CS No. /2016 Raj Pal Singh vs. B-XI Resident Welfare Association Fresh case received today by way of assignment from the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Patiala House Court, Let the same be checked and registered. Present: Advocate for the plaintiff. The Court fees of Rupees 20/- (Rupees Twenty Only) is affixed. Summons of the suit be issued as per Order V of Code of Civil Procedure to the defendant on filing of requisite process fees returnable on 05.07.2016. Service to be also effected by way of registered post AD. The plaintiff is further directed to furnish form of address for service as required under Order VI Rule 14 A of CPC. A set of all the documents, as attached to the plaint, is directed to be filed also on the next date. Plaintiff to file tracking report of registered post AD along with the supporting affidavit at the earliest before the next date of hearing.
In the Court of Ms. Saloni Singh, Civil Judge-02, New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Ex. No. /16 Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. vs. HG Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Fresh execution petition received today by way of assignment from the Court of Ld. Sr. Civil Judge/ Rent Controller, Let the same be checked and registered. Present: Mr. Shokeen Ali, Advocate for the Decree Holder. Civil Nazir to check as per provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure and to file report accordingly on 09.05.2016.
CS No. 298/10 Ajay Sood vs. Ritu Sood & Ors. (At 10:00 am) None for plaintiff. At 12:40 pm None for the defendant. Be awaited. Put up at 12:00 pm. Proxy Advocate for the plaintiff. None for the defendant no. 1 and 3. Defendant no. 2 and 4 have not been served. Advocate for the plaintiff stated that as intimated by the main counsel the matter is pending settlement in concerned Mediation Cell in Dwarka Court, Delhi. In view of the above, matter is adjourned. Put up for status on the above/further proceedings on 19.05.2016.
CS No. 268/15 Pro Facilities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kalyani Forge Ltd. (At 10:00 am) None for plaintiff. At 11:00 am At 12:40 pm appeared. None for the defendant. Be awaited. Put up at 11:00 am. None for plaintiff. None for the defendant. Be awaited. Put up at 12:00 pm. None for the plaintiff. None for the defendant. Despite repeated calls since morning neither of the parties have Matter is proceeded exparte. Put up for exparte plaintiff evidence on 13.05.2016.
CS No. 40/2016 Vinod Kumar vs. Nand Kishore (At 10:00 am) None for the plaintiff. At 11:00 am Be awaited. Put up at 11:00 am. Plaintiff in person. Summons to the defendant could not be issued as PF was not filed. Plaintiff stated that his counsel would not appear today. Summons of the suit (notice of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure) be issued subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with DLSA, New Delhi, as per Order V Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to the defendant on filing of requisite process fee returnable on 07.06.2016. Service to be also effected by registered post AD. The plaintiff to supply copies of plaint (along with annexure), said requisite fee etc., within 7 days. The plaintiff to file tracking report of the registered post AD along with the supporting affidavit at the earliest before the next date of hearing.
CC No. 134/14 M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. vs. Brimson Cables Pvt. Ltd. (At 10:00 am) Advocate for the complainant. At 12:40 pm At 1:00 pm None for the accused. Put up at 12:00 pm. Advocate for the complainant. None for the accused. Be awaited. Put up at 1:00 pm. Advocate for the complainant. Advocate for the accused. Accused no. 4 in person. Accused no. 3 is permanently exempted. Accused no. 2 in person. Advocate for the accused requested for exemption from personal appearance on behalf of the accused no. 5 on the ground that she is not well owing to which she has been unable to appear before the court. The same is considered and allowed. The statement of the accused no. 4 could not be recorded as there is no electricity. In view thereof and due to paucity of time put up for said purpose on 26.04.2016. /
CC No. 293/14 M/s Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Joymon (At 3:00 pm) Advocate for the complainant. Accused /DW1 in person. DW1 further cross-examined. Advocate for the complainant requested for an adjournment to seek instruction from the complainant with respect to the documents filed by the accused in his examination in chief. In view of the above matter is adjourned. 2:00 pm. Put up for remaining cross-examination of DW1 on 23.07.2016 at
CC No. 164/14 Shri Lalit Kumar vs. Shri Raj Kumar Mishra (At 10:30 am) None for the accused. Ms. Jaimala, Proxy Advocate for the complainant. Affidavit of the complainant filed mentioning therein that the cheque in question was deposited by the complainant in his account in State Bank of Patiala at Yuva Shakti Model School, Budh Vihar, New Delhi and the statement of account has also been filed. Put up for clarification on the location of Budh Vihar on 06.05.2016. At 12:45 pm Accused in person. He is apprised of the proceeding. To come up on date fixed.
CC No. 10/14, 08/14, 07/14, 09/14 Shri Parveen Kumar Jain vs. M/s Sai Global (At 10:00 am) AR of the complainant. At 10:35 am None for the accused. Be awaited. Put up at 11:00 am. AR of the complainant. Accused in person. The remaining settled amount of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) in cash is handed over to the AR of the complainant against acknowledgment. AR of the complainant stated that the cheque dated 16.11.2013 bearing no. 474818 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Indusind Bank, Noida was returned unpaid and inadvertently the cheque was cleared by the banker of the accused and amount of Rs.55,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant. He filed an application seeking clarification with respect to the said cheque along with the certificate issued by the Indian Bank and the statement of accounts. Copy of the application with documents be supplied to the accused in the course of the day. The accused requested for sometime to seek clarification from the Contd...2/-
-2- bank as to whether the said cheque was returned unpaid or not. In view thereof, matter is adjourned. Put up for clarification on the above/further proceedings on 27.05.2016.
CC No. 06/14 Smt. Promila Jain vs. M/s Sai Global (At 10:00 am) AR of the complainant. At 10:35 am None for the accused. Be awaited. Put up at 11:00 am. AR of the complainant. Accused in person. The remaining settled amount of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) in cash is handed over to the AR of the complainant against acknowledgment. AR of the complainant stated that the cheque dated 16.11.2013 bearing no. 474818 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Indusind Bank, Noida was returned unpaid and inadvertently the cheque was cleared by the banker of the accused and amount of Rs.55,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant. He filed an application seeking clarification with respect to the said cheque along with the certificate issued by the Indian Bank and the statement of accounts. Copy of the application with documents be supplied to the accused in the course of the day. The accused requested for sometime to seek clarification from the Contd...2/-
-2- bank as to whether the said cheque was returned unpaid or not. 27.05.2016. In view thereof, matter is adjourned. Put up for clarification on the above/further proceedings on
CS No. 218/15 Subhash Chand Nangarwal vs. Darshan & Anr. (At 11:00 am) None for the plaintiff. None for the defendant no. 1. Mr. Naresh Bhardwaj, Advocate for defendant no. 2. Be awaited. Put up at 12:00 pm. At 12:45 pm None for the plaintiff. None for defendant no. 1. Advocate for the defendant no. 2. Despite repeated calls since morning no one has appeared for the plaintiff. This is the third consecutive date of hearing on which no one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. This was the last opportunity granted to the parties for appearance. It appears that plaintiff is not interested in pursuing the present case. In view thereof, the present suit is dismissed in default for non-prosecution. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
CS No. 13/14 Chander Bhan Dahiya vs. Bhagat Singh (At 10:00 am) Advocate for the plaintiff with plaintiff in person. Proxy Advocate for the defendant with defendant in person. At request put up at 1:00 pm. At 1:00 pm Advocate for the plaintiff with plaintiff in person. None for the defendant. Due to failure of electricity, the evidence of PW1 could not be recorded. Owing to the above and paucity of time matter is adjourned. 2:00 pm. Put up for remaining cross-examination of PW1 on 23.04.2016 at
CS No. 156/15 Chirag Aggarwal vs. M/s Diksha Electronics (At 10:00 am) Ms. Himadari Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff with plaintiff in person. Application under Order III read with section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein it is prayed that the application be allowed and authorized representatitve of the plaintiff be substituted by Mr. Manish Kumar. Considering the application the same is allowed. At request, put up at 11:00 am. At 10:20 am 12.05.2016. Ms. Himadari Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff with plaintiff in person. AR of the plaintiff/pw1 in person. AR of the plaintiff tendered his examination in chief. Put up for remaining plaintiff's evidence/further proceedings on
CS No. 359/14 Dev Prakash vs. Bhola Giri @ Mahavir (At 12:30 pm) Advocate for the plaintiff with plaintiff in person. PW2 in person. Feroz Haider, Proxy Advocate for the defendant. Advocate for the defendant stated that the defendants have been unable to appear due to a ceremony in their family and owing to which the main counsel is engaged in another court. He requested for an adjournment on the ground that due to the absence of the main counsel and the defendants the crossexamination of the witness cannot be done. The said ground is not sufficient ground for adjournment. Last opportunity is given for cross-examination of PW2 failing which the right shall stand closed. Put up for examination of PW2 on 19.05.2016 at 12:00 pm.
CS No. 149/14 Mrs. Sariphan & Ors. vs. Mr. Mehtab Ali (At 10:00 am) None for plaintiff. At 11:30 am Be awaited. Put up at 11:00 am. Mr. Priya Mehta, Advocate for the plaintiff. None for the defendant. At request, put up at 12:00 pm. At 1:00 pm Advocate for the plaintiff with PW1 in person. PW2 in person. None for the defendant. Due to failure of electricity the evidence of PW1 could not be recorded. Owing to the above/paucity of time matter is adjourned. Put up for said purpose on 05.05.2016 at 11:30 am.
CS No. 222/15 Attar Singh & Ors. vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. (At 10:10 am) Mr. Manjeet Singh, Grand Son of the plaintiff. At 12:35 pm CPC. None for the defendants. At request, put up at 11:30 am. Advocate for the plaintiff. Ms. Roshan Kumar, Advocate for the defendant no. 1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Sangwan, Advocate for defendant no. 3. Arguments advanced on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Put up for order on application on 26.05.2016 at 4:00 pm.
CS No. 207/15 Neer Singh vs. Ashish Garg (At 10:10 am) Advocate for the plaintiff. Defendant in person. At request, put up at 11:00 am. At 11:00 am Mr. Sachin, Advocate for the plaintiff. Defendant in person. Reply to the application for leave to defendant filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Advocate for the plaintiff stated that due to repair work in his chamber he was unable to file reply of the said application on time. Copy of reply supplied. Put up for arguments on the said application on 12.05.2016.
CS No. 01/16 Priya Zutshi vs. Rakesh Zutshi & Ors. (At 10:10 am) Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff. Mr. S.K. Mathur, Advocate for the defendant no. 2. None for defendant no. 1. Be awaited. Put up at 11:00 am. At 10:30 am Proxy Advocate for the plaintiff. Advocate for the defendant no. 1. Advocate for the defendant no. 2. Advocate for the defendant no. 1 and 2 stated that written statement has already been supplied to the counsel of the opposite party and the written statement was filed on 04.04.2016. The written statement is not on record. Ahlmad to check and report. Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 of CPC and reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed on behalf of defendant no. 1. Copy supplied. Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order II and section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of defendant no. 2. Copy supplied. Contd...2/-
-2- Reply to both the said application be filed before the next date of hearing and copy be supplied in advance to the counsel of the opposite party. Put up for arguments on the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on 27.05.2016. Advocate for the plaintiff stated that they have not got the copy of the written statements of the defendants. Both the advocates for the defendants stated that they would supply the copy of the written statement in the course of the day.
CS No. 238/15 Randhir Jain vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (At 4:00 pm) None for the plaintiff. None for the defendant. None for the applicant. Matter is pending consideration on an application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (for short CPC ), filed on behalf of the Residents Welfare Association-Yamuna Block, 4 th floor, Tower Y-4, Yamuna Block D-6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, wherein it is prayed that they be impleaded as the plaintiffs no. 2 in the array of parties. It is stated in the application that the issues involved in the present suit concern all the residents of D-6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and each of the flat owners in the 4 blocks in the name of Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati and Narmada and are similarly situated like plaintiff. All the flats owners have been asked by the defendant to pay water bills of an exorbitant amount without any basis and that the water bills can be raised only for the quantity of water consumed by each of the flat owners. It is further stated that the applicant is looking after the welfare of the residents of the Yamuna block and is a registered association and is interested in the subject matter of the present suit. It is further stated that instead of bringing individual suits by all the flat owners, the applicant be permitted to join the proceedings in order to avoid multiplicity of suit and to save the time of the Court. No reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of Contd...2/-
-2- the plaintiff or defendants. Advocate for plaintiff stated that he has no objection if the application is allowed. Arguments were advanced on behalf of the applicant. Having perused the court record and having heard the submissions made, it is to be considered as to whether the applicant association can be impleaded as a plaintiff in the array of parties. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC reads as, Court may strike out or add parties. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. At the outset, it is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 417, The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. Order I Rule 10 (2) of the said Code empowers the Court to add the name of any person or strike off the name of any Contd...3/-
-3- party, joined as a plaintiff or defendant, in the suit after arriving at a conclusion as to whether the party is a necessary party or a proper party. A necessary party is one who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A proper party is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. Reference in this context is made to a recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s. Sunshine India Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhai Manjit Singh (HUF) & Ors., MANU/DE/2746/2013. The test for determining whether a party is a necessary party in the suit is whether the party ought to have been joined in the suit and that in the absence of that party the Court would not be able to pass an effective decree at all. The effectiveness of a decree relates to its execution. If on passing a decree, the same cannot be executed in the absence of the concerned party then it is an ineffective decree. In such circumstances, the plaintiff does not get an effective relief from the Court resulting in the the entire trial process being futile. In the present case, if in the absence of applicant, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, there appears to be no hindrance that may arise in the execution of the decree itself. Therefore, the applicant is not a necessary party in the suit such that in the absence of whom an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. Further the applicant states to represent other flat owners with similar causes of action against the same defendant. The applicant cannot be said to be proper party Contd...4/-
-4- without whom the controversies arising in the present suit between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be effectively, completely and adequately adjudicated upon by the Court. From the above, this Court is of the view that the application is without merits. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. To come up on 25.05.2016 for examination under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, admission/denial of documents, possibility of settlement in terms of Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure and framing of issues. Parties are directed to produce all the original documents relied upon by them on the said date. Both the parties or their representatives are directed to present in person on next date of hearing that is 25.05.2016.
CC No. 284/14 HCL vs. Diwan Distributors (At 10:15 am) Mr. Kush Shrivastava, Manager Legal appeared for the complainant. None for the accused. As intimated by the Ahlmad, neither the notice to the process server nor the notice to the surety have been prepared/sent. The Ahlmad has repeatedly failed to send the summons/notice/nbws etc., owing to which it has resulted in unnecessary delay of the case proceeding. Ahlmad is warned again. Copy of the order sheet be maintained in the staff file. 07.06.2016. Notice be issued to the concerned process server returnable on Further, fresh notice be issued to the surety at the given address to show cause as to why the surety amount be not forfeited, on filing of process fee etc., within next 7 days, returnable on 07.06.2016.
CS No. 82/15 Mina Dass vs. Chandrawati Devi (At 4:00 pam) Plaintiff in person. In another suit bearing no. 72/14 titled as Daya Ram Tokas vs. Mina Dass which has been filed by the defendant no. 2 against the plaintiff for eviction and recovery of rent etc., order of eviction has been passed by this court. Clarification sought from the plaintiff as to copy of the said order of court passed in the said suit. The plaintiff requested for some time to file certified copy of the said order before the next date of hearing. Put up for judgment on 13.05.2016 at 4:00 pm.
CS No. 228/15 Surender Kumar Singhal vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar Singh (At 4:00 pm) Advocate for the plaintiff. Advocate for the defendant no. 1. None for defendant no. 2. None for the defendant no. 3. None for defendant no. 4. Copy of the reply (as filed by defendant no. 3) is supplied to the counsel of the defendant no. 1. Put up for purpose fixed on 28.04.2015 at 4:00 pm.
CS No. 01/15 to 09/15 Quick Advertising vs. Global Infocom (At 10:00 am) Mr. T.N. Tyagi, Advocate (LAC) for the accused. None for the complainant. As intimated by the Ahlmad, inadvertently the present matter was not mentioned in the cause-list. Both the Ahlmad and Assistant Ahlmad are directed to give written explanation in this court. Further, as per report of the Ahlmad, the NBWs and notice also could not inadvertently be prepared. Repeatedly the Ahlmad is failing to comply with the instructions of the court and he has been warned repeatedly. Both the Ahlmad and Assistant Ahlmad are directed to give written explanation. Copy of the order shall be maintained in the staff file. Application filed on behalf of the accused seeking time to appear before the court and stay of NBWs on the ground that on the last date of hearing he was unable to appear as he had to appear before the Saket Court, New Delhi and he has been unable to appear today as he had to take his father to the hospital. No supporting documents have been filed with the application. The penalty amount of Rs.20,000/- be deposited on the next date of hearing. The NBWs are stayed in the meanwhile. Notice be issued to the complainant through the concerned SHO at the outstation and local address returnable on 08.06.2016. The notice to the complainant be prepared within the next two days. Ahlmad to ensure compliance of the same.