Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 526/24
SMT. RAMA TRIKHA (THROUGH SPA PANKAJ JAITLY)
Vs.
MADHUR BHATNAGAR
16.12.2024
Present : Mr. Sandeep Dhanuka, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Dilip Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1.
Mr. Uma Shankar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2.
Written statement already filed on behalf of the
defendant no.2 online on 22.10.2024. Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.2 seeks liberty to file photocopy of hardcopy of WS as
original copy is not traceable. Photocopy of WS taken on record.
Copy supplied.
WS along-with an application seeking condonation
of delay in filing the WS and vakalatnama filed on behalf of the
defendant no.1.
For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid
application, the same is disposed of as allowed. The delay in
filing the WS stands condoned and the WS filed by defendant
no.1 is taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff seeks some time to file the
replication. Let the same be filed within four weeks from today
with advance copy to the opposite party.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that application
U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is also pending for disposal.
It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the
owner of the suit property i.e. Flat no.90-A, Anjanta Apartments,
Plot no.36, IP Extension, Delhi-110092 and the same was given
on lease to the defendant no.1, who is husband of defendant no.2.
-- 1 of 2 --
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff
seeking possession, arrears of rent, damages/ mesne profit and
permanent injunction against both the defendants. It is not
disputed by Ld. Counsels for defendants that plaintiff is the
owner of the suit property, however, an objection raised by Ld.
Counsels for defendants that the present suit is filed by the
plaintiff through Special Power of Attorney, however, the
execution of SPA is not as per the law and proper stamp duty has
also not been paid on the said SPA. The objection raised by Ld.
Counsels for the defendants is technical in nature and does not go
into the root of the matter.
A bare perusal of facts of the plaint would show that
prima facie, the case is in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff would suffer
irreparable loss, if the possession of the suit property is
transferred or otherwise parted with by the defendants.
Accordingly, the application U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed
by the plaintiff is disposed of as allowed thereby restraining both
the defendants from handing over the possession of the suit
property i.e. Flat no.90-A, Anjanta Apartments, Plot no.36, IP
Extension, Delhi-110092 to the third party till further orders.
Both the parties are further directed to file their
respective affidavits of admission-denial of documents on or
before the next date of hearing with advance copy to each other.
Put up on 17.03.2025 for completion of pleadings/
framing of issues.
(Hem Singh)
District Judge-01
(East)/KKD/Delhi/16.12.2024
-- 2 of 2 --