsSheetlaPrashad
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Defendantinperson.
Ajointrequestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalf
ofpartiesonthegroundthattheircounselsarenotavailabletodayas
lawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.
Atjointrequest,putupforentireDEon06.07.2015at
11.00am.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:161/11
RajinderKumarSabharwal&AnotherVsPradeepKumar&Another.
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforplaintiff.
Defendantshavealreadybeenproceededexparte.
passedagainsttheplaintiffaslawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.
Put up for appearance of plaintiff and for further
proceedingsintermsofpreviousorderon20.05.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:10/14
SatyapalSinghVsRajKumar
11.05.2015
Present:
Nonefortheplaintiff.
Processnotissuedsincestepsintermsofpreviousorder
havenotbeentakenbytheplaintiff.Aperusaloffileshowsthaton
lastdateofhearingalsostepsforissuanceofsummonsofsuittothe
defendanthadnotbeentakenbytheplaintiff.Itseemsthatplaintiff
isnotinterestedinprosecutionofthepresentsuit.Accordingly,the
presentsuitisherebydismissedindefaultfornonprosecution.With
the dismissal of the suit all the pending applications, if any, have
becomeinfructuousandthesameareaccordinglydismissed.
Filebeconsignedtorecordroomafterduecompliance.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:739/11
SmtPramilaBajaj&AnotherVsTheChairman&ManagingDirector
I.G.L.,NewDelhi
11.05.2015
Present:
None.
No adverse orders are being passed against either of
partiessincelawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.
Put up for appearance of all parties and for further
proceedingsintermsofpreviousorderon04.06.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015 (mk)
Misc.No:689/13
ShehnaazVSMehraz&Ors
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforapplicant.
Respondentno.1inperson.
Arequestforadjournmentmadeonbehalfofrespondent
no.1onthegroundthathiscounselisnotavailabletodayaslawyers
areabstainingfromworktoday.Inviewofaforesaidsubmission,no
adverseordersarebeingpassedagainsttheapplicantalso.Putupfor
appearanceofapplicantandforfurtherproceedingson03.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:190/14
SubhashChandGuptaVsDayanand
11.05.2015
Present:
Proxycounselfordefendant.
passed againsttheplaintiffsincelawyersareabstainingfromwork
today.Putupforappearanceofplaintiffandforfurtherproceedingsin
termsofpreviousorderon07.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:42/15
MsBhartiAggarwalVsJointRegistrar
11.05.2015
Present:
Nonefordefendant.
Written statement along with certain documents has
alreadybeenfiledonbehalfofdefendanton01.05.2015.Sameistaken
onrecord.However,nonehasappearedonbehalfofanyoftheparties.
Sincelawyersareabstainingfromworktodaynoadverseordersare
beingpassedagainsteitherofparties.
Put up for appearance of both parties and for further
proceedingson07.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:68/15
BalramAggarwalVSRakeshMalik
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Anapplicationhasbeenmovedonbehalfofplaintifffor
releaseofcertifiedcopyoforderandstatementinsuitno.2027/14on
20.04.2015.However,arequestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeon
behalfofplaintiffonthegroundthathiscounselisnotavailabletoday
sincelawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.
Athisrequest,putupforconsiderationon01.06.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:69/15
BalwanAggarwalVsRochakPahwa
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Nonefordefendant.
Summons sent through process Serving Agency have
beenreceivedbackunservedwhereasreportonsummonssentthrough
registeredADhasyetnotbeenreceivedback.Beawaitedforreporton
summons sent through registered AD. In the meantime, let fresh
summonsofsuitintermsofpreviousorderbeissuedtodefendanton
filingoffreshPFandRCalongwithcopyofplaintanddocuments
within7daysfromtodayfor13.07.2015.
Putupforfurtherproceedingson13.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:73/15
NareshSharmaVsSumanSharma
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Nonefordefendant.
Processintermsofpreviousorderhasnotbeenissued
sincestepsforserviceofsummonsofthesuithavenotbeentakenby
theplaintiff.Lastandfinalopportunityisgiventoplaintifftotake
stepsintermsofpreviousorderforserviceofsummonsfailingwhich
present suit shall be dismissed in default for non prosecution. Let
previousorderbecompliedwithafreshfor15.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:508/13
SmtGyanDeviVsAjitSoni
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Defendantinperson.
Ajointrequestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalf
ofpartiesonthegroundthattheircounselsarenotavailabletodayas
lawyers are abstaining from work today. Accordingly, put up for
purposealreadyfixedon13.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:566/13
BijenderSinghVsRamphal&Another
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Defendantno.1inperson.
Nonefordefendantno.2.
Arequestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalfof
plaintiffonthegroundthathehascometoknowyesterdaythathis
counselhasexpired.Heseekstimetoengageanewcounsel.Onthe
otherhand,itissubmittedbydefendantno.1thathiscounselisalso
notavailabletodayaslawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.
Putupforfurtherproceedingsintermsofpreviousorder
on13.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
CivilSuitNo:271/14
M/sInextLogistics&SupplyChainVs.SagarIndustries
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforplaintiff.
Nonefordefendant.
passedtodayagainstanyofthepartiessincelawyersareabstaining
fromwork.Putupforappearanceofboththepartiesandforfurther
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
CivilSuitNo:270/14
M/sInextLogistics&SupplyChainVs.UdayTiwari
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforplaintiff.
Nonefordefendant.
passedtodayagainstanyofthepartiessincelawyersareabstaining
fromwork.Putupforappearanceofboththepartiesandforfurther
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
CivilSuitNo:625/13
ShehnazVs.Mehraaj&Ors.
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforplaintiff.
Defendantno.1inperson.
Requestforadjournmentmadeonbehalfofdefendantno.
1onthegroundthathiscounselisnotavailabletodayaslawyersare
abstaining from work. In view of the aforesaid submissions, no
adverseorderarebeingpassedtodayevenagainsttheplaintiff.Putup
forappearanceofallthepartiesandforfurtherproceedingsinterms
ofpreviousorderon03.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
CivilSuitNo:180/14
SandeepKaurVs.BaldevSingh&Ors.
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforplaintiff.
Intheinterestofjusticenoadverseorderarebeingpassed
fortodaysincelawyersareabstainingfromwork.Putupforpurpose
alreadyfixedon06.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
CivilSuitNo:583/13
Sunita&Ors.Vs.DayaNand&Ors.
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffno.1inperson.Plaintiffno.1isalso
representingplaintiffnos.2&3asnextbestfriend.
Nonefordefendant.
NoticeofapplicationunderOrder1Rule10(2)&(4)and
under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC sent to the
defendantno.5hasbeenreceivedbackdulyservedwhereasnotice
senttodefendantnos.2,3&4havebeenreceivedbackunservedwith
thereportthatdefendantnos.2,3&4arenotbeenresidingonthe
addressesmentionedinthenotice.Noticetodefendantno.6hasbeen
receivedbackwiththereportofrefusalbymotherofdefendantno.6.
Accordingly, the same is deemed to have been duly served upon
defendantno.6.Plaintiffisdirectedtotakefreshstepsforserviceof
noticeupondefendantno.2,3&4byfilingPFandRCalongwith
freshaddressofdefendantnos.2,3&4withinsevendaysfromtoday
for the next date of hearing. Put up for further proceedings on
09.07.2015.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
CivilSuitNo:23/15
UmedSingh&Anrs.Vs.BSESRajdhaniPowerLtd.&Anothers.
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffnos.2&4inperson.
Sh.Mahesh,SeniorManagerandSh.N.Choudhury,
DeputyGeneralManageronbehalfofdefendantno.1
withLd.CounselSh.PratyushParimal.
Requestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalfofthe
plaintiffsonthegroundthattheircounselisnotavailabletodayas
lawyersareabstainingfromwork.
On the other hand, counsel for defendant no. 1 has
pressed for passing of appropriate orders on the application of
defendantno.1underSection151CPCforearlyhearingofthecaseas
wellasanotherapplicationunderSection151CPCseekingpermission
ofthecourttoenergizeundergroundcableandforremovingofover
headelectricwirewhichareindisputeinthepresentcase.
Noticeofboththeaforesaidapplicationshasalreadybeen
servedupontheplaintiffson18.04.2015throughcounsel.However,
CivilSuitNo:23/15
UmedSingh&Ors.Vs.BSESRajdhaniPower&Anr.
Pageno.02of10
noreplytotheaforesaidapplicationshasbeenfiledonbehalfofthe
plaintiffstilltoday.Itissubmittedbycounselfordefendantno.1that
defendant no. 1 may be permitted by the court to energize the
undergroundcablelaiddownbythedefendantno.1andtoremovethe
overheadelectricwireswhichareindisputeinthepresentcaseinas
muchasduetodelayinenergizationoftheaforesaidunderground
line, work of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) has been
hamperedandstoppedbecausetheundergroundcablehasbeenlaid
down by the defendant no. 1 at the request of DMRC since the
overhead wires were coming in the way of Dwarka Najafgarh
Corridor,PhaseIIIofDelhiMetro.
Ithasbeensubmittedintheaforesaidapplicationthatdefendant
no.1hasalreadyobtainedclearancesfromtheElectricalInspector
under the provisions of Central Electrical Authority (Measures
Relating to Safety and Electrical Supply) Regulation, 2010 on
07.04.2015andassuchthereisnohindranceinthewayofthiscourt
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.03of10
ingivingpermissionforenergizationofundergroundcableandfor
removalofoverheadwires.Ithasfurtherbeensubmittedonbehalfof
defendantno.1thattheentireworkoflayingdowntheunderground
cablehasbeencarriedoutbydefendantno.1strictlyasperthesafety
specificationsandasperrulesandregulationslaiddownunderthe
various laws of land including the Indian Electricity Act, 1948.
AssistantVicePresidentofthedefendantno.1companyhasalready
filedanaffidavitbeforethiscourtthatdefendantno.1companyis
carryingouttheentireworkofcableasperthesaidspecifications.
It has been alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs that there are
certainirregularitiesintheworkdonebythedefendantno.1andthey
have already obtained an opinion from one Executive Engineer
(Electrical)inthisregard.Whentheplaintiffswereaskedtocallthe
said Executive Engineer in the court for clarifying the alleged
irregularitiesortosubmitthesaidopinioninwritinginthecourtwith
reasons,itissubmittedbythemthatthesaidExecutiveEngineerhas
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.04of10
refusedtocometothecourtinordertogivehisopinionregardingthe
irregularities/deficienciesintheworkcarriedoutbydefendantno.1.
Nosuchopinionhasbeenfiledonbehalfoftheplaintiffstilltoday
despitethefactthatnoticeofaforesaidapplicationwasservedupon
themwaybackin18.04.2015.
Ihaveheardthesubmissionsmadeonbehalfofthepartiesand
have perused the record. The present suit has been filed by the
plaintiffs against defendant no. 1 seeking a decree of mandatory
injunction against defendant no. 1 directing it to remove the
undergroundcableslaidbytheminGalino.3,RanajiEnclave,New
Delhiandtolaythesaidundergroundcablesonanalternateroute
suggestedbytheplaintiff. Theplaintiffshavefurtherprayedfora
decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
connectingtheundergroundcablesinthelineoverthetowersituated
adjacenttoGalino.3,RanajiEnclave,NewDelhi.
Caseoftheplaintiffasperplaintisthatthereisexisting66KV
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.05of10
HT overhead power supply/ line which is passing over the houses

situatedinNangliVihar,RanajiEnclave,NewDelhi. ThesaidHT
lineiscomingfromthesideofGalino.3aswellascrossingthemain
NajafgarhRoadtowardsNajafgarhDrain.However,inthemonthof
December 2014 some labourers representing themselves as the
employeesofdefendantno.1starteddiggingworkintheGalino.3
approaching from main road to Ranaji Enclave which is near the
residencesoftheplaintiffnos.1to3andofficeofplaintiffno.4.The
saidgali,accordingtotheplaintiffs,is8ft.wideandtheplaintiffs
havecometoknowthatdefendantno.1hasplannedthatafterremoval
of overhead wires they would connect both the towers with tower
installedinNorthEastsideofmainNajafgarhRoadandthetowers
installed in Ranaji Enclave installed in above narrow gali through
undergroundcables.Accordingtotheplaintiffs,theaforesaidwork
wasbeingcarriedoutbydefendantno.1withoutcomplyingwiththe
applicablesafetyguidelinesandnorms.Thustheplaintiffshadfiled
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.06of10
thepresentsuitformandatoryaswellaspermanentinjunctionagainst
defendant no. 1. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiffs have filed an
applicationunderOrder39Rules1&2CPCseekinganexpartead
interiminjunctionagainstdefendantno.1fromconnectingtheunder
groundcablestothetowerssituatedadjacenttoGalino.3.
InitiallytheSHO,PSNajafgarhwasalsomadeapartytothe
presentsuit. Summonsofthepresentsuitalongwithnoticeofthe
accompanying application was accordingly served upon both the
defendantsandsubsequentlyon11.02.2015,suitquadefendantno.2
wasdismissedaswithdrawn.However,onthesameday,theplaintiffs
havepressedforpassingofappropriateorderofadinteriminjunction
against defendant no. 1, in view of submissions made in their
application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. On the basis of
submissionsmadeonbehalfofboththeparties,thiscourthaspassed
anorderdirectingthedefendantno.1tomaintainstatusquoinrespect
ofworkwhichwasbeingcarriedoutbydefendantno.1inGalino.3
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.07of10
videorderdated11.02.2015. Subsequentlyon16.02.2015,thestatus
quoorderwasvacatedbythiscourtaftertheAssistantVicePresident
of defendant no. 1 company had filed an affidavit stating that
defendantno.1companywascarryingouttheentireworkoflaying
thecablesinthedisputedsiteasperspecificationsandasperallrules
and regulations laid down under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and
Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Defendant no. 1 has further
undertakentocomplywithallthesaidnormstillthetimetheworkis
completed on the disputed site. Defendant no. 1 has further
undertakennottoenergizethelineaftercompletionofworkwithout
permissionofthecourtinadditiontoalltherequisitepermissions/
clearancesasperElectricityActandRulesandotherrelevantlaws.
According to the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 has
already carried out the entire work pertaining to laying down of
undergroundcablesinGalino.3aspertherelevantspecifications/
norms.Defendantno.1hasfurtherannexedthecopyofapproval
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.08of10
dated07.04.2015fromtheElectricalInspectorundertheprovisionsof
CentralElectricalAuthority(measuresrelatingtosafetyandelectrical
supply)Regulation2010 wherebytheElectricalInspectorhasgiven
no objection for energization of aforesaid underground line. The
applicationseekingpermissionisalsoaccompaniedbyanapplication
forurgenthearinginthematter. Ithasbeensubmittedonbehalfof
defendantno.1thatdefendantno.1cannotwaitforenergizationof
theaforesaidlinesincetheaforesaidundergroundlinehasbeenlaid
downbydefendantno.1attherequestofDMRCandforwantof
energizationoftheaforesaidline,theoverheadwirescomeintheway
ofDwarkaNajafgarhCorridorofDMRCcouldnotberemovedandas
such theentirework ofDMRCofDwarkaNajafgarhCorridorhas
beenhamperedandstopped.Inviewoftheaforesaidsubmission,in
myconsideredopinion,theapplicationseekingenergizationofthe66
KVundergroundlinelaiddownbydefendantno.1requiresanurgent
hearingandassuchtheapplicationseekingpermissionfor
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.09of10
energizationoftheaforesaidlineistakenupfordisposaltodayitself.
As has already been observed, Assistant Vice President of
defendantno.1hasalreadygivenanaffidavitbeforethecourtthatthe
entireworkisbeingcarriedoutbydefendantno.1strictlyasperthe
safetyrulesandundervariouslawsapplicabletothemincludingthe
ElectricityAct,1948. Theapplicationisdulyaccompaniedwiththe
approvaldated07.04.2015issuedbytheElectricalInspectorunderthe
provisionsofCentralElectricityAuthority(measuresrelatingtosafety
andelectricsupply)Regulation2010whohasconductedasurveyon
06.04.2015 and had given his no objection for energization of the
undergroundline.Noreplytotheaforesaidapplicationhasbeenfiled
onbehalfoftheplaintiffsdespiterepeatedopportunities.Assuchthe
defendantno.1isherebypermittedtoremovetheoverheadelectric
wireswhich arein disputeinthepresent caseandtoenergizethe
undergroundlinelaiddownbydefendantno.1subjecttoitsobtaining
allnecessarypermissions/clearancesasperElectricityActandRules
CivilSuitNo:23/15
Pageno.10of10
andotherrelevantlaws.CompetentAuthoritieswhileconsideringthe
requestofdefendantno.1forgrantofpermission/clearancesunder
theaforesaidActandrulesandotherrelevantlawsshallbefreetogive
the requisite permission/ clearances or to refuse the same as per
applicable laws and rules without being influenced by any
observationsmadebythiscourt.
Boththeapplicationsofdefendantno.1underSection151CPC
areaccordinglydisposedoff. Putupforfurtherproceedingsonthe
datealreadyfixedi.e.18.05.2015.CopyofthisorderbegivenDastito
boththeparties.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
CivilSuitNo:72/15
NehaAroraVs.Mora@HarminderKaur
11.05.2015
Present:
PlaintiffinpersonwithLd.Counsel.
DefendantinpersonwithLd.Counsel.
Written statement tothesuit of the plaintiff alongwith
replytotheapplicationunderOrder39Rules1&2readwithSection
151 CPC has already been filed on behalf of the defendant on
07.05.2015.Advancecopyofthesamehasalreadybeensuppliedto
counselforplaintiffon08.05.2015. Itissubmittedbycounsel for
defendantthatthepresentsuitoftheplaintiffisliabletobedismissed
sincetheplaintiffhasnotcomewithcleanhandsinasmuchasunder
thegarbofpresentsuit,theplaintiffistryingtocontinuewiththe
illegal activities which are being carried out by her in the suit
property.Itisfurthersubmittedbycounselfordefendantthattheex
parteinterimorderpassedbythiscourtisliabletobevacatedinas
muchastheplaintiffhasfailedtocomplywiththerequirementsof
Order39Rule3CPC,1908.Accordingtohim,thedefendanthas
CivilSuitNo:72/15
Pageno.02of05
cometoknowabouttheexparteinjunctionorderagainstherthrough
the Local Commissioner on 10.04.2015 whereas it was incumbent
upon the plaintiff to serve the copy of order within 24 hours of
passingofthesamebythiscourt.Itisfurthersubmittedonbehalfof
thedefendantthattheplaintiffhasfailedtopaytherentinrespectof
thesuitpropertywitheffectfromFebruary2015whereaselectricity
billshavenotbeenpaidbytheplaintifftotheBSESsinceDecember
2014.
Ontheotherhand,itissubmittedbythecounselforplaintiff
thathehasalreadycompliedwiththerequirementsofOrder39Rule3
CPC in as much as a notice alongwith copy of order, plaint and
documents was duly dispatched by the plaintiff to the defendant
throughspeedpostwithin24hoursofthepassingoftheaforesaid
order by this court. Even otherwise, according to the counsel for
plaintiff,thedefendanthasalreadycometoknowaboutpassingofthe
aforesaid order since the copy of the aforesaid order was duly
deliveredbytheLocalCommissionertothedefendantonthesame
CivilSuitNo:72/15
Pageno.03of05
dayi.e.on10.04.2015. Itisfurthersubmittedbytheplaintiffthat
plaintiffhasregularlypaidtherentinrespectofthesuitpropertyto
thedefendanttillApril2015andonlyrentforthemonthofMay2015
isoutstandingandthattoobecausethedefendanthasrefusedtoaccept
thesame.
Ihaveheardthesubmissionsmadeonbehalfofthepartiesand
havealsoperusedtherecord. Inmyconsideredopinion,noground
hasbeenmadeoutatthisstageforvacationofthestayorderinterms
ofOrder39Rule3CPC.However,inviewofthefactthatadmittedly
therentforthemonthofMay2015hasnotbeenpaidbytheplaintiff
tothedefendanttilltoday,plaintiffisdirectedtopaythesametothe
defendant today itself. At the request of the plaintiff, put up for
paymentoftherentforthemonthofMay2015at02:00pm.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
CivilSuitNo:72/15
Pageno.04of05
Calledagain
Present:
Counselforplaintiff.
Defendantinpersonwithcounsel.
Counselforplaintiffseekspassover.Athisrequest,put
upagainat03:15pm.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)
Calledagain
Present:
Noneforplaintiffdespiterepeatedcalls.
Defendantinpersonwithcounsel.
Inthemorning,plaintiffwasdirectedtopaytherentfor
the month of May 2015 to the defendant till 02:00 pm, however,
thereafter,thematterhasbeencalledseveraltimesbuttheplaintiffhas
failedtoappearandtopaytherent. Itissubmittedbycounselfor
defendant that the BSES has already disconnected the electricity
connectionoftheplaintifftodayitselfonaccountofnonpaymentof
electricitychargesbytheplaintifftotheBSESsinceDecember2014.
Intheinterestofjusticenoadverseorderarebeingpassedtoday
CivilSuitNo:72/15
Pageno.05of05
against the plaintiff and the matter is adjourned for appearance of

plaintiff and for payment of rent for the month of May 2015 to
14.05.2015,subjecttoadjournmentcostofRs.2000/tobepaidbythe
plaintifftothedefendant.
(ArunKumarGarg)
NewDelhi/11.05.2015
(akn)

List New2.ASP

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

List New2.ASP

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CivilSuitNo:338/11

has instructions from the Decree Holder companytowithdrawthe

has instructions from the Decree Holder companytowithdrawthe

HT overhead power supply/ line which is passing over the houses

against the plaintiff and the matter is adjourned for appearance of

Potrebbero piacerti anche