Thursday, 30, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Tara Balagopal vs Shri R. Rajendran & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 7527 Del

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 7527 Del
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2015

Delhi High Court
Smt. Tara Balagopal vs Shri R. Rajendran & Ors on 1 October, 2015
$~3.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 2240/2008
       SMT. TARA BALAGOPAL                           ..... Plaintiff
                      Through: None

                         versus

       SHRI R. RAJENDRAN & ORS                   ..... Defendants
                      Through: Ms. Rashmeet Kaur, Advocate with
                      Ms. Arpana Majumdar, Advocate for D-3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 01.10.2015

1. The case was passed over on the first call to await the presence

of the counsel for the plaintiff. It is 3:17 PM now. However, none is

present on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 3 states that the defendant

No.3, mother of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and 2 had passed

away in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. on 18.08.2013 and defendant No.2,

brother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had passed away on

13.11.2011 in Texas, USA. Copies of the death certificates of the

defendants No.2 and 3 are handed over and taken on record.

3. On 28.07.2015, it was noted that a preliminary decree had

already been passed on 17.7.2014 in respect of the Rajouri Garden

property. Counsel for the plaintiff had stated that he would be

confining the present suit to the Rajouri Garden property while

reserving the right of the plaintiff to seek her legal remedies in respect

of the Sunder Vihar property. Accordingly, a Local Commissioner was

appointed to visit the Rajouri Garden property and submit a report as

to whether it could be partitioned by metes and bounds. The Local

Commissioner has submitted a report dated 24.08.2015 stating inter

alia that though the counsel for the defendant No.1 had appeared

before him on 07.08.2015, 12.08.2015, 17.08.2015 and 19.08.2015,

none had appeared for the plaintiff.

4. It appears that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the

present suit, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non-

prosecution.

HIMA KOHLI, J OCTOBER 01, 2015 rkb/ap

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter