List New2.ASP

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.



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.



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.



12

Ex.No.31/14NandLalvsIshwarSingh

15.05.2015

Present: DHinperson.

Issuefreshwarrantsofattachmentagainstmovablepropertyof

theJDonPFandlistofgoodsbeingfiled.LetDHappearbeforeLd.ACJon

25.05.2015andreporttothecourton05.06.2015.



13

Ex.No.32/14SBIvsHariKantSharma

15.05.2015

Present: Sh.A.K.Diwedi,ProxycounselforDH.

TheDHdidnotappearformarkingoftheballif.

Issuefreshwarrantsofattachmentagainstmovablepropertyof

theJDonPFandlistofgoodsbeingfiled.LetDHappearbeforeLd.ACJon

25.05.2015andreporttothecourton05.06.2015.



14

Ex.No.42/14VikramSinghvsKuldeepShokeen

15.05.2015

Present: NoneforDH.

Asperreportonthepreviouswarrantsofattachment,theJDis

incustody.

DHisatlibertytoclarifyregardingfurthermodeofexecution.

Liston31.07.2015.



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.



16

Ex.No.22/15M/sIndiabullsHousingFinanceLtdvsRudregowda&Anr.

15.05.2015

Present: Sh.RajeshJangra,CounselforDH.



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.



18

CSNo.56/14SBIvsBijayaKumarRout&Anr.

15.05.2015

Present: Sh.NavneetKumar,Counselforplaintiff.

DefendantNo.1alsoappearingfordefendantNo.2alongwith

CounselSh.SameerSharmaforbothdefendants.

Vakalatnamahasbeenfiledbycounselfordefendants.

Onjointsubmissions,partiesarereferredtomediationcentrefor

30.05.2015anddirectedtoreporttothiscourtinthepostlunchsessiononthe

sameday.



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.



20

ShakuntlaBali@ShakuntlaBakshivsSatishKumar@SatishGupta

15.05.2015

Freshexecutionfiled.Itbecheckedandregistered.

Present: CounselforDH.

Nazirtoreporton22.05.2015.



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.



22

SUMANGUMBER&ANRVSANUJPAWAR

15.05.2015


Present: Ms.PriyankaDagar,Counselforplaintiff.

IssuesummonsforsettlementofissuesonfilingofPF&RCfor

06.06.2015.



23

KARAMBIRSINGHVSMURARICANSAL&ANR.

15.05.2015


Present: Ms.PriyankaDagar,Counselforplaintiff.



27.05.2015.



24

CSNo.SATNARAYANVSSONU

15.05.2015


Present: Counselforplaintiff.



30.05.2015.



25

VIJENDERMEHRAVSRAJWANTI&ORS.

15.05.2015


Present: Sh.VishwajeetYadav,ProxycounselforSh.PraveenKumarSingh,Counselforplaintiff.

Sincemaincounselisnotpresent,adjournforconsiderationto

20.05.2015.



26



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.



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.



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.



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.



32

CS/282/2014

15.05.2015

Present: PlaintiffwithcounselSh.LalitOhlan.

Sh.ArvindSaraswat,counselfordefendantno.1.

Ms.Jahnvi, counsel for defendant no.2 alongwith


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.



33

CS/56/2015

15.05.2015

Present: Sh.NishanChaudhary,whostateshimselftobethe

nephewofplaintiff.

Appearancehasbeenfiledbythedefendant.

Plaintiffisatlibertytofileforsummonsforjudgment.

Listagainon22.07.2015.



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.



35

CS/347/2011

15.05.2015

Present: Sh.DhruvMalik,counselforplaintiff.

Defendantno.1withcounselSh.M.K.Chaurasiya.

Sh.VijayDagar,proxycounselfordefendantno.2alongwith


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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



42

CS/224/2014

15.05.2015

Present: Sh.S.K.Solanki,counselforplaintiff.

Sh.Parikshit,JLOfordefendantno.1(DDA).


Thematterislistedtodayonlyforargumentsonbehalfofdefendant

no.2ontheapplicationunderorder39rule1and2CPCasargumentshave

previouslybeenheardonbehalfoftheplaintiffanddefendantno.1.

Beawaited.



12.00noon

Present: Sh.S.K.Solanki,counselforplaintiff.

Sh.Parikshit,JLOfordefendantno.1(DDA).


Beawaited.


DwarkaCourts New Delhi

2.30p.m.

Present:Noneforplaintiff.


Sh.VinayKumar,counselfordefendantno.2.

Argumentsheardonbehalfofdefendantno.2.

Putupforordersat4.00p.m.



43

CSNo.224/14

At4.00p.m.

Present: None

Vide separate order of even date, the application of

plaintiffsunderorder39rule1and2CPCisdismissed.

Putupforframingofissueson24.07.2015.



Documents

List New2.ASP