Matter received by way of transfer. It be checked and

Thomson Press (India) vs. M/s. Khemka Containers Ltd. CS No. 481/16/2002 registered. Matter received by way of transfer. It be checked and None for the plaintiff. Sh. Bhanwar Lal Prajapati, AR of the defendant. Matter is stated to be listed for recording of Defendant's evidence. Since matter pertains to the year 2003 and one of the oldest case received to this court by way of transfer. I deem it necessary for proceeding further in the matter. Accordingly, put up the matter for 12:00 PM awaiting the appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. At 12:00 PM Sh. Sanjeev Sharma Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Bhanwar Lal Prajapati, AR of the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has appeared. However, the counsel for the defendant is not available, considering the fact thta matter has been received by way of transfer and one of the oldest case in this court. Therefore, last opportunity is given for recording D.E. Adjourned to 12.05.2016.

Statement u/o 10 Rule 2 CPC CS No. 18/16 Statement of Sh. Davinder Mehta, s/o Late SH. Satyapal Mehta, Aged About 78 years, R/o A-100, Ground Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi. Without Oath It is correct that plaintiff master Saurav Mehta is my grandson. He is son of my son Dharmender Mehta. My Son Dharmender Mehta is not residing with me as he is beyond my control. My son Dharmender Mehta is residing separately in D-135, Anand Vihar alone. I am residing with my another Son Bhupender Mehta. Besides these two sons I have one daughter namely Nina Pahuja w/o Mahinder Pahuja r/o Vikas Puri, New Delhi. I do not remember the exact address of her matrimonial home. RO & AC

CS No. 18/16 Matter received by transfer from the Hon'ble High Court in view of change in the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of notification no. 10/DHC/Gaz./G1/VI.E.2 (a) /2016 dt.10.3.2016. Sh. S. K. Mathur, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff and his natural guardian. Ms. Babita, Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 2 & 3. None for defendant no. 1 as he has been proceeded Ex-parte. Matter is listed for admission/ denial and settlement of issues, however statement of defendant no. 2 recorded in terms of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks adjournment as he submits that he may move an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the daughter of defendant no. 2 whose name has come in the statement of defendant no. 2. Accordingly, matter is being adjourned to 28.07.2016.

Devki Dev & Ors. vs. Roop Ram & Ors. CS No. 13/16 Sh. Sanobar Ali, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. A. Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for the LR's of defendant no. 1 & 2. Ms. N. Sehar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3. Evidence of D1W3 recorded. Counsel for defendant no. 1 & 2 as well a defendant no. 3 submits that they want to examined one more witness. Last and final opportunity is granted for recording D.E. with the direction to supply the advance copy of the affidavit of the witness to examined, if any. Adjourned for recording of DE on 02.08.2016.

Ramesh Chander Garg vs. Sanjiv Mathur & Ors. CS No. 478/16/05 registered. Matter received by way of transfer. It be checked and Plaintiff in person. Sh. P.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Matter is listed for recording D.E. Already two witnesses have been examined. Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that he wants to examine another witness who are not present, although one witness namely Somvir, Ahlmad from the court of Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld. ASCJ North-West, Rohini is present. He has brought the summoned record for proving certain documents. But since counsel for the defendant is seeking adjournment on the ground that witnesses to be examined are not available. Last and final opportunity is granted for recording of D. E. Witness is bound down for the next date of hearing. Expenses for the witness of Rs. 200/- has been given to the Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. Rajesh Malik. Put up for DE on 02.07.2016.

Savita Oberoi vs. Amarjeet Kaur CS No. 484/16/2008 registered. Matter received by way of transfer. It be checked and Sh. Vivek Sood, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. A. K. Alag, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant no. 1 & 2. None for defendant no. 3. None for proposed defendant no. 4. Matter is listed for appearance of proposed defendant no. 4 after service of notice as well as for filing reply on behalf of other defendants. Since matter is received by way of transfer, let court notice be issued to defendant no. 3 and to the counsel for appearance and filing of reply and arguments on 15.07.2016.

Savita Oberoi vs. Amarjeet Kaur M. No. 17/16/2011 registered. Matter received by way of transfer. It be checked and Sh. Vivek Sood, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. A. K. Alag, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant no. 1 & 2. None for defendant no. 3. None for proposed defendant no. 4. Put up with the connected case on 15.07.2016.

Krishnawanti Bambri vs. Vijay Bansal CS No. 40/16 Sh. Harish Katyal, Ld. Counsel for Ms. Archana one of the LR of plaintiff. Ms. Bharti Basri, Ld. Counsel for the LR no. 3 to 5 of plaintiff. Sh. Vineet Chadda, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Matter is listed for final argument. Earlier suit was partly decreed, however, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court, order dated 24.01.2013, the matter was remanded back and after recording the evidence, it was listed for final arguments. Some arguments have been heard. However, Ld. Counsel for the LR no. 3 to 5 of plaintiff seeks adjournment on the ground that she is not completely prepared with her arguments. Accordingly, last and final opportunity is granted to the lawyers for pressing their arguments. Adjourned to 30.07.2016. Written arguments can also be filed.

Pawan Kumar vs. Shanti Devi RCA No. 37/16/04 and registered. Appeal file received by way of transfer. It be checked Sh. B. D. Saini, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the Appellant. None for respondent no. 1 to 5. Sh. Deepak Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 6 to 8 appeared filed Vakalatnama, same is taken on record. None is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 5. It appears from the record that some order was passed during the pendency of the appeal which has already been challenged in revision before Hon'ble High Court. Since matter has received by way of transfer, let court notice be issued to respondent no.1 to 5 for their appearance and addressing argument. Adjourned to 02.08.2016.

CS No. Matter received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

CS No. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

CS No. Fresh matter received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

CS No. 386/16/11 Sh. Sunny Arora, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff with attorney of Plaintiff Ms. Ruchira Ratan. Sh. Kamlesh Jha, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 & 2. Sh. Ajit Kumar, Postal Assistant for defendant no. 3 & 4. SPA of Ruchira Ratan is placed on record. These are four matters being suit No. 383/16, 384/16, 385/16 and 386/16 (RBT). Two being suits and two being counter claims. In all these matters parties have already settled their dispute in Mediation cell on 10.03.2016. Beside these civil case, there was a criminal case FIR No. 403/04 of PS Anand Vihar and one criminal revision matter pending before Hon'ble High court of UP. The original settlement recorded before mediation cell bearing signatures of all the parties is on record in support of which statement of parties was also recorded on 11.03.16. As per the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that Sanay Sirohi and his family members will file petition for quashing of FIR no. 403/04 before Hon'ble High Court in which complainant / plaintiff herein Dr. Ritu Ratan will cooperate and will give the statement regarding amicable settlement. It has also been agreed that upon quashing of such FIR will be on the petition that entire amount lying with Post Office regarding which the present suits were filed will be released in favour of Dr. Ritu Ratan immediately upon quashing of those criminal proceedings. Similarly, criminal revision arising out of maintenance petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed in UP court will also be withdrawn. As per settlement, it is also agreed between the parties that both plaintiff herein or Sanjay Sirohi will not use the settlement arrived Contd...

-2- between the parties in any social media / cyber sites or in any institution against each other or their family members. It has also been agreed between the parties that defendants will have no objection if any such defamatory material is on social media / cyber sites same may be removed by giving directions in this regard. Since parties have already given the statement in the court, accordingly these proceedings are disposed off on account of settlement recorded, it is been specifically directed to defendant no. 3 and 4 that postal authorities will release the amount lying with them to be released to Dr. Ritu Ratan upon showing the proof of quashing of criminal proceedings by the Hon'ble High Court. Moreover, different social media and cybersites including one Wordpress.com mentioned crime against father website as well as dhananjaysirohi.wordpress.com,misuseofdowrylawinindia.wordpress. com/tag/ritu-ratan/, crimesagainstfathers.com /India /Forums/ tabid/363/forumid/362/postid/2515/scope/posts/default.aspx, misuseofdowrylawinindia.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/commentsmisuse-of-dowry-law/ are also directed to remove any material pertaining to the parties in the present suit as it has been settled between the parties. Accordingly, suit stands disposed off as compromise. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

CS No. 385/16/11 Sh. Sunny Arora, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff with attorney of Plaintiff Ms. Ruchira Ratan. Sh. Kamlesh Jha, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 & 2. Sh. Ajit Kumar, Postal Assistant for defendant no. 3 & 4. SPA of Ruchira Ratan is placed on record. These are four matters being suit No. 383/16, 384/16, 385/16 and 386/16 (RBT). Two being suits and two being counter claims. In all these matters parties have already settled their dispute in Mediation cell on 10.03.2016. Beside these civil case, there was a criminal case FIR No. 403/04 of PS Anand Vihar and one criminal revision matter pending before Hon'ble High court of UP. The original settlement recorded before mediation cell bearing signatures of all the parties is on record in support of which statement of parties was also recorded on 11.03.16. As per the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that Sanay Sirohi and his family members will file petition for quashing of FIR no. 403/04 before Hon'ble High Court in which complainant / plaintiff herein Dr. Ritu Ratan will cooperate and will give the statement regarding amicable settlement. It has also been agreed that upon quashing of such FIR will be on the petition that entire amount lying with Post Office regarding which the present suits were filed will be released in favour of Dr. Ritu Ratan immediately upon quashing of those criminal proceedings. Similarly, criminal revision arising out of maintenance petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed in UP court will also be withdrawn. As per settlement, it is also agreed between the parties that both plaintiff herein or Sanjay Sirohi will not use the settlement arrived Contd...

CS No. 384/16/11 Sh. Sunny Arora, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff with attorney of Plaintiff Ms. Ruchira Ratan. Sh. Kamlesh Jha, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 & 2. Sh. Ajit Kumar, Postal Assistant for defendant no. 3 & 4. SPA of Ruchira Ratan is placed on record. These are four matters being suit No. 383/16, 384/16, 385/16 and 386/16 (RBT). Two being suits and two being counter claims. In all these matters parties have already settled their dispute in Mediation cell on 10.03.2016. Beside these civil case, there was a criminal case FIR No. 403/04 of PS Anand Vihar and one criminal revision matter pending before Hon'ble High court of UP. The original settlement recorded before mediation cell bearing signatures of all the parties is on record in support of which statement of parties was also recorded on 11.03.16. As per the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that Sanay Sirohi and his family members will file petition for quashing of FIR no. 403/04 before Hon'ble High Court in which complainant / plaintiff herein Dr. Ritu Ratan will cooperate and will give the statement regarding amicable settlement. It has also been agreed that upon quashing of such FIR will be on the petition that entire amount lying with Post Office regarding which the present suits were filed will be released in favour of Dr. Ritu Ratan immediately upon quashing of those criminal proceedings. Similarly, criminal revision arising out of maintenance petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed in UP court will also be withdrawn. As per settlement, it is also agreed between the parties that both plaintiff herein or Sanjay Sirohi will not use the settlement arrived Contd...

CS No. 383/16/11 Sh. Sunny Arora, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff with attorney of Plaintiff Ms. Ruchira Ratan. Sh. Kamlesh Jha, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 & 2. Sh. Ajit Kumar, Postal Assistant for defendant no. 3 & 4. SPA of Ruchira Ratan is placed on record. These are four matters being suit No. 383/16, 384/16, 385/16 and 386/16 (RBT). Two being suits and two being counter claims. In all these matters parties have already settled their dispute in Mediation cell on 10.03.2016. Beside these civil case, there was a criminal case FIR No. 403/04 of PS Anand Vihar and one criminal revision matter pending before Hon'ble High court of UP. The original settlement recorded before mediation cell bearing signatures of all the parties is on record in support of which statement of parties was also recorded on 11.03.16. As per the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that Sanay Sirohi and his family members will file petition for quashing of FIR no. 403/04 before Hon'ble High Court in which complainant / plaintiff herein Dr. Ritu Ratan will cooperate and will give the statement regarding amicable settlement. It has also been agreed that upon quashing of such FIR will be on the petition that entire amount lying with Post Office regarding which the present suits were filed will be released in favour of Dr. Ritu Ratan immediately upon quashing of those criminal proceedings. Similarly, criminal revision arising out of maintenance petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed in UP court will also be withdrawn. As per settlement, it is also agreed between the parties that both plaintiff herein or Sanjay Sirohi will not use the settlement arrived Contd...

CS No. Statement of S RO & AC

Raj Kumar vs. Samta Rani & Ors. CS No. 483/16/15 Matter received by transfer from the Hon'ble High Court in view of change in the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of notification no. 10/DHC/Gaz./G1/VI.E.2 (a) /2016 dt.10.3.2016. Sh. Vivek Gaur, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. None for defendant no. 1 to 3. Sh. Ankush Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 4. Perusal of the record shows that matter is listed for replication, admission/ denial and framing of issues. Since none is appearing on behalf of defendant no. 1 to 3 and matter has been received by way of transfer from the Hon'ble High Court in view of change in the pecuniary jurisdiction, let court notice be issued to defendant no. 1 to 3 and to their counsel, for appearance and for the purpose as stated above for 25.07.2016.

CS No. 221/16/07 Sh. Raj Kumar ld P/counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff. Sh. Atul Jain ld. Counsel for defendant 1,4 to 8 with defendant no.1. Sh. Bakshi Tajeshwar Singh, ld counsel for defendant no. 10 & 11. Sh.S.K.Singh for defendant nos. 3,13 and 15. PW 1 Sh. Sukhbir Singh further cross examined and discharged. Plaintiff has closed PE in affirmative vide separate statement. Put up on 15.7.2016 for DE with the directions to supply advance copy of the affidavit of the witness to be examined at least one week prior to the next date of hearing. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 480/16/07 Statement of Sh. Dilraj Kumar, Ld counsel for L. Rs of defendant no.1. (E. No. D130/1971) At Bar I state upon as per the instructions of my client that I do not press for my application filed U/o 7 R 11 CPC and Section 11 CPC filed on 26.10.2015. Same may be dismissed as not pressed for at this stage. RO&AC (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 480/16/07 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Proxy counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Dilraj Singh ld. Counsel for defendant no.1. Sh. Ajay Swami, ld counsel for defendant no.2 Matter is listed for disposal of application filed on behalf of L. Rs of defendant no.1 under the provisions U/o 7 R 11 CPC and Section 11 CPC. After some arguments of ld counsel of D 1, he has given the statement, separately recorded whereby he does not press that application. Therefore same is being dismissed as not pressed for at this stage. Ld counsel for D 1 submits that there is an application filed on behalf of plaintiff U/o 12 R 6 CPC and U/o 7 R 14 CPC. Since counsel for the plaintiff is stated to be busy in the Hon'ble High court. Accordingly, put up this case for appearance of plaintiff as well as arguments on the above said applications on 16.8.2016. Long date is given as per the request of the counsels. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 485/16/08 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Sh. R. K. Alakh, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 in person for himself as well as for defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3. Matter is listed for recording DE and last opportunity was given to defendant for recording DE subject to cost of Rs. 1000/ to be given. Defendant no.1 seeks adjournment on the ground that his counsel is not well. Considering the fact that the matter has been received by transfer and counsel is stated to be not well. Therefore, last and final opportunity again given for recording DE on 11.07.2016 with the directions to supply advance copy of the affidavit of the witness to be examined to the opposite side at least one week prior to the next date of hearing, failing which, cost of Rs. 2000/ shall be imposed. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

CS No. 49/16 Sh. Harpreet Singh, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person. Matter is listed for cross examination of PW 1. However counsel for the plaintiff seeks adjournment on the ground that the plaintiff/witness is not available as his mother has yesterday got operated of the brain tumor and plaintiff being the only son could not come today. Taking note of the above said fact last and final opportunity is granted for PE as matter pertains to year 2007. Adjourned to 16.8.2016 for PE. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

CS No. 50/16 Sh. Harpreet Singh, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person. Put up with connected case on 16.8.2016 for PE. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 284/16/07 Sh. R. K. Dahiya ld counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff. Sh. V. K. Srivastava, ld. Counsel for defendant with defendant. Matter is listed for disposal of review application filed on behalf of defendant. Main counsel for defendant is not available for now and will be available only at 12:30 p.m. I have heard the argument of ld counsel for the plaintiff. Put up this case for arguments on behalf of ld counsel for defendant at 12:30 p.m. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/ 12:30 Sh. R. K. Dahiya ld counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff. Sh. V. K. Srivastava, ld. P/Counsel for defendant with defendant. It is submitted by Proxy counsel for the defendant that main counsel is still busy in the Supreme Court. Upon his request matter is passed over, to be taken up after lunch at 2:30 p.m. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

2:30 p.m. Plaintiff in person. Sh. V. K. Srivastava, ld. P/Counsel for defendant with defendant. Again a short adjournment is sought by proxy counsel for the defendant on the ground that main counsel has not still free from Hon'ble Supreme Court. Upon his request, matter be now adjourned for 28.4.2016 for argument of ld counsel for defendant on review application. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 167/16 Sh. Varun Jain ld counsel for the plaintiff. Ms. Suman Satyarthi, ld.p/ Counsel for defendant Matter is listed for final arguments. Proxy counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment on the ground that main counsel is busy in the Hon'ble High court. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has earlier addressed his arguments and has also filed written arguments. Since mater has been received by transfer involving senior citizen, therefore is being given short adjournment for final arguments. Matter be put up on 7.5.2016 for final arguments. Last and final opportunity given. Previous cost of Rs. 10,000/ remains unpaid. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 482/16/06 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Sh. Dinkar Kumar ld counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Anupam Dhingra, ld. Counsel for defendants with witness Manu Pandey. Affidavit of witness Manu Pandey has been filed. Copy given. Matter be put up on 6.8.2016 for recording DE. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 479/16 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Sh. P. K. Jain, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Palash Singhai, ld. P/Counsel for defendant no.1. Sh. Manohar Singh, ld P/Cl for defendant no.2. Sh. Madhukar Bansiwal, ld P/Cl for defendant no.3. D 4 is ex parte. Matter is listed for disposal of application of plaintiff filed u/o 1 R 10 CPC. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction to declare him to be the absolute owner of property/flat no. E 11, Ist floor, Kalindi colony having purchased the same by virtue of a registered sale deed dt. 20.4.1993, it is further prayed that preliminary and final decree of partition dt. 7.1.2005 and 10.5.05 respectively passed in suit no. 291/04/92 be also declared null and void. Precise case of the plaintiff is that though D 1 herein had filed the above mentioned suit against General M. M. Suri in respect of above mentioned property for partition & other reliefs but Genl. M. M. Suri during h is life time had already sold the property in question to plaintiff herein. After his death though his L. Rs were impleaded on the record of suit no. 291/04/92 but fact remains that property was not open for partition on account of sale to the plaintiff, hence, the present suit was filed against the plaintiff of that suit as well as other defendants. During the course of proceedings when ld predecessor of this court vide order dt. 16.8.2014 had noted that L. Rs of Genl. M. M. Suri had not been made party in the present suit, present application has been moved U/o 1 R 10 CPC seeking to implead them as a party in the present suit as well. It is though mentioned in the application that plaintiff has already stepped into the shoes of late Genl. M. M. Suri being bonafide purchaser and also being in possession, still he seeks to implead the L. Rs of Genl. M. M. Suri being necessary/proper party.

Application has been opposed by D 1 on the ground that application is misplaced and not tenable as it is mentioned in para 16 of the plaint itself that L. Rs of Genl. M. M. Suri had never claimed any right in the property in question. It is also admitted case that subsequent to the impleadment of those L. Rs upon demise of late Genl. M. M. Suri, in that suit no. 291/04 they did not contest the suit. It is stated that present application is moved only to prolong the matter. It is also a matter of record that upon moving the present application, notice to proposed application was given who despite service of notice upon them have failed to put appearance despite repeated efforts and ultimately service was effected by way of publication. Having considered the facts arising out of the pleadings, it is very much clear that L. Rs of Genl. M. M. Suri from whom plaintiff claims to have purchased the property are at least proper parties if not necessary because their presence in the suit may at least assist the Court to decide the issue regarding purchase of suit property b y plaintiff from late Genl. M. M. Suri. Even if, plaintiff has not asked for a specific relief qua them in the present suit, but to my mind they are required to be impleaded as a party in the suit. Therefore, application is allowed and L. Rs of late Genl. M. M. Suri namely Ms. Madhu Suri, Ms. Malti Sen and Mr. Rajiv Suri are impleaded as Defendant nos. 5 to 7. Let summons of the present suit be issued to them on the given address upon PF, RC, returnable on 25.7.2016. amended memo of parties be also filed. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

Ex. No. 1/14 26.4.2016 Execution received by way of transfer.it be checked and registered. Sh. P. K. Jain, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Palash Singhai, ld. P/Counsel for defendant no.1. Sh. Manohar Singh, ld P/Cl for defendant no.2. Sh. Madhukar Bansiwal, ld P/Cl for defendant no.3. D 4 is ex parte. Put up with the connected case on 25.7.2016. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 275/16/04 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Sanjeev Soni, ld. Counsel for defendant This is a matter listed for final arguments. However, ld counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment. Since this is one of the oldest case received by way of transfer, however last and final opportunity granted for final arguments on 25.5.2016. Both the counsels can file written arguments as well. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 276/16/04 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Sanjeev Soni, ld. Counsel for defendant This is a matter listed for final arguments. However, ld counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment. Since this is one of the oldest case received by way of transfer, however last and final opportunity granted for final arguments on 25.5.2016. Both the counsels can file written arguments as well. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RBT No. 277/16/04 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Sanjeev Soni, ld. Counsel for defendant This is a matter listed for final arguments. However, ld counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment. Since this is one of the oldest case received by way of transfer, however last and final opportunity granted for final arguments on 25.5.2016. Both the counsels can file written arguments as well. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

RCA No. 36/16/11 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. AR of the appellant. Sh. Nirmit Gaur ld counsel for respondents. Memo of appearance filed on behalf of respondents. Time sought to file vakalatnama and addressing arguments. Adjourned to 8.8.2016 fro arguments on appeal. Written arguments can also be filed. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

CS NO. 221/16/07 PW1: Sh. Sukhbir Singh, s/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh (recalled for cross examination) On SA XXXXXX by Sh. Atul Jain, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1, 4 to 8: I never asked or claimed any right in the property after the death of my mother and before filing the present suit. My lawyer prepared the evidence by way of affidavit submitted by me. I signed the affidavit in Delhi at the place where I was supposed to sign. I went before the Oath Commissioner in Tis Hazari to sign the affidavit. My mother got a paralytic attack on 14 th June 1996. My mother suffered a paralytic attack on the right side of the body. My mother did not suffer a paralytic attack on the left side. It was only on the right side. I do not know where my mother suffered the parlaytic attack. I got to know about it only by telephone in Amritsar. My mother got admitted in Vimhen's Hospital, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and she got discharged on 19.6.1996. I and my Mrs. came on 15 th June, 1996 and despite my wife's illness I stayed in Delhi up to 20 th June, 1996. The effect of the paralytic attack on my mother was that the right side of the body stopped functioning. I do not know if any treatment was given to my mother after she returned home on 19.6.96.I came only in December, 1996 when my mother was taken to All India Institute for liver disease. I never spent any money on her treatment. I did not have any money.my mother was quite weak when I met her in hospital in December 1996. Her sugar had become quite low. My mother used to meet me nicely whenever I used to come. My mother used to ask about the illness of my wife and other things. My mother was never suffering from any cancer. My mother's health became on 13.2.1997. I was intimated in

Amritsar that if I wanted to see her face, I should go to Delhi. My mother was released from hospital on 28.2.1997. My mother was again admitted to hospital on 3.3.1997 when her health again deteriorated and she died on 9.3.1997. She had gone into comma on 6.3.1997. I do not know if my mother prepared a Will on 24.12.1996. I do not know if she attended the office of Sub Registrar Delhi and signed the Will. I do not know if Mr. Magu and her son Rupinder Singh accompanied her when she went to the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi.My mother never got admitted in AIIMS for treatment. She only went for routine check up. I have seen photograph Annexure C 2. It is correct that In the said photograph is being shown cutting a get well cake. As seen in photograph, she is appearing fragile because of bad health. I have seen the photograph Annexure D. My mother is sitting with my deceased elder brother Jaspal Singh. (Vol. Although two photographs shown to me but it is required to be clarified that if in one photograph my mother has been shown sitting in the car while driving it, I find in impossible as she was suffering from paralytic attack. Therefore, I do not agree with the photographs. ) I have seen photograph Annexure E. My mother is not playing with son of Gurdeep Singh. She has only held him in her hands. Her hands are fragile. It is wrong to suggest that I had instituted the suit on the instigation of somebody else. It is wrong to suggest that I am telling lie or my testimony is incorrect. RO&AC (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/ Statement of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, s/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh plaintiff On SA I close my evidence in affirmative.

RO&AC (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/

CS NO. 486/16 Punjab National Bank V. Union Bank of India 26.4.2016 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered. Ms. Rama Arora, ld counsel for the plaintiff. Let summons of settlement be issued to defendant upon PF, RC, returnable for 01.08.2016. (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ 16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI/