Rani Parvati Devi vs Turner Morrison Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4181 Del

                  * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Date of Reserve : 3rd September, 2009
                                                         Date of Order: October 15, 2009

IA No. 10843/2009 in CS(OS) No. 1650/2007
%                                                                         15.10.2009


        Rani Parvati Devi                                          ... Petitioner
                                   Through: Ms. Shyamlaha Pappu, Sr. Advocate with
                                   Mr. Krishna Moorthy & Mr. K.K.Singh, Advocates


                 Versus


        Turner Morrison Ltd.                       ... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER

This application has been made by the applicant/plaintiff under Section

151 CPC for filing objections in terms of order dated 10th August, 2009 passed by the

Division Bench pursuant to order dated 6th July, 2009 passed by the Supreme court in

SLP No. 12330-31/09.

2. A perusal of order of Division Bench would show that Division Bench

while disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4138/2008 in Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 14645/2006 had allowed the application of the applicant Turner Morrison Land

Limited (TMLL) to be impleaded as a party in the Writ Petition. Against this order an

SLP was preferred wherein the Supreme Court passed following order:

We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all objections to the effect that the impleaded party has no right over the disputed property.

3. It is obvious that by the above order the Supreme Court had given liberty

to the applicant to raise all objections in respect of right of TMLL over the disputed

property in the Writ Petition. The petitioner's filing this application before this Court

under the cover of order of Supreme Court is not understood. In any case TMLL is a

party in the present suit and the matter has been referred to the arbitration by this Court

and an Arbitrator has already been appointed and the applicant and non-applicant have

been given liberty to file claim and counter-claim before the learned Arbitrator. The

applicant is at liberty to raise objections about the ownership rights of TMLL in the

property before the Arbitrator. The application is disposed of with these observations.

October 15, 2009                                       SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn