Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 13
RC ARC 692/25
yogesh maurya Vs. braham devi
30.07.2026
Present : Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Jatin Tyagi, Ld. LAC for applicants under Order I Rule 10 namely
Kavita, Daksh, and Anuj.
None for respondents.
Matter is listed for arguments on the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC
filed by the applicants namely Kavita, Daksh, and Anuj.
Reply filed by the petitioner is already on record.
Several arguments have been heard on the application from both the sides.
It is the case of the applicants that petitioner has not deliberately impleaded
them in the present eviction petition in order to conceal facts and obtain an eviction
order as the respondents in the present case are not occupying the property. It is the case
of the applicants that they are in exclusive possession of the property in question.
Ld. LAC for applicants has also drawn the attention of this court to the
earlier eviction petition bearing no. RC ARC 175/21 filed by father of the petitioner
herein against the same respondents whereby Mr. Vikas Chander (husband of the
applicant Kavita and father of applicants Anuj and Daksh) was also a party respondent
no.2. He has further pointed out that such eviction petition for the bonafide need of
father of the petitioner herein came to be withdrawn vide order dated 02.09.2025. Lastly,
he has submitted that since Mr. Vikas Chander was son of the original tenant Mr. Kishan
Lal, legal heirs of Mr. Vikas Chaner are necessary parties in the present petition.
-- 1 of 2 --
The application is strongly opposed on behalf of petitioner on the ground
that Mr. Vikas Chander is not the son of the original tenant Mr. Kishan Lal and rather, he
was given in adoption to brother of Mr. Kishan Lal namely Mr. Subhash Chander. In this
regard, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to driving license
of Mr. Subhash Chander and Will dated 07.12.1985 of Mr. Subhash Chander to show
that Mr. Vikas Chander i.e. predecessor in interest of the applicant was not the legal heir
of the original tenant Mr. Kishan Lal.
A query was raised to the Ld. LAC for applicants as to how the applicants
can be considered as joint tenants in view of such aforesaid facts and as to how they are
necessary to be impleaded in the present petition in view of the provisions of the DRC
Act.
Mr. Jatin Tyagi, Ld. LAC for applicants has sought an adjournment to
clarify such aspect on the NDOH.
At his request, be adjourned for 31.08.2026.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
ACJ-cum-ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts
30.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --