Delhi High Court
M/S Asra Buildtech Pvt Ltd vs Pankaj Chaudhary & Ors on 24 April, 2014
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2288/2013
M/S ASRA BUILDTECH PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.M.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
versus
PANKAJ CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.N.K.Kukreja, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
CS(OS) 2288/2013
The parties were referred to mediation by order dated
10.12.2013. The report of the mediator has been received.
As per the report the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 have
settled their disputes. The settlement agreement dated 10.1.2014 has
been signed by the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 and also by
their counsels.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.3
was only a proforma party and in case the settlement is complied
with, no relief will be claimed against defendant No.3. Learned
counsel for defendant No.1and 2 submits that there were certain oral
terms over and above the settlement which were agreed to. However,
he admits that the settlement agreement is signed by defendants No.1
and 2 and by the counsel.
The parties cannot be permitted to resile from the settlement
agreed upon before the mediation and duly signed by the parties and
their Advocate, more so, when payments in terms of settlement have
been made to defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 had received a
sum of Rs.2 crores by way of demand draft for himself and his wife.
The said demand draft is stated to have been encashed. The
defendants 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to resile from the settlement
agreed upon in the mediation, which is admittedly signed by them and
their advocate and further no oral evidence can be brought in to
contradict the terms of the written agreement.
Since settlement between the parties has been recorded and
signed by the parties, it is a settlement in terms of Order 23 Rule 3
CPC. The terms of settlement are contained in paragraphs a to z and
aa to bb of the settlement agreement. I have examined the terms and
find them to be lawful. The settlement agreement is marked as Ex.C-I.
The suit is accordingly decreed in terms of Clauses a to z and aa and
bb of the settlement agreement Ex.C-I. The Clauses a to z and aa and
bb shall form part of the decree.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submit that he does not press
his relief against defendant No.3 and prays for withdrawal of the suit
qua defendant No.3.
Suit is, accordingly, decreed in terms of the settlement in favour
of plaintiff and against defendants No.1 and 2 and the suit qua
defendant No.3 is dismissed as withdrawn.
The parties, i.e., plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are bound
by the terms of the settlement and the undertaking recorded in the said
settlement which are accepted.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CC(P) 49/2014
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
despite having agreed to the terms recorded in settlement agreement
dated 10.1.2014 in the mediation is not complying with the terms of
the settlement.
Issue notice. Mr.N.K.Kukreja, Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent.
Let a copy of the petition be supplied to the counsel for the
respondent within two days.
Let reply to the petition be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List on 30th September, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1572/2013
RADICO KHAITAN LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. N.K.Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Ishani Chandra, Mr.Sagar Chandra,
Advocate
versus
M/S BRIMA SAGAR MAHARASHTRA DISTILLERIES LTD
..... Defendant
Through: Ms.Amita Sehgal Mathur and
Mr.Satinder Singh Mathur, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Arguments of the defendant concluded.
List on 15th May, 2014 for rejoinder on behalf the plaintiff.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~17 to 20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1054/2013
M/S TARKESHWAR REALTORS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Arpan Behl, Advocate
versus
DHARAMBIR & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.N.K.Kaul, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.P. Banerjee, Mr.Ajay Dahiya,
Ms.Shilpa, Ms.Liza M. Baruah and
Mr.Sarad , Advocates
+ CS(OS) 1136/2013
M/S TARKESHWAR REALTORS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Arpan Behl, Advocate
versus
BHAGWANA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.N.K.Kaul, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.P. Banerjee, Mr.Ajay Dahiya,
Ms.Shilpa, Ms.Liza M. Baruah and
Mr.Sarad , Advocates
+ CS(OS) 1145/2013
M/S NUMBER ONE EXPORTS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Arpan Behl, Advocate
versus
INDER SINGH & ORS ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.N.K.Kaul, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.P. Banerjee, Mr.Ajay Dahiya,
Ms.Shilpa, Ms.Liza M. Baruah and
Mr.Sarad , Advocates
+ CS(OS) 1146/2013
M/S NUMBER ONE EXPORTS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Arpan Behl, Advocate
versus
MAHAVIR SINGH & ORS ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.N.K.Kaul, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.P. Banerjee, Mr.Ajay Dahiya,
Ms.Shilpa, Ms.Liza M. Baruah and
Mr.Sarad , Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that replication
has been filed to the written statement filed by defendants No.1, 5 and
6. However, the same is not on record.
Let counsel for the plaintiff check up with the Registry and
have the same placed on record.
A copy of the replication has been supplied to the counsel for
the defendant today in Court.
List for hearing on 14 th July, 2014.
It is clarified that the matter shall be heard on the next date of
hearing.
Interim order to continue.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2383/2013
SURESH CHAND GARG ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Hetal Vora, Advocate
versus
RAJENDER & ANR ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that an application
seeking amendment of the plaint has been filed. However, the same is
not on record.
List on 19th September, 2014 for directions.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 842/2014
A N SHARMA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Plaintiff in person
versus
CHAIRMAN (HONBLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) & ORS.
..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Katik Jindal, Adv for D-1.
Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Tarang Srivastava, Advocate
for D-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who is a
practicing Advocate, challenging the allotment of lawyers chambers
at Patiala House Court Complex. Summons in the suit were issued.
IA No.7418/2014 (filed on behalf of defendant No.2 for
constitution of the Committee to investigate, probe and scrutinize
the allotment).
Learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.2, New
Delhi Bar Association, submits that post the filing of the present
petition the elections were held and a new Executive Committee has
taken over. Learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.2
submits that as per the records available with defendant No.2, he
could not decipher a method or formulae which was used for
allotment of the chambers. Learned senior counsel for defendant No.2
further submits that the method/formulae adopted in the Saket District
Court Complex for allotment of chambers, should have been adopted
for the purposes of allotment of the present chambers.
Learned senior counsel further submits that the allotment letters
have been issued under the signatures of the then President and the
Secretary of the executive committee.
Issue notice to the erstwhile President, Mr.Rajiv Jai, Advocate
and the Secretary, Mr.Jagdeep Vats, Advocate of New Delhi Bar
Association to place on record the criteria adopted for the purposes of
allotment of the chambers.
Defendant No.1 is directed to place on record the rules for
allotment of the chambers.
The New Delhi Bar Association is directed to place on record
the seniority list of the Members of the Association. The seniority list
shall also indicate whether the said members have a chamber in any
other District Court Complex.
Learned senior counsel for defendant No.2 submits that
defendant No.2 has already issued a circular to the allottees of the
impugned chambers that a committee is being constituted to examine
the allotment and no further renovation or change of status should
take place in the said chambers. The circular has been placed on
record along with the present application
List for directions on 15th May, 2014.
IA No.7419/2014 (u/O 1 rule 10 CPC on behalf Mr.Sanjay
Kumar, Advocate)
The applicant also espouse the same grievance as the plaintiff.
Since the grievance of the applicant is already being examined
by this Court, the applicant does not wish to press the application at
this stage.
The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
approach this Court if the need so arises.
A copy of order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2632/2013
SARDAR GURPREET SINGH & OTHERS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr.Mohit Chaudhary and Ms.Pragya
Singh, Advocate
versus
RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR & OTHERS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Amir Singh Pasrich, Ms.Gurveen
H. Singh and Ms.Vineeta Chhatwal,
Advocates for D-1
Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Mohit Abraham, Mr.Arvind
Kumar Ray, Advocates for D-2,3,3A
to 3C, 3F and 3H
Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Adv for D-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
IA No.5944/2014 (under Section 151 CPC for condonation of
delay of 56 days in filing the reply of IA No.20985/2013)
IA No.5945/2014 (under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for condonation of
delay of 56 days in filing written statement on behalf of
defendants No.2, 3, 3A to 3C, 3F and 3H)
The defendants by the present application seek condonation of
delay in filing the reply and the written statement.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of the
expeditious disposal of the suit, plaintiff does not oppose the
condonation of delay in filing reply and the written statement.
Accordingly the delay is condoned and the reply and written
statement are taken on record.
Let plaintiff file rejoinder/replication to the said reply and
written statement within four weeks.
CS(OS) 2632/2013
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that documents filed
by the defendant have not been received by him. A copy of the
documents shall be supplied during the course of the day.
Let plaintiff file replication to the written statement filed by
defendant No.1 within four weeks.
It is directed that in case parties file any pleadings/documents, a
copy of the same shall be supplied to the all other parties irrespective
of concerned parties.
Learned counsel for defendant No.4 enters appearance and
submits that she has not received a copy of the paper book.
Let a copy of complete paper book be supplied to the counsel
for defendant No.4 during the course of the day.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.4 is
only a proforma party and as per the information of the plaintiff, there
is a locker in their bank. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
as of now he is not in a position to state either the number of the
locker, name of the branch where the locker is situated, or the holder
in whose name the locker has been issued.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that such details shall
be filed within a period of one week from today.
On filing of such details, defendant No.4 shall file a report
indicating whether such locker is maintained in their bank and if so
details of the authorised signatories to the locker shall be filed.
Defendant No.4, as of now is exempted from filing written statement.
List for hearing on 30 th July, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2591/2013
TARUN BATRA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms.Rajni Jain, Ms.Shriya Maini and
Mr.Vidur Mohan, Advocates
versus
ROOPA SOOD ..... Defendant
Through: Ms.Pinky Anand, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Attin Shamkar Rastogi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
The report of the Court Commissioner is not on record.
Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that the
inspection was carried out about three weeks ago.
Issue reminder to the Court Commissioner to file report within
two weeks.
On filing of the report, in case, a request is made by the parties
for supplying a copy of the report, the Registry shall supply a copy of
the report to the parties.
List on 19th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1230/2010
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED .... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Divya Jain Bajaj, Advocate
versus
MOHIT BHATIA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Learned counsel for the parties submit that proposals have been
exchanged and shortly a joint application shall be filed.
Renotify on 5th August, 2014 for directions.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 748/2010
M/S ARORA BUILDERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhishek Tyagi, Advocate
(Proxy) with Proprietor of petitioner
versus
DELHI JAL BOARD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Mr.Anil Arora, Proprietor of M/s Arora Builders is present in
Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the full and
final amount has been paid. Petitioner confirms the fact that he has
received the amount in full and final settlement of all his claims.
Petitioner submits that there are no claims now due against the
respondent and he does not press his objections under Section 34
against the award dated 9.8.2010. He further submits that he has
accepted the award dated 9.8.2010 and now no claim is due in respect
of the said award from the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the award
has been accepted by the respondent and now nothing is due from the
petitioner.
The petitioner, accordingly, prays for withdrawal of the present
petition.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 315/2011
GURVINDER SINGH DHINGRA ..... Decree Holder
Through: Mr.Pulkit Agarwal, Advocate
versus
K.K. BINDAL ..... Judgement Debtor
Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Learned counsel for the judgment debtor submits that
approximately a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- has been paid. The judgment
debtor is making endeavour to make further payments. He assures
that some more payment will be made by the next date of hearing.
List on 23rd July, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 305/2008
SHRI JOGINDER SINGH MEHTA ..... Decree Holder
Through: Mr.Rajiv Tyagi, Advocate
versus
SHRI HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA AND OTHERS
..... Judgement Debtors
Through: M.G.L.Rawal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Rajesh Rawal, Advocate
Mr.B.B.Gupta, Advocate for JD-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the negotiations
between the parties could not be successful.
List for hearing on 26 th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 64/2009
SHRI HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA ..... Decree Holder
Through: Mr.G.L.Rawal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Rajesh Rawal, Advocate
versus
SH. JOGINDER SINGH MEHTA & ORS ..... Judgement Debtors
Through: Mr.Rajiv Tyagi, Adv for JD-1.
Mr.B.B.Gupta, Adv for JD-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the negotiations
between the parties could not be successful.
List for hearing on 26 th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 235/2010
GURBAX SINGH MEHTA ..... Decree Holder
Through: Mr.B.B.Gupta, Advocate
versus
JOGINDER SINGH & OTHERS ..... Judgement Debtors
Through: Mr.Rajiv Tyagi, Advocate for JD-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the negotiations
between the parties could not be successful.
List for hearing on 26 th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 41/2014
RAJAN DHINGRA ..... Decree Holder
Through: Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate
versus
NARENDRA SINGH NARULA AND ANR..... Judgement Debtors
Through: Dr.Sarabjit Sharma, Ms.Kusum
Sanehi and Ms.Swati Yadav,
Advocates for JD-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
Ex.Appl.(OS) 293/2014 (filed by defendant No.1)
Issue notice to the decree holder. Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate
accepts notice on behalf of the decree holder and submits that a copy
of the application has not been received by him.
Let a copy of the application be supplied to the counsel for the
decree holder within two days.
Reply to the application be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List on 30th September, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ I.P.A. 68/2013
MASTER ABHINAV & ANR THR ANITA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
KUNWAR PAL SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashok Chhikara, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
No reply to the IPA has been filed. Learned counsel for the
respondent submits that written statement has been filed vide diary
No.71805 on 23.4.2014. However, the same is not record. Let
counsel for the respondent check up with Registry and have the same
placed on record.
List before the Joint Registrar on 21st August, 2014 to conduct
an inquiry of the status of the plaintiff.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 50/2014
M/S TOPLINE BUILD TECH PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Rakesh Makhija, Advocate
versus
M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Shalabh Singhal, Advocate
for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
In view of the part heard, it is not possible to take up the matter
for hearing today.
List on 15th May, 2014.
Interim order to continue.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 246/2013
MARICO LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra and Mr.Sumit
Wadhwa, Advocates
versus
ADANI WILMAR LTD ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.Harish Pandey, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed:
1. Whether the advertisement of the Defendant
denigrates disparages the brand SAFFOLA
of the Plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the claims made in the impugned
advertisement are true and correct based on
scientific research and facts? OPD
3. Whether the impugned advertisement
constitutes an attack on the goodwill and
reputation of SAFFOLA brand of the
plaintiff? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree
of injunction? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any
damages. If so, to what extent? OPP
6. Reliefs.
Learned counsel for the parties submits that in view of the
expeditious disposal of the suit a Court Commissioner may be
appointed for the purposes of recording of evidence of the parties.
Accordingly, Mr.D.S.Bawa (Retd. ADJ) (Mobile No.9999564413) is
appointed as a court commissioner to record the evidence of the
parties. The fee of the court commissioner is tentatively fixed at
Rs.1,00,000/- to be shared equally between the parties. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff undertakes to inform the Court Commissioner
of the present order.
Parties shall file their list of witnesses within two weeks.
Plaintiff shall further file their affidavits by way of evidence of its
witnesses within four weeks. The parties shall appear before the court
Commissioner on 9th May, 2014 at 2 p.m. for the purposes of fixing
the schedule for recording of evidence.
List before the Joint Registrar on 30.9.2014 for monitoring the
recording of evidence and to await the report of the Court
Commissioner.
The Joint Registrar shall place the matter before Court after the
report of the Court Commissioner is received.
A copy of order be given dasti to the parties.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 319/2013
MARICO LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra and Mr.Sumit
Wadhwa, Advocates
versus
ADANI WILMAR LTD ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.Harish Pandey, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed:
1. Whether the advertisement of the Defendant
denigrates disparages the brand SAFFOLA of the
Plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the claims made in the impugned
advertisement are true and correct based on
scientific research and facts? OPD
3. Whether the impugned advertisement
constitutes an attack on the goodwill and
reputation of SAFFOLA brand of the
plaintiff? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree
of injunction? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any
damages. If so, to what extent? OPP
6. Reliefs.
Learned counsel for the parties submits that in view of the
expeditious disposal of the suit a Court Commissioner may be
appointed for the purposes of recording of evidence of the parties.
Accordingly, Mr.D.S.Bawa (Retd. ADJ) (Mobile No.9999564413) is
appointed as a court commissioner to record the evidence of the
parties. The fee of the court commissioner is tentatively fixed at
Rs.1,00,000/- to be shared equally between the parties. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff undertakes to inform the Court Commissioner
of the present order.
Parties shall file their list of witnesses within two weeks.
Plaintiff shall further file their affidavits by way of evidence of its
witnesses within four weeks. The parties shall appear before the court
Commissioner on 9th May, 2014 at 2 p.m. for the purposes of fixing
the schedule for recording of evidence.
List before the Joint Registrar on 30.9.2014 for monitoring the
recording of evidence and to await the report of the Court
Commissioner.
The Joint Registrar shall place the matter before Court after the
report of the Court Commissioner is received.
A copy of order be given dasti to the parties.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2778/2012
KAARUN ARORA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Advocate
versus
V.K. RASTOGI & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Mirza Amir Baig, Adv for D-1
and 2
Mr.Pramod B. Agarwala, Adv for D-
Ms.Purnima Maheshwari, Adv for D-
Ms.Ritika Nagpal, Adv for Applicants
in IA No.20114-20117/2013.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 24.04.2014
IA Nos.21867/2012 (u/ O 7 rule 14 CPC on behalf of the Plaintiff)
IA No.4631/2013 (u/ O 7 rule 14 CPC on behalf the plaintiff)
The plaintiff by these applications seeks leave to place on
record certain additional documents. The admission/denial is yet to
take place.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that though the
documents are being produced late and no explanation has come for
the late filing of the documents, the defendant would not oppose the
documents being taken on record subject to them being proved in
accordance with law.
In view of the above, the applications are allowed and the
documents filed by the plaintiff are taken on record.
It is clarified that I am expressing no opinion on the
admissibility and the mode of proof of the said documents at this
stage.
The application stands disposed of.
IA No.7454/2014 (U/O 7 rule 11 CPC of the defendant)
Issue notice. Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of the plaintiff.
Reply to the application be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
CS(OS) 2778/2012
Learned counsel for the defendant No.5 submits that the file of
defendant No.5 is not traceable on account of change of the panel
counsel.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff undertakes to supply a copy of
the entire paper book to the counsel for defendant No.5 within one
week.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.5 submits that defendant
No.5 is only a proforma party, however, since the dispute pertains to
certain Khatauni and Revenue record, defendant No.5 will file a status
report in respect of Khatauni and revenue record filed by the plaintiff.
At this stage, defendant No.5 is exempted from filing wr itten
statement.
List on 23rd September, 2014 for consideration of all pending
applications.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2014/sv
