Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit538/23
RAJ SINGH Vs. RAKESH
01.08.2023
One of the regular Stenographers is on leave today and
no other substitute Steno has been provided.
Pr. Sh. Bilal Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Nazim Saifi, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
None for the defendant no. 2.
Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant/ MCD.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that arguments on
the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC be heard as
the property of the plaintiff is suffering damage due to the
construction that is being carried out by defendant no.2.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 submits that he has
received the copy of the plaint, application and documents on
friday and needs some time to make submissions on behalf of
defendant no.1. He seeks passover for the same. Be awaited.
(Prigya Gupta)
ASCJcumJSCCcumGuardian Judge,
East, KKD Courts, Delhi/ 01.08.2023
It is 11.45 AM
Pr. Pr. Sh. Bilal Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant no. 1 with Ld. counsel Sh. Pradeep Kumar
Sharma.
Defendant no. 2 in person.
Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant/
MCD.
Contd....
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Ld. Counsel appearing for defendant no. 1 submits that
he has been freshly engaged. He submits that the Ld. Counsel
who appeared in the morning on behalf of defendant no.1 is not
his associate and is not responding to the calls of defendant no.
1. Thus, the defendant no. 1 has now engaged him. Fresh
vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendant no. 1.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has already
supplied the copies of the plaint and annexures to the
defendants. He submits that the defendant no. 1 is carrying out
construction at property bearing no. B1085 Block B, Gharoli
Dairy Colony, Delhi96 which is adjoining to the property of the
plaintiff. He further submits that the property of the plaintiff is
suffering from damage due to unauthorized construction that is
being carried out by defendant no.1 & 2.
Ld. Counsel for MCD submits that he needs some time
to file the status report as he has also been recently engaged.
Let status report be positively filed on behalf of MCD on NDOH.
At this stage, ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 submits
that no construction is being carried out by the defendant no. 1
at the property in question. He further undertakes that
defendant no. 1 shall not carry out any construction at property
bearing no. B1085 Block B, Gharoli Dairy Colony, Delhi96 till
the NDOH. Separate statement of defendant no. 1 is recorded.
At this stage, defendant no. 2 submits that he be
dropped from the array of parties as he has no concern with the
property in question.
Contd.../
-- 2 of 4 --
3
He submits that he is neither the owner of the property in
question nor is he the contractor of the defendant no. 1 as
alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint. He submits that he has not
done any construction or any work at the property bearing no.
B1085 Block B, Gharoli Dairy Colony, Delhi96 .
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant
no. 2 may be dropped from the array of parties in light of
separate statement made by him today. Separate statement of
the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff to that effect is recorded.
It is observed that the defendant no. 2 that is Sh. Ma
hesh Kumar is not a necessary party to the suit. Accordinlgy,
invoking the power under Order I Rule 10 CPC, defendant no.2
Sh. Mahesh Kumar is deleted from the array of the parties.
Amended memo of parties be filed.
Heard. Perused and considered.
It is the submission of the plaintiff that the property of
the plaintiff has sufferred immense damage due to the
construction of the basement by the defendant no. 1.
Admittedly, the properties of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1
are adjoining properties. It is alleged by the plaintiff that
defendant no. 1 has carried out unauthorized construction
without any previous sanction, thereby severely effecting the
property of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 has refuted the
averments made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and submits
that no construction is being carried out by him. He submits that
mere renovation was done by the defendant no.1.
Contd...4/
-- 3 of 4 --
4
Thus, considering the submissions made by the parties,
the separate statements of defendant no. 1 recorded today and
in order to preserve the suit property, both the parties are
directed to maintain status quo till the NDOH.
Now, to come up on 08.09.2023. Copy of order be given
dasti, as requested.
(Prigya Gupta)
ASCJcumJSCCcumGuardian Judge,
East, KKD Courts, Delhi/ 01.08.2023
-- 4 of 4 --