Krishna Khanna vs Pritam Lal Bakshi
2016 Latest Caselaw 7417 Del

$~1 and 2.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      RFA 748/2016 and CM APPL. 35337/2016
+      RFA 749/2016 and CM APPL. 35338-35339/2016
       KRISHNA KHANNA                            ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr. K. Priyadarshi, Advocate with
                   appellant in person.

                         versus

       PRITAM LAL BAKSHI                                 ..... Respondent
                    Through: None

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 15.12.2016

1. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2016, passed by the trial court in a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits and damages instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, who happens to be her uncle (brother of the appellant's mother). Under the impugned judgment, while turning down the relief of mesne profits and damages claimed by the respondent/plaintiff, the learned ADJ granted a decree of possession in his favour and against the appellant in respect of a portion of the suit premises as detailed in the order. By a separate judgment dated 20.07.2016 the counter claim filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant asking for the relief of declaration, in respect of the suit premises, was turned down. The appellant has assailed the findings returned by trial court by filing a separate appeal, registered as RFA

749/2016 and listed today.

2. On the last date of hearing, it was enquired from learned counsel for the appellant if his client would be ready and willing to vacate the suit premises if granted some reasonable time to do so.

3. Today, the appellant is present alongwith her counsel. Counsel for the appellant states on instructions that the appellant has been residing in the suit premises with her family members for the past 40 years and she may be granted a reasonable time of at least two years to vacate the same. He further states that the appellant does not propose to press the appeals on merits and instead, requests that notice be issued in the appeals limited to the timeline for the appellant to vacate the suit premises.

4. While disposing of both the appeals alongwith the pending applications, limited notice is issued to the respondent on the aspect of the timeline for the appellant to vacate the suit premises. The appellant shall file the process fee within one week for effecting service on the respondent, by courier and registered post, returnable on 31.01.2017.

5. The notices to be issued to the respondent shall indicate that the parties shall remain present on the next date of hearing.

6. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay of the execution proceedings on the condition that the appellant shall maintain status quo with regard to the title, possession and construction of the suit premises.

DASTI

HIMA KOHLI, J DECEMBER 15, 2016 rkb/ap