IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi
C M (M) No.1585/2010
Date of Decision:- 07.3.2011
Nirmal Kumar ........Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. K.
Sharma, counsel for the
petitioner
Versus
Shree Jain Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.) ........ Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Jain,
counsel for the respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be referred in Yes
the Digest?
S. L. BHAYANA, J.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.12.2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as "the Controller") Delhi, wherein application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.
2. The word Shri Jain Khartargachh Sangh referred as "Sangh" and the word Shree Jin Kushal Suri Jain Khartargachh Dadabari Trust referred as "Trust".
{C.M. (M) 1585/2010} Page 1
3. The brief facts of this case are that the property in dispute is property of the Deity and Shree Jin Kushal Suri Jain Khartargachh Dadabari Trust is managing the same since long.. The suit property came to the Trust in 1987.
4. The suit property is situated in Temple and belongs to "DEITY". Sangh has let out same property for and on behalf of the Deity who is the owner and landlord of the property.
5. The Sangh has handed over the entire management and control of the suit property belonging to the Deity to Shri Jin Kushal Suri Jain Khartargach Dadabari Trust vide letter dated 20.9.87. The letter was issued only after the General Body Meeting of Shri Jain Khartargachh Sangh, Delhi had approved it, and moreover Trust was also formed and the same has been registered with the Registrar.
6. Since then the management and the entire control of the suit property is with Shree Jin Kushal Khartargachh Dadabari Trust which has been collecting/receiving the rent from the Tenants, and is in exclusive possession and control of the entire property.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. I find that the Eviction case is pending since 8.11.1994. The Restoration application was filed by the petitioner herein under Order 18 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, {C.M. (M) 1585/2010} Page 2 on 22.9.10, more than 5months after dismissal of earlier restoration application on17.2.2010. The petitioner was unable to explain the delay in the above said application. The record shows that the petitioner has been unable to conclude the evidence since 3.12.2003. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner shows that the only objective of the petitioner is to somehow prolong the trial and disposal of the case.
9. Thus, the Trial Court has given a detailed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor the same suffers from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
10. The present petition is hereby dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
S.L BHAYANA, J.
March 7th, 2011
{C.M. (M) 1585/2010} Page 3