Full Order Text
Interim Order 10 · 25 May 2026 · CNR DLET010042192024
Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Pdf Text: CS 424/24 RAJ KUMAR KAKE Vs. BRIJ KISHORE AND OTHERS 25.05.2026 Present: Sh. Munish Chhoker and Ms. Jyoti Verma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff alongwith plaintiff in person. Sh. Hari Shankar and Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the defendant alongwith Ms. Beena Devi, wife of the defendant no. 1 in person. Matter is listed for completion of pleadings, admission denial of documents and for framing of issues today. Written statement filed on behalf of the defendants. Copy supplied. On the last date of hearing cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. 500/- to be paid to the plaintiff and Rs. 250/- each to be deposited in DSLSA, East and SBA) was imposed upon the defendants. Cost paid to the plaintiff. Receipt of deposition of cost in DSLSA, East and SBA filed. Same are taken on record. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of the defendant. Copy supplied. Plaintiff has filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for placing on record certain additional documents which are copy of property tax dated 18.03.2013, copy of water bills dated 25.01.2013 and 24.04.2026. Since the matter is at its intial stage, no prejudice shall be caused to the defendants if the documents are taken on record as the defendants shall have the opportunity to examine the genuiness and validity of the said documents during the evidence. In view thereof, the application under Order VII Rule 14 Contd…….. 1/4 -- 1 of 4 -- 2/4 CS 424/24 RAJ KUMAR KAKE Vs. BRIJ KISHORE AND OTHERS 25.05.2026 CPC is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 500/- (to be paid to the defendants) and disposed of accordingly. The documents as mentioned in the application i.e. copy of property tax dated 18.03.2013, copy of water bills dated 25.01.2013 and 24.04.2026, are taken on record. Cost paid to the Ld. Counsel for the defendant today in Court. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that since no documents have been filed on behalf of the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff is not inclined to file the affidavit of admission denial of documents. Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has been recorded to this effect. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the defendant is denying all the documents filed by the plaintiff. Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the defendant has been recorded to this effect. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that due to inadvertent typographical error in the plaint in prayer clause, the partition for the property bearing no. MB-137, First Floor, Gali No. 5, Master Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-92 has been sought for instead of entire suit property. The said error may be rectified and the plaintiff may be directed to file the amended plaint to that extent only. The prayer as mentioned in prayer clause (d) and (e) of the plaint cannot be granted to the plaintiff as it is beyond the scope of present litigation. Hence, prayer clause (d) and (e) of the plaint are Contd…… -- 2 of 4 -- 3/4 CS 424/24 RAJ KUMAR KAKE Vs. BRIJ KISHORE AND OTHERS 25.05.2026 deemed to be deleted. Pleadings are complete. Accordingly, on basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are hereby framed for adjudication of the present suit:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of partition for the property bearing no. MB-137, First Floor, Gali No. 5, Master Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-92? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (c) of the plaint?OPP 3. Whether the defendant no. 1 is the owner of the entire suit property which he has purchased from his own funds in or about February, 1990? OPD1 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD1 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD1 6. Relief, if any”. No other issue arises or is pressed for. All the parties are directed to file list of witnesses within 15 days from today as per the mandate of Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. Put up for PE on 13.08.2026. Advance copy of the evidence affidavit of witnesses to be Contd…… -- 3 of 4 -- 4/4 CS 424/24 RAJ KUMAR KAKE Vs. BRIJ KISHORE AND OTHERS 25.05.2026 examined in PE be filed in Court with supply of advance copy to the opposite side at least 15 days before the next date of hearing. The date has been given as per the convenience and request of Ld. Counsel for the parties. (Sandeep Kumar Sharma) District Judge-04, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 25.05.2026 -- 4 of 4 --
