CS no. 26/15 M/s Simulax SMT Solutions Vs. M/s Quad Sh. Dheeraj Bhidhudi counsel for plaintiff None for defendant. Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by the order of learned District Judge bearing no.7287 7301/Case Transfer/Judl. Gaz./ DWK/ 2016 dated 11.03.2016. Ahlmad is directed to place the case file before the transferee court at 12.00 p.m. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee court today itself at 12.00 p.m.
CS no. 36/15 PRM Tex FAB Vs. M/s Kanha Sh. Suresh Mahajan AR of the plaintiff company Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by the order of learned District Judge bearing no.7287 7301/Case Transfer/Judl. Gaz./ DWK/ 2016 dated 11.03.2016. Ahlmad is directed to place the case file before the transferee court at 12.00 p.m. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee court today itself at 12.00 p.m.
CS no. 86/15 Satish Kumar Vs. Chander Singh None. Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by the order of learned District Judge bearing no.7287 7301/Case Transfer/Judl. Gaz./ DWK/ 2016 dated 11.03.2016. Ahlmad is directed to place the case file before the transferee court at 12.00 p.m. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee court today itself at 12.00 p.m.
CS no. 96/15 Krishan Kumar Vs. Gurmeet Kaur Sh. Anil Gehlot counsel for the plaintiff along with plaintiff Sh. Sumit Rathi proxy counsel for Sh. Vinay Kumar counsel for defendant along with both the defendants Proxy Counsel for defendants filed written statement, reply of application u/o 39 R.1 and 2 CPC and also an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. Counsel for plaintiff submits that present WS has been filed beyond 90 days of the service of summons upon defendants, therefore, present WS should not be taken on record. It is further stated that present application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay is also not maintainable as there is a specific provision under Order 8 of CPC for condonation of delay. Proxy counsel for defendants submits that defendant's counsel had shifted his office from Palam to the Sadh Nagar, therefore, WS could not be prepared. Heard. There is no doubt that present WS has been filed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of service upon defendants.
2 The reason shown by the proxy counsel for defendants does not seem plausible, however in the interest of justice present WS is taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/ to be paid to the plaintiff. Put up on 24.05.2016 for replication/framing of issues.
RCA no. 30/15 Vikram Vs. Prem Lata Appellant in person Respondent in person Both the parties submit that connected matter is still pending before the Mediation Cell for compromise. Heard. Put up on 07.04.2016 for further proceedings.
CS no. 5/16 Inderjit Singh and ors Vs. Pradeep Kumar and ors Plaintiff Inderjit Singh in person for all the defendants Ms. Mamta Yadav Proxy Counsel for Sh. Rajput counsel Both the parties submit that SDM Najafgarh Zone was directed to look into the matter and file a report as to whether the suit property falls in Khasra no. 582 or Khasra no. 583 village Nasirpur and he was also directed to file a report as to whether any Gram Sabha exists in Khasra no. 583 and same has been encroached by the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that since present matter has been transferred to this court, therefore, they are not aware as to whether the said report has been filed by the SDM or not in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Heard. Let the said report be summoned from the SDM, Najafgarh. Put up on 04.06.2016 for further proceedings.
CS no. 18/16 Manmohan Singh Vs. Deep Mohan Sh. Deepak Rohilla proxy counsel for Sh. Vijay Chawla counsel for plaintiff Process issued to defendant received back with the report process being served upon Dharamvir claimed to be clerk. Acknowledgement card of post also received back with the report served upon Shreya Mohan. At this stage, proxy counsel for plaintiff submits that summons have been served upon the defendant as counsel for defendant also sent reply regarding service of summons and stated that since he has not received the page nos. 51 to 62 annexed with the summons, therefore, same may be served upon him. It is further stated that defendant is well aware that today case is listed before this court and said fact is also mentioned in the said letter. Copy of the said letter is shown to this court and same be taken on record. Be awaited for the defendant till 12.00 p.m.
At 12.00 p.m. Proxy counsel for the plaintiff None for defendant. Be awaited for the defendant till 1.00 p.m. At 1.00 p.m. Proxy counsel for the plaintiff None for defendant. Be awaited for the defendant till 2.15 p.m. At 2.15 p.m. Proxy counsel for the plaintiff None for defendant. Defendant is not present since morning despite summons being served upon him which shows that he is not interested to contest the present suit, therefore, defendant is proceeded ex parte. Put up on 09.05.2016 for ex parte evidence.
CS no. 397/14 Praveen Kumar Vs. Devender Singh Sh. Amit Kumar Proxy counsel for plaintiff along with Sh. Vinod Kumar claimed to be brother of plaintiff Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are already proceeded ex parte. Sh. Rupin Singh proxy counsel for defendant nos. 3 & 4 Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by the order of learned District Judge bearing no.7287 7301/Case Transfer/Judl. Gaz./ DWK/ 2016 dated 11.03.2016. Ahlmad is directed to place the case file before the transferee court at 12.00 p.m. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee court today itself at 12.00 p.m.
CS no. 398/14 Vinod Kumar Vs. Devender Singh Sh. Amit Kumar Proxy counsel for plaintiff along with plaintiff. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are already proceeded ex parte. Sh. Rupin Singh proxy counsel for defendant nos. 3 & 4 Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by the order of learned District Judge bearing no.7287 7301/Case Transfer/Judl. Gaz./ DWK/ 2016 dated 11.03.2016. Ahlmad is directed to place the case file before the transferee court at 12.00 p.m. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee court today itself at 12.00 p.m.
CS no. 222/14 Vishal Arora Vs. Sanjeev Chahar and anr Sh. Ashok Arora claimed to be father of plaintiff Monika Defendant no.2 in person Father of plaintiff has filed an exemption application for plaintiff's evidence as plaintiff is suffering from fever. Medical prescription is also attached with the present application. Heard. In view of the above facts and circumstances, today case is adjourned for P.E. Put up on 28.05.2016 for P.E.
PC no. 42/14 Pooja Vs. The State 15.03. 2016 Ms. Neha Counsel for the petitioner Final arguments heard. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has sought letter of administration in respect of property bearing no. C 7, area 50 sq yards out of khasra no. 82/7, Mahavir Enclave, Block D Village Palam and Mirzapur, Delhi and C 8 area 100 sq yards out of khasra no. 82/7, Mahavir Enclave, Block D Village Palam and Mirzapur, Delhi. any. Heard. Put up on 17.03.2016 for orders, clarification, if
CS no. 164/14 Vikas Kak Vs. Nalni Peshin Plaintiff in person Sh. Jitender Gupta Counsel for all the defendants along with defendant no.2 Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by the order of learned District Judge bearing no.7287 7301/Case Transfer/Judl. Gaz./ DWK/ 2016 dated 11.03.2016. Ahlmad is directed to place the case file before the transferee court at 12.00 p.m. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee court today itself at 12.00 p.m.
CS no. 407/14 Pramod Kumar Vs. Sushil Kumar Sh. Rajesh Mishra counsel for the plaintiff along with plaintiff Sh. Sudhir Sharma proxy counsel for defendant. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he has already filed an application u/o 6 R.17 CPC for amendment in the plaint. It is further stated that earlier previous counsel for plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs whereas the claim of the plaintiff was of Rs. 25 lakhs. It is further stated that that suit for recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs was filed by the previous counsel of plaintiff with the intention that present court may try the present suit. Now, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court has been extended upto to Rs.2 crores, therefore, now plaintiff wants to enhance his claim from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs. It is prayed that application u/o 6 R.17 CPC be allowed, in the interest of justice which is opposed by the counsel for defendant. Heard. I am of the considered view that since plaintiff has already abandoned his claim of Rs. 5 lakhs at the time of filing of his suit, therefore, now he cannot enhance the said claim by way of amendment. Accordingly, present application is not maintainable. Same
2 is dismissed. Put up on 14.04.2016 for filing of reply of leave to defend application. Plaintiff is directed to supply the advance copy of reply of leave to defend application to the counsel for defendant within seven days before the next date of hearing.
PC no. 29/15 Madhata Bahera Vs. State Govt of NCT Sh. Devesh Kumar and Ms. Manju counsels for the petitioner Final arguments heard. Put up on 16.03.2016 for orders/clarification, if any.
Ex no. 3/16 L.L. Aggarwal Vs. Anirudh Thareja Ms. Savita Aggarwal counsel for DH along with DH JD Anirudh Thareja in person Police aid has been received from the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police vide letter dated 09.03.2016. At this stage, JD seeks pass over for appearance of his counsel before the court. Heard. At request, put up at 12.00 p.m. At 12.00 p.m. Ms. Savita Aggarwal counsel for DH along with DH JD Anirudh Thareja in person JD seeks pass over for appearance of his counsel before the court till 12.30 p.m. Be awaited till 12.30 p.m.
2 At 12.30 p.m. Ms. Savita Aggarwal counsel for DH along with DH JD Anirudh Thareja in person JD submits that last and final pass over be given for appearance of his counsel till 12.50 p.m which is strongly opposed by the counsel for DH stating that she is waiting since morning. Heard. Let last and final opportunity be given to the JD to call his counsel at 12.50 p.m. At 12.50 p.m. Ms. Savita Aggarwal counsel for DH along with DH Sh. Nitin Mittal Counsel for JD along with JD Anirudh Thareja At this stage, counsel for both the parties submit that half an hour time may be given for talk of compromise. Heard. Put up at 2.15 p.m.
3 At 2.15 p.m Ms. Savita Aggarwal counsel for DH along with DH Sh. Nitin Mittal Counsel for JD along with JD Anirudh Thareja Counsel for both the parties submit that both the parties have reached on compromise on the following terms and conditions: (i) JD undertakes that he will pay the entire compromised amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ to the decree holder till 29 th March 2016. (ii) Today JD is paying part compromised amount of Rs. 50,000/ by way of bearer cheque bearing no. 066366 dated drawn on Union Bank of India to the DH. (iii) Remaining amount of Rs. 1 lakhs will be paid by the JD to the DH in cash on 29 th March 2016 before the court. (iv) In order to secure the amount of Rs. 1 lakhs, JD has also given a cheque of Rs. 1 lakhs bearing no. 056468 dated 29.03.2016 drawn on Allahabad Bank to the DH. (v) JD has also given undertaking that if he will not able to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ then DH will be entitled for the original amount mentioned in the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2015.
4 (vi) JD further undertakes that he will peacefully vacate the suit property on or before 29 th March 2016 and the keys of the suit premises will be handed over to the DH on 29 th March 2016 before the court. (vii) JD also undertakes that the cheque of Rs. 50,000/ bearing no. 066366 dated drawn on Union Bank of India will be honoured tomorrow i.e 16.03.2016. (viii) JD also undertakes that he will pay the arrears of electricity, maintenance charges of the suit premises, water charges and IGL gas charges to the authority concerned before vacating the suit premises and NOC of the same will also be given to the DH on 29.03.2016. (ix) JD further undertakes to permit the DH for visiting the suit premises on 28.03.2016 for inspection of the furniture & fixtures as mentioned in the lease deed dated 11.06.2013. (x) DH also assured JD that he will withdraw the two criminal complaint cases u/s 138 N.I. Act filed against him after the compliance of the aforesaid undertaking. Heard. Statements of JD and DH regarding their
5 compromise are recorded separately to this effect. Put up on 17.03.2016 for compliance of honouring of cheque of Rs. 50,000/.
Ex no. 3/16 L.L. Aggarwal Vs. Anirudh Thareja Statement of Sh. Anirudh Thareja S/o Sh. V.M. Thareja age: 45 years R/o B 302, Plot No.5, Sector 6, Swami Dayanand Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, Dwarka, New Delhi. ON S.A I am the Judgment Debtor in the present execution. Today, I and decree holder have settled some terms and conditions for the satisfaction of the decree. In pursuance of the said compromise, I undertake that I will pay the entire compromised amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ to the decree holder till 29 th March 2016. In pursuance of the said compromise, today I am paying part compromised amount of Rs. 50,000/ by way of bearer cheque bearing no. 066366 dated drawn on Union Bank of India to the DH. Remaining amount of Rs. 1 lakhs will be paid to the DH in cash on 29 th March 2016 before the court. I am also giving a cheque of Rs. 1 lakhs bearing no. 056468 dated 29.03.2016 drawn on Allahabad Bank in order to giving security of the payment of Rs. 1 lakh in cash which is to be paid on 29 th March 2016. I undertake that if I am not able to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ then DH will be entitled for the original amount mentioned in the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2015. I also undertake that I will
2 vacate peacefully the suit property on or before 29 th March 2016 and the keys of the suit premises will be handed over to the DH on 29 th March 2016 before the court. I also undertake that the cheque of Rs. 50,000/ bearing no. 066366 dated drawn on Union Bank of India will be honoured tomorrow i.e 16.03.2016. I also undertake that I will pay the arrears of electricity, maintenance charges of the suit premises, water charges and IGL gas charges to the authority concerned before vacating the suit premises and NOC of the same will also be given to the DH on 29.03.2016. I will also permit the DH for visiting the suit premises on 28.03.2016 for inspection of the furniture & fixtures as mentioned in the lease deed dated 11.06.2013. DH has assured me that he will withdraw the two criminal complaint cases u/s 138 N.I. Act filed against me after the compliance of the aforesaid undertaking given by me. I am giving statement voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. RO & AC
Ex no. 3/16 L.L. Aggarwal Vs. Anirudh Thareja Statement of Sh. L.L. Aggarwal S/o late Sh. B.R. Aggarwal age: 56 years R/o K 25, first floor NDSE II, New Delhi. ON S.A I am the Decree Holder in the present execution. I have heard the statement of JD recorded today by this court. I agree on the terms and conditions as mentioned by the JD in his statement. I undertake the I will withdraw criminal complaint cases u/s 138 N.I. Act filed against JD which are pending before the court of learned M.M, Saket Court and Patiala House Court, New Delhi if JD complies his statement recorded today. I also undertake that I will return the cheque of Rs. 1 lakhs bearing no. 056468 dated 29.03.2016 drawn on Allahabad Bank to the JD after making payment of Rs. 1 Lakh in cash to me on 29 th March 2016. The said cheque is given to me by the JD in order to secure the said payment of Rs. 1 lakh. I am giving statement voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. RO & AC
H.D. Andlay Vs. Priya Sh. Sunil Andley Attorney of the plaintiff along with Sh. R.K. Mishra proxy counsel for plaintiff Ms. Prachi proxy counsel for defendant filed reply of application u/s 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 09.09.2015. Copy supplied. Put up on 27.04.2016 for arguments on the aforesaid application.
PC no. 7/15 Kusum Lata Vs. State File is taken up on applications u/o 1 R.10 CPC filed by the applicants namely Rajesh Kumar and Sampat Devi for impleading them as a necessary party in the present probate petition. Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma counsel for the applicant. Heard. Let notice of the said applications be issued to the petitioners on filing of PF and RC. Put up on the date already fixed i.e 06.04.2016. Steps be taken within seven days.
Kanta Devi Vs. Ramesh and others File is taken up on an application for returning of original documents. Sh. Rajeev Ranjan counsel for defendant. Counsel for defendant submits that present case has already been disposed of vide order dated 18.04.2015, therefore, documents of defendant be returned. Heard. Record perused. Perusal of the order dated 18.04.2015, I find that at the request of the parties, plaint of the plaintiff was ordered to be returned after making necessary endorsement. Since I have already passed an order that documents of the parties be returned against due receipt after receiving certified copy of the same, therefore, application stands disposed of. File be consigned to record room.
Rajwati Vs. State and others File is taken up on an application for cancellation of endorsement from documents i.e sale deed of surety Smt. Vasundhara Chauhan. Smt. Vishodhara Chauhan, surety in person She submits that she stood as surety for furnishing administration cum surety bond which was for six months. It is further submitted that the endorsement made on her property documents i.e sale deed be cancelled. Heard. Record perused. Perusal of the case file, I find that administration cum surety bond was furnished by the petitioner as well as surety on 07.01.2015. Now, the time period for which surety stood as surety has expired. Accordingly, endorsement is cancelled. Application stands disposed of. File be consigned to record room.
CS no. 123/15 Vikas @ Vicky Vs. Hari Om Gupta File is taken up on an application u/o 39 R.1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff. Sh. Parkash Kumar counsel for the plaintiff. He submits that defendant has raised the construction over the suit property, therefore, he may be restrained for the said act. Heard. After perusal of the case file, I find that present suit was filed on 30.11.2015 but no application was filed u/o 39 R.1 and 2 CPC. It is worth to note here that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief of possession but plaintiff has not valued his suit in para no. 28. Plaintiff was directed to value his suit properly as per relief claimed in the present suit. In view of the said observations, counsel for plaintiff filed an application for amendment which was allowed vide order dated 02.02.2016. It is further to note here that plaintiff was directed to file the amended plaint with directions to highlight the amended portion with red ink so that amended portion of the plaint can be easily identified but same has not been complied. At this stage, counsel for plaintiff seeks pass over for
2 filing the amended plaint as per order dated 02.02.2016. Heard. Put up at 3.30 p.m. At 3.30 p.m. Sh. Parkash Kumar counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for plaintiff has filed the amended plaint. Same is taken on record. Let summons of the suit and notice of the present application be issued to the defendant on filing of PF/RC, courier for 23.03.2016. Steps be taken within two days. Previous date of 30.03.2016 is hereby cancelled.