Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1 RC ARC 46/23
RAVI KANT GUPTA Vs. DHARAMVIR
05.08.2023
Present: Sh. R. S. Kela, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Rahul Badbaria, Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Rejoinder not filed.
An application under Section 151 Code of Civil
Procedure filed on behalf of the respondent. Copy given.
Vide the said application, it is prayed that the
NOC /affidavit of Sh. Brij Prakash Gupta and conveyance deed
filed by the petitioner alongwith reply to application for leave to
defend, may not be considered till the disposal of application for
leave to defend.
It is stated that the said affidavit of Sh. Brij Prakash
Gupta has been filed by the petitioner of his own after
manipulating the signatures of Sh. Brij Prakash Gupta, in order to
mislead this court. That moreover, whether petitioner and Sh.
Brij Prakash Gupta are the co-owners of the tenanted premises or
not, is a matter of file. Further, the genuineness of conveyance
deed issued by the DDA is also matter of record. That since no
partition has been effected in respect of the tenanted premises till
date therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right qua the
specific portion.
To this, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner
that the present application has been filed merely to delay the
proceedings of this case. That instead of filing rejoinder,
respondent has filed this present petition which is without any
merits.
-- 1 of 2 --
Submissions heard. File perused.
This court finds favour with the submissions made
by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Instead of filing of rejoinder,
respondent has moved this application wherein the grounds taken
are more of a nature which could have been taken by him in his
rejoinder. This court is of the view that at this stage, no such
order can be passed and whther the said NOC of Sh. Brij Prakash
Gupta and the said conveyance deed are geninune or not and
whther any triable issue is raised in this regard or not, would be
considered at the time of disposal of application leave to defend.
Accordingly, the aforesaid application is dismissed.
Further, no reason has been cited for not filing of
rejoinder till date. It is merely submitted by Ld. Counsel for
respondent that he is undergoing treatment of shoulder, therefore,
he could not file rejoinder.
Pertinently, on the last date of hearing in this matter
was 05.04.2023. Thus, respondent had a time approximately 04
months to file the rejoinder but he failed to file the same.
Moreover, it is not stated by Ld. Counsel for respondent as to
since when he started undergoing treatment of his shoulder that
he could not file the rejoinder. Thus, there is no merit in the
contention put forth by Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Accordingly, right of respondent to file rejoinder is
closed.
Be put up for arguments on leave to defend
application on 13.10.2023.
(PRAGATI)
ARC-01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 2 of 2 --