Delhi High Court
Sh Rajender Gautam vs Sh Parmanand Sharma & Ors on 1 October, 2013
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 01.10.2013
+ RFA (OS) NO.78 OF 2013
SH RAJENDER GAUTAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. N.Krishnan and Mr.Naveen Pandey,
Advocates.
versus
SH PARMANAND SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chadha, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vaibhav Jairaj, Advocate for R-1
Mr.Sushil Kabra, Advocate for R-6
Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Gaurav Goel, Mr.Mudit
Jain, Advocates for R-3
Mr.Harshita Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Mr.A.K.Aggarwal, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT(Open Court)
1. The present appeal is filed against an order dated 13.3.2013 of
the learned Single Judge dismissing Civil Suit bearing CS(OS)
no.480/2013.
2. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that another suit
for permanent injunction against the six defendants, bearing CS(OS)
No.1529/2011 in respect of the same piece of land i.e. 1 Bigha 7
Biswas out of Khasra No.24/2, Village Masudabad, Najafgarh, Delhi
was pending and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the present suit amounted to multifarious litigations.
3. During the course of hearing, it was suggested to the appellant
as well as the respondents who were impleaded as the defendants in
the suit that the impugned order would not be disturbed and that the
plaintiff's request for appropriate amendment may be considered in
the light of the contentions of the parties to incorporate the necessary
reliefs, which were claimed in the present suit, may also be
considered.
4. The learned counsel for the parties expressed no objection to
this. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 through Mr.
Amit Chadha, learned senior counsel, that an application for
impleadment bearing CM 11212/11 may be considered. The learned
counsel for the appellant does not oppose this request. Accordingly,
by consent of the parties, IA 11212/2011 in Suit No.1529/2011 is
allowed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Sh. Parmanand Sharma and Sh.
Naresh Dagar) are directed to be impleaded in the pending Suit.
5. Likewise, it is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that
respondent Nos.3 and 4 that they may be impleaded as
parties/defendants in the suit. Ordered accordingly.
6. The counsel for the appellant submits that an application to
implead Sh. Ashok Kumar would be made. In case the same is made,
in CS(OS) no.1529/2011, the same shall be considered and
appropriate relief be granted.
7. It is also agreed by the counsel for the parties that the
plaintiff/appellant's request for appropriate amendment in CS(OS)
No.1529/2011 seeking the reliefs that are sought in CS(OS)
no.480/2013 may be considered, in the light of the contentions
advanced by the parties and order made in accordance with law.
8. Nothing stated in this order would be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case of either of the parties.
9. The observations by the learned Single Judge on the merits of
the appellant's contention shall not be conclusive on the contentions
which may be available to him in law.
10. Likewise, the rights of the parties to advance such arguments as
are available in law in CS(OS) no.1529/2011 are reserved.
12. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
13. Dasti.
Crl.M.A.No. 13945/2013 (U/s 340 Cr.PC)
14. The learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present
application with liberty to move an appropriate application before the
learned Single Judge. Permission is granted.
15. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as
prayed for.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
(JUDGE)
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 01, 2013
RN
