Delhi High Court
Ajay Garg vs Delhi Development Authority on 28 June, 2021
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6033/2021 & C.M APPLs. 19090-091/2021
AJAY GARG ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Devashish Bhadauria, Mr. Kawaljit
Singh and Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Paritosh Dhawan, Adv. for
DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 28.06.2021
(Video-Conferencing)
1. This petition has been taken up on mention, as listing was
allowed in view of the urgency involved. With consent of parties the
petition is being disposed of, in view of the nature of the controversy.
2. It is not necessary to dwell in detail on the facts. Suffice it to
state that Suit No. 82888/2016 had been preferred by the petitioner
before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saket, challenging the proposal
of the DDA to demolish the property of the petitioner located at D-
66/3, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. Said suit was dismissed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, vide order dated 8th April, 2021, under
Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. The petitioner moved an application for restoration of the suit.
However, Mr. Dalal submits that, as the presiding officer of the court
which was dealing with the petitioner's suit is not sitting, the
application for restoration has not been listed. Given the present
scenario, in which the trial courts are functioning only on a virtual and
restricted mode, he submits that despite his client's best efforts, it has
not been possible to have the restoration application listed before the
Court.
4. In the meanwhile, he submits that his client has been
constrained to move the present petition before this Court as the
respondents are taking action to demolish the aforesaid property. As
such, the petition seeks a restraint on the respondents demolishing the
property till final decision in SCJ 82888/2016. Mr. Dalal states, fairly,
that though, stricto sensu, SCJ 82888/2016 does not survive, he seeks
status quo regarding the aforesaid property till the decision on the
restoration application filed by his client.
5. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned Standing Counsel for the DDA,
submits that the property of the petitioner has already been
demolished, though the said assertion is disputed by Mr. Sunil Dalal,
on instructions.
6. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be subjected to prejudice
merely because of difficulty in having his application for restoration
listed before the court, given the present strained circumstances.
7. As such, without entering into the disputes between the parties
on merits, I am inclined to dispose of this petition in the following
terms:
(i) The learned District Judge (South), Saket is requested to
assign a suitable court to consider the application filed by the
petitioner for restoration of SCJ 82888/2016 and have the
matter listed before the said court on 7th July, 2021. Needless to
say, learned Counsel for the parties would be intimated the
details of the court before which the matter is to be listed by e-
mail at their respective e-mail IDs. The matter would be taken
up by video-conferencing on the said date.
(ii) The DDA shall maintain status quo as of now, as it exists
at 05:30 p.m. on 28th June, 2021, till and subject to the decision
of the appropriate court on the petitioner's application for
restoration.
(iii) The learned trial court shall decide the petitioner's
application for restoration on its own merits uninfluenced by
any observations contained in this order. It is reiterated that this
Court has not returned any observations on merits on the
disputes between the parties.
8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. Let a copy of this order be emailed to learned counsel for the
parties within 24 hours.
10. Mr. Relan undertakes to convey the gist of the order passed
today to the DDA.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 28, 2021
dsn
