Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 7
CS No. 552/24
RAHUL Vs. RAM BHAROSE
17.04.2025
Present : Sh. S. K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Akash, Sh. Shivam Sharma and Sh. Yogesh
Sarwan, Ld. counsel for defendants no. 2(a) to
2(d), defendant no.3 and defendant no. 4.
Defendants no. 2 (a), 2(c) & 2(d) and defendants no.
3 in person.
Proposed defendant / Smt. Batiya Devi in person.
Sh. Shiv Dutt Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant no. 5 (through VC).
After LDOH, explanation has been filed by Process
Server/ Sh. Dheeraj Pant on 16.04.2025.
Process Server / Sh. Dheeraj Pant appears and
submits that due to illness, he could not file the report on
summons in time.
In view of submissions, explanation is accepted and
show cause notice stands discharged. Process Server is warned to
be careful in future.
An application under Section 151 CPC is filed on
behalf of the plaintiff for furnishing correct address of defendant
no. 1 alongwith amended memo of parties.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
In view of submissions, application stands allowed.
Correct address of defendant no. 1 is taken on record.
-- 1 of 3 --
CS No. 552/24 ..2..
Written statement is filed on behalf of defendant no.
2(a) to 2(d), defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 alongwith reply
to application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151
CPC, list of documents and documents. Copy supplied.
However, said written statement has not been filed
within prescribed time and no application has been filed for
condonation of delay in filing of written documents of said
defendants.
Ld. counsel for defendants no. 2(a) to 2(d) and
defendants no. 3 and 4 submits that he shall file the application
seeking condonation of delay in filing of written statement during
the course of the day.
Arguments on application under Order I Rule 10
CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff heard.
It is stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff
omitted / forgot to mention the name of Smt. Batiya Devi, who is
wife and legal heir of late Sh. Sita Ram and she is a necessary
party to the present suit. It is prayed that application may be
allowed and Smt. Batiya Devi may be impleaded as defendant
no. 2(e) in the present suit.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
In view of submissions, application under Order I
Rule 10 CPC stands allowed and Smt. Batiya Devi is impleaded
as defendant no. 2(e) in the present suit.
-- 2 of 3 --
CS No. 552/24
..3..
Amended memo of parties filed alongwith the
application is taken on record.
Ld. counsel for defendant for defendants no. 2(a) to
2(d), defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 and submits that he
shall file his vakalatnama on behalf of defendant no. 2(e) during
the course of the day.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for both the parties
submit that there is possibility of settlement between the parties
and request that matter may be referred to ensuing Lok Adalat
scheduled for 10.05.2025.
Accordingly, at joint request, matter is referred to
Lok Adalat to be held on 10.05.2025.
Put up for further proceedings before the Court on
31.05.2025.
(SOMITRA KUMAR)
DJ-06, EAST/ KKD COURTS
DELHI/17.04.2025 (R)
-- 3 of 3 --