Delhi High Court
Anirudh Kumar vs Jagat Narain & Sons Huf & Ors on 25 July, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 97/2017 & CM No. 16717/2017
ANIRUDH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate.
versus
JAGAT NARAIN & SONS HUF & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Advocate for R-3,
3(a), 3 (b).
Mr. Virender Goswami, Advocate
along with Ms. Swati Goswami,
Advocate for R- 3(c).
Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Advocate for
R-4, 4(a) and 4 (b).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 25.07.2017
1. Appearance is entered by learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 3,
3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 4, 4(a) and 4(b). As per the office report, R-1, R- 2(a),
R-2(b), R-3(e), R-3f (i), R-3f (ii), R-3f (iii), R-3(g), R-3(h) and R-3(i),
remain unserved.
2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal on a grievance that
the learned Single Judge has declined to grant an ex parte stay order in
respect of the suit property, as prayed for in I.A. No. 4777/2017 and instead,
directed completion of service and pleadings in the suit and the interim
application, returnable on 12.09.2017.
3. While issuing notice in the present appeal, on 02.5.2017, having
regard to the assertion of the appellant/plaintiff that he has remained in
actual physical possession of the suit premises ever since the year 1975, it
was directed that subject to his maintaining status quo with regard to the
title, possession and construction of the suit premises, the
respondents/defendants be restrained from taking any coercive steps to
dispossess him therefrom till the next date of hearing i.e. till today.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents state that the appellant/plaintiff
has not been in actual physical possession of the suit premises since the year
1975, as asserted by him. They contend that the appellant is trying to take
advantage of the fact that the respondents who are members of different
branches of Jagat Narain & Sons HUF, are in litigation with each other
which includes the suit property, subject matter of a civil suit instituted by
late Suraj Narain, the predecessor-in-title of the respondent nos. 4, 4(a) and
4(b).
5. Having regard to the fact that the suit as also the interim application is
listed before the learned Single Judge on 12.09.2017, it is deemed
appropriate to dispose of the present appeal with liberty granted to the
respondents to take all the pleas as may be available to them, both on facts
and in law while filing their replies to the stay application (I.A No.
4777/2017). The said application shall then be considered by the learned
Single Judge and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law. The
interim order dated 02.05.2017 shall continue to operate till then.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, 3(a) and 3(b)
states that the appellant/plaintiff has deliberately furnished the
incomplete/wrong addresses of some of the respondents, particularly,
respondent nos. 2(a) and 2(b) who, to his knowledge, are not residing at the
addresses given in the memo of parties. The said submission is however
denied by learned counsel for the appellant.
7. To obviate any delay in the service of the unserved respondents,
including respondent nos. 2(a) and 2(b) in the suit proceedings, learned
counsel for the respondents are directed to furnish their correct addresses to
the counsel for the appellant who shall take immediate steps to file the
process fee within one week, for effecting service on them by ordinary
process, speed post and courier, returnable on the date fixed in the suit.
8. It is made clear that the appellant/plaintiff shall not seek any
unnecessary adjournments before the learned Single Judge for the purpose
of addressing arguments on the stay application.
9. The appeal is disposed of along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JULY 25, 2017
ss
