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 oftheplaintiffs,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.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs, relying on the plaint,

submitted that after the land of Inder Singh, measuring 65 bighas 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

whereas 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 65 bighas 4 biswas had been
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
alternateplotonaccountof circular dated30.01.1987whichrequired
possessionoflandtotheextentof80%oftheacquiredlandtobetaken
overbeforegrantofanalternateplot. Further,thatthepetitionershad
evenfailedtofileanysaledeedinfavourofthepurportedpurchasersof
thelandmeasuring51bighaand11biswas.
8.

TheDDAvizdefendantNo.2statedonitspartthatithadnot

allottedanyalternateplottotheplaintiffsasnorecommendationletter
hadbeenreceivedfromdefendantNo.2.
9.
record.

The court has considered the pleadings and documents on

10.

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.

12.

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

suitisforamandatoryinjunctiontothedefendantstoallotaresidential
plot to the plaintiff. The prayer in the interim application 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 aninterimmandatoryinjunctioncan begrantedonlyto
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 the grant of
interimmandatoryinjunctiondoesnotonlyconfineto
restorethestatusquoofthelastcontestedstatus.The
ApexCourtinthesaidjudgmentfurtherobservedthat
beingessentiallyanequitablereliefthegrantorrefusal
CS(OS)No.2795/2011Page17of32ofaninterlocutory
mandatoryinjunctionshallultimatelyrestonthesound
judicialdiscretionoftheCourttobeexercisedinthe
lightofthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.The

Court also observed that there may exist exceptional

circumstancesforthegrantorrefusalofsuchinjunction
anditwouldultimatelydependonthefactsofeachcase
for the Court 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
havean absolute right to the allotmentof alternative
plotoflandforresidentialpurposes,andthatsucha
personisonlyeligibletobeconsideredforallotmentof
aplot,subjecttocertainconditions.

20.

Since the applicant i.e. the father of the plaintiffs did not

possessanabsoluteorvestedrightforallotmentofanalternativeplot,
thatdoesnotexistaprimafaciecaseforgrantofthesamereliefbyway
of an interim injunction.An interlocutoryinjunctionis granted upon
equitableconsiderationsandisamatterofdiscretion.Suchdiscretion
cannotbeexercisedinfavouroftheplaintiffsintheabsenceofaprima
faciecase.Themeritsoftherejectionvideletterdated09.07.2013would
beasubjectoftrial.Intheinterim,theplaintiffscannotbeaccordedthe
benefitofanalternativeplotbeingsetaside.
21.

Thebalanceofconvenienceintheabovescenariodoesnotlie

with the plaintiffs as no mischief is caused to them by denial 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/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

CSNo.41/15
AnubhavKaushalvsCommodreRajivSharma
15.05.2015
Present:

Sh.RajeshKumarVats,Proxycounselforplaintiff.
Sh.N.K.Aggarwal,Counselfordefendant.
WShasbeenfiledalongwithanapplicationunderOrder7Rule

11CPCbythedefendant.Copysupplied.
PutupforreplyandargumentsontheapplicationunderOrder7
Rule11CPCon09.07.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

10

Ex.No.27/14
SarojDevivsMaheshwariParsad&Anr.
15.05.2015
Present:

DHwithcounselSh.A.Alam.
Noneforobjector.
Beawaited.

Present:

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST

DHwithcounselSh.A.Alam.
Sh.ArvindKumar,counselforobjector.
On joint submissions, put up for further arguments on

20.05.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

11

Ex.No.98/13
DalipKhatrivsGopalTiwari
15.05.2015
Present:

Sh.AnkitDixit,CounselforDH.
FreshaddressesofJDhavebeenfiled. Issuefreshwarrantsof

attachmentagainstmovablepropertyoftheJDonthenewaddressesonPF.
Let DH appear before Ld. ACJ on 20.05.2015 and report to the court on
05.06.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

12

Ex.No.31/14
NandLalvsIshwarSingh
15.05.2015
Present:

DHinperson.
Issuefreshwarrantsofattachmentagainstmovablepropertyof

theJDonPFandlistofgoodsbeingfiled.LetDHappearbeforeLd.ACJon
25.05.2015andreporttothecourton05.06.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

13

Ex.No.32/14
SBIvsHariKantSharma
15.05.2015
Present:

Sh.A.K.Diwedi,ProxycounselforDH.
TheDHdidnotappearformarkingoftheballif.
Issuefreshwarrantsofattachmentagainstmovablepropertyof

theJDonPFandlistofgoodsbeingfiled.LetDHappearbeforeLd.ACJon
25.05.2015andreporttothecourton05.06.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

14

Ex.No.42/14
VikramSinghvsKuldeepShokeen
15.05.2015
Present:

NoneforDH.
Asperreportonthepreviouswarrantsofattachment,theJDis

incustody.
DHisatlibertytoclarifyregardingfurthermodeofexecution.
Liston31.07.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

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/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

16

Ex.No.22/15
M/sIndiabullsHousingFinanceLtdvsRudregowda&Anr.
15.05.2015
Present:

Sh.RajeshJangra,CounselforDH.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

17

Ex.No.23/15
M/sIndiabullsHousingFinanceLtdvsAlthafBegh&Ors
15.05.2015
Present:

Sh.RajeshJangra,CounselforDH.
It is seenthat the awardin question inthe presentexecution

petitionisforanamountofRs.9,45,938/whichisbeyondthe pecuniary
jurisdictionofthiscourt.
LetthefilebeputupbeforeLd.District&SessionsCourt,SW,
DwarkaCourtsforappropriateorderson25.05.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

18

CSNo.56/14
SBIvsBijayaKumarRout&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/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

19

CSNo.136/14
SBIvsSuratSingh
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/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

20

ShakuntlaBali@ShakuntlaBakshivsSatishKumar@SatishGupta
15.05.2015
Freshexecutionfiled.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present:

CounselforDH.
Nazirtoreporton22.05.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

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.PC on filing of PF & RC for

23.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

22

SUMANGUMBER&ANRVSANUJPAWAR
15.05.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present:

Ms.PriyankaDagar,Counselforplaintiff.
IssuesummonsforsettlementofissuesonfilingofPF&RCfor

06.06.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

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.PC on filing of PF & RC for

27.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

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.PC on filing of PF & RC for

30.05.2015.

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

25

VIJENDERMEHRAVSRAJWANTI&ORS.
15.05.2015
Freshsuitreceivedbywayofassignment.Itbecheckedandregistered.
Present:

Sh.VishwajeetYadav,ProxycounselforSh.PraveenKumar
Singh,Counselforplaintiff.
Sincemaincounselisnotpresent,adjournforconsiderationto

20.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

26

(VISHALGOGNE)

SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

27

Ex.No.22/15
M/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/NEWDELHI
15.05.2015

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
application discloses five legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.
Theapplicationisnotopposedandisallowed.Recommended
memoofpartiesbefiledbythenextdateofhearing.
Final opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs to file the
replication.
Listforreplicationandframingofissueson10.07.2015.

(VishalGogne)
SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

33

CS/56/2015
15.05.2015
Present:

Sh.NishanChaudhary,whostateshimselftobethe

nephewofplaintiff.
Appearancehasbeenfiledbythedefendant.
Plaintiffisatlibertytofileforsummonsforjudgment.
Listagainon22.07.2015.

(VishalGogne)
SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

34

CS/47/2013
15.05.2015
Present:

Plaintiffinperson.

Defendantinperson.
ThemaincounselforplaintiffSh.O.P.Bhartiisreportedto
beadmittedtothehospitalduetoanailment.
Inviewoftheabovecircumstances,adjournedforfilingof
applicationforamendmentasnotedintheordersheetdated
12.03.2015.
Liston10.07.2015.

(VishalGogne)
SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

39

CS/249/2014
15.05.2015
Present:

Sh.R.K.Solanki, proxy counsel for Sh.Lal Singh

Thakur,counselforplaintiff.
Sh.AnchitSharma, counsel for defendant no.1alongwith
Sh.Parikshit,JLO.
Nonefordefendantno.2.
Defendantno.3hasbeendeletedfromthearrayofparties
on27.11.2014.
The main counsel for plaintiff is reported to be not
availabletoday.
Itisseenthattheld.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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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 view of the above submission, list for arguments on
19.05.2015.
(VishalGogne)
SCJ/RCSouthWest
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi

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
DwarkaCourts
NewDelhi