Delhi High Court
Sh.Gurvinder Singh vs M/S. Deenar Builders Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 19 October, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19.10.2011
+ CM(M) No. 1214/2011
SH.GURVINDER SINGH ...........PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Advocate.
Versus
M/S. DEENAR BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. .......RESPONDENT
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
CM No. 19271/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) No. 1214/2011
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 1214/2011 and CM No. 19270/2011
1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2011 vide
which application filed by the defendant under Order 16 Rules 3 & Rule
13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
had been dismissed. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for
possession, permanent injunction as also for recovery of user charges.
Suit had been filed in the year 1996. It was at the stage when the
evidence of the defendant was being led itself, the present application
under Order 16 Rules 3 & Rule 13 of the Code was filed on 16.09.2009.
The averments made in the said application have been perused. It is
stated that the plaintiff has not given true answers put by the defendant
to him and it was in these circumstances that the defendant was
constrained to move an application under the Right to Information Act
and certain informations have been elicited by him through the Right to
Information Act; this information even as per the saying of the
defendant was obtained by him on 01.12.2008. Present application has
been filed nine months later i.e. 16.09.2009. It is also relevant to state
that nowhere in this application has it been averred that this
information was obtained by him only on 01.12.2008; in fact, the
documents annexed with the application show that these documents
pertain to the year 2002; the submission of the petitioner that this
information was given to him under the Right to Information Act on
01.12.2008 is thus falsified. That apart, as noted supra there is no
justifiable explanation as to why the petitioner had taken nine months
in proffering the present application. The application even otherwise has
no relation to the lis between the parties. The petitioner by way of this
application seeks to summon a witness from the DDA as also the
Director/authorized employee of the M/s. Kohday India to substantiate
his submission that the DDA had sent notice to the plaintiff for certain
violations committed by him; further the plaintiff had permitted another
tenant to commit violation in the suit property; contention by an large is
bordering on the submission that if the plaintiff had permitted another
tenant to commit a wrong, the petitioner should also be permitted to
become a wrong doer.
2 Impugned order had noted the facts in the correct perspective. It
had also noted that the documents proposed to be submitted by the
plaintiff are false and fabricated and the document purported to have
been issued by M/s. Kohday India is a manipulated document as there
was a long pending litigation between the plaintiff and M/s. Kohday
India. Trial Court had correctly noted that these were delaying tactics
on the part of the defendant to prolong the litigation.
3 Impugned order suffers form no infirmity; it is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 19, 2011
rb
