Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 25 Civ Suit 779/23
ANJU RAWAL Vs. ANJALI DUBEY
08.10.2024
Present: SPA holder of the plaintiff in person.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1(through VC).
Defendant no. 1 in person.
Defendant no. 2 in person.
In terms of last order dated 21.08.2024, replication has been
filed in the present case on behalf of the plaintiff.
SPA holder of the plaintiff is directed to file supporting affidavit
relating to the replication filed today, positively by the NDOH. Copy of the
replication already supplied to the defendant no. 1.
SPA holder of the plaintiff has submitted that he is not filing any
replication to the WS of the defendant no. 2 in the present case. Accordingly,
the opportunity of the plaintiff to file replication to the WS of defendant no.
2 is hereby closed.
Further, an application has been moved on behalf of the
defendant no. 1 under the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act seeking
directions to the SPA holder of the plaintiff for ceasing to represent the
plaintiff in the present case. Copy of the application supplied to the SPA
holder of the plaintiff today itself and he may file reply to the said
application of the defendant no. 1, positively by the NDOH with an advance
copy of the same to the counsel for defendant no. 1 at least one week before
the NDOH.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Further reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 to
the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Same is
taken on record. Copy of the reply supplied to the SPA holder of the plaintiff
today itself.
At this stage, the SPA holder of the plaintiff has requested to the
court to pass directions against the defendant from removing the articles
lying in the first floor of the property bearing no. 40A, L Type Street no. 8,
Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110051 owned by the plaintiff. However, the
defendant has submitted in her WS that the said property is her shared house
hold and she is living there in domestic relationship with defendant no. 2 and
most of the articles were purchased out of the funds given by the father of
the defendant and she has denied that said articles were purchased before
marriage or they belongs to the plaintiff. Thus, at this stage, this fact cannot
be decided by the court without leading evidence by both the parties or
hearing the arguments in detail on the interim application of the plaintiff
filed in the present case and the said request of the plaintiff is declined at this
stage.
Now, put up for filing of reply by the SPA holder of the plaintiff
under the Provisions of the Advocates Act / arguments on the said
application / further proceedings on 10.12.2024.
(Fahad Uddin)
ASCJ-cum-JSCC-cum-Guardian Judge
East, KKD Courts, Delhi/08.10.2024
-- 2 of 2 --