Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 526/24
SMT. RAMA TRIKHA (THROUGH SPA PANKAJ JAITLY)
Vs.
MADHUR BHATNAGAR
09.01.2026
Present : Mr. Sandeep Dhanuka and Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Ld.
counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Dilip Agarwal and Ms. Taru Gupta, Ld. counsel
for defendant no.1.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ld. counsel for defendant no.2.
An application u/s 151 CPC for placing on record
fresh Special Power of Attorney dated 12.05.2025 along-with
original SPA already filed on 09.07.2025.
Since the said application is formal in nature, the
same is disposed of as allowed and original SPA dated
12.05.2025 is taken on record.
Arguments heard on the application u/O VII Rule 11
CPC r/w Section 151 CPC as well as on application u/O I Rule
10 r/w Section 151 CPC both filed by defendant no.1.
It is argued that though the defendant no.1 was
inducted as tenant in the suit property, however, after sudden
demise of his father on 19.09.2020, the defendant no.1
permanently shifted to his mother’s house and also asked the
defendant no.2 to shift from the suit property, however, defendant
no.2 refused the request of defendant no.1 and remained in the
possession of suit property. It is argued that since the defendant
no.1 has already shifted from the suit property, the relief of
-- 1 of 2 --
possession became infructuous against the defendant no.1 and the
relief of recovery of arrears of rent is also only maintainable
against defendant no.2.
Plaintiff has filed reply to the aforesaid applications
and denied the contents of the same.
It is settled law that at the time of deciding the
application u/O VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to look
into the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint and the
defence taken by the defendants cannot be considered at this
stage. Objection with regard to earlier SPA is also taken by the
defendant no.1 stating that the said SPA was not properly
executed and plaintiff has not paid the requisite stamp duty on
the said SPA. Since plaintiff has already filed the properly
executed original SPA, the aforesaid objection which does not go
to the root of the merit is not tenable. Further, as per the case of
the plaintiff, it was the defendant no.1 who was inducted as a
tenant in the suit property. The said fact is also not denied by the
defendant no.1. Therefore, defendant no.1 is held to be a
necessary party to the present suit.
In view of aforesaid consideration, both the
aforesaid applications are dismissed being devoid of merits.
Put up for arguments on remaining pending
applications on 26.05.2026.
(Hem Singh)
District Judge-01
(East)/KKD/Delhi/09.01.2026
-- 2 of 2 --