Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 59101 of 2016
Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. Sushil Kumar Jain.
CS no. 24 of 2018
Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Vikram Gujral, Counsel for Vinod Kumar Jain.
Sh. Girish Chandra, Counsel for Sushil Kumar Jain.
In this case pleadings are already complete and affidavit
of admission-denial of documents on behalf of both sides are
already on record.
This is a suit for partition filed by plaintiff seeking
partition of two properties left behind by their parents claiming
those properties to be the joint family property/ancestral property.
On the other hand, defendant has filed another
connected civil suit no. 24/2017 wherein plaintiff is seeking
possession and permanent injunction in respect to the same very
property on the basis of Will allegedly executed in his favour by the
parents of the parties.
Counsel appearing for Sh. Sushil Kumar who is the
defendant in this case, requests for consolidation of both the cases
for the purpose of evidence. He has relied upon one judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Kanta Yadav Vs. Om Prakash Yadav and
ors. In Civil Appeal no. 5823/2019 wherein the order of Division
Bench of the Hon’ble High Court for clubbing of two matter in
similar circumstances as has arisen in this matter, was upheld by
the Hon’ble Apex Court. Counsel has also filed on record said order
of Hon’ble Division bench in Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Kanta Yadav
and ors. 238 (2017) Delhi Law Times 63 (DB).
-- 1 of 36 --
Counsel has drawn my attention to the facts narrated in
said relied upon judgment which clearly shows that even in said
case, one suit was filed for partition by one of the LRs of the
deceased on the basis of succession while the other LR filed suit for
declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same very
property on the basis of the Will executed in his favour. Both said
suits were consolidated for the purpose of evidence by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff has raised
objection regarding the maintainability of other connected suit by
submitted that since there is no relief of declaration in respect of
the ownership being sought by the defendant therefore without the
relief of declaration, said suit for possession is not even
maintainable. In this regard Counsel has relied upon the Judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Jitender Singh Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and ors in Special Leave Petition (C) no.
13146/2021. On the strength of this judgment, the counsel has
argued that the defendant herein cannot seek possession from the
plaintiff without getting his rights of ownership crystallized by filing
a separate suit or by seeking prayer of declaration of his ownership
in the subject properties in his suit.
However, I do not find any merits in the plaintiff’s above
contention for the reason that for seeking possession of the
property from the plaintiff herein, defendant in any case has to
prove his title in the property which can be either on the basis of
succession or on the basis of testament as is the defendant's case in
said suit.
Hence, I am inclined to frame issues in both the cases.
Further considering the common issues involved in the matters,
both cases deserve to be consolidated for the purpose of evidence.
-- 2 of 36 --
In view of heavy Board and paucity of time, let case be
adjourned for settlement of issues on 17.02.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 3 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 24 of 2018
Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Girish Chandra, Counsel for Sushil Kumar Jain.
Sh. Vikram Gujral, Counsel for Vinod Kumar Jain.
In view of heavy Board and paucity of time, let case be
adjourned with connected matter for settlement of issues on
17.02.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 4 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Arbi no. 2032/2021 and 2033/2021
Payal Portfolio Vs.
25.11.2021
Fresh petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act received on assignment. It be checked and
registered, as per rules.
Present : Ms. Sonia, counsel for the petitioner.
Put up for consideration on 02.12.2021.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 5 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 482 of 2021
Naresh Kumar Vs. Ziley Ram and ors.
25.11.2021
Fresh suit for partition and possession received on
assignment. It be checked and registered, as per rules.
Present : Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Yadav, proxy counsel for the
plaintiff.
Submissions heard. File perused.
Issue summons of the suit and notice of the application
under Section 39 rule 1 &2 CPC be issued to defendants on filing of
PF/RC (physical mode) as well as through speed post and
authorized courier on 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 6 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 818 of 2019
Kamlesh Vs. Ami Chand.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Deepak Issar, counsel for the applicant/plaintiff.
Sh. Paramjit Singh, proxy counsel for the defendant.
Parties are also present in person.
Heard on application moved by plaintiff under Section
151 CPC seeking permission to carry out repair in plaintiff’s portion
of the house.
Reply has been filed to this application today by the
defendant.
Both sides heard on the application.
Ld. Counsel for defendant raised objection to the
application that in the garb of repair work, plaintiff wants to raise
construction on the roof of the portion of the defendant. However,
counsel for the plaintiff says that photographs annexed with the
application are evident of the fact that certain leakage is there in
the roof of the plaintiff’s portion on account of cracks in the roof
which are also depicted in the photographs and plaintiff seeks
permission only to repair that damage to fill the holes and cracks in
the roof on both sides i.e over the roof and beneath it.
I have heard the submissions and perused the
photographs placed on record, which are evident of the fact that
roof of plaintiff’s room is badly damaged and requires immediate
repair. Accordingly, the application is allowed and plaintiff is
permitted to carry out the repair to plug in the holes and cracks in
the roof on the plaintiff’s portion only. The repairs may be carried
out for said purpose on the upper side of the roof as well as in
ceiling. It is pertinent to note that similar application moved
-- 7 of 36 --
on behalf of defendant for carrying out repairs of portion in his
possession was also earlier allowed by this court. On the same lines,
this application also deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, application
stands allowed in above-mentioned terms.
At this stage, application under Section 151 CPC has
also been moved by the defendant seeking permission to construct
a toilet seat. Copy supplied.
Counsel for plaintiff seeks some time to file reply to said
application.
Let reply be filed to the application 15 days prior to next
date of hearing with advance copy to opposite side. Relist for date
fixed i.e. 08.03.2022.
Copy of the order be given dasti, as prayed.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 8 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
MCA DJ no. 1332 of 2016
Sultan Mohammed Vs. Sarifan ors.
25.11.2021
Present : Ms. Poona Sharma, Proxy counsel for the appellant.
No steps taken for service of respondents for today.
Appellant is given one more opportunity. Respondent be served with
the notice of the appeal in terms of previous orders. TCR not
received. As per record, the Trial court has got abolished. Let the
concerned Ahlmad of the transferee court be sent notice for
requisitioning the TCR.
Put up for 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 9 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 59023 of 2016
Puran Singh @ Mangal Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Mohit Ram Deo, Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. S.C. Chawla with Sh. Amit Singh, Counsel for D-1.
No process was issued for today on account of lock
down. It is noted that process was issued for previous date i.e.
15.07.2021 but the same was received back unserved. Process
issued to D-6 not received back.
It is noted remaining defendants seems to be the sister
or sister’s children of D-1. Counsel for D-1 says that rest of the
defendants are most likely to support the stand of D-1 and he will
make sure that other defendants appear either personally or
through counsel on the next date of hearing. In case, the plaintiff is
having any other address of the remaining defendants, let same be
filed on record and steps be taken for service of said defendants in
terms of previous orders.
Adjourned for service report / appearance and further
proceedings on 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 10 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 48 of 2020
Monika Juyal Vs. Cox and Kings ltd.
CS no. 50 of 2020
Sudeeksha Shukla Vs. Cox and Kings ltd.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Harsh Kaushik, Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Lalit Kumar, Counsel for RP.
Counsel representing RP says that in the light of the
order passed by Hon’ble NCLT, these proceedings are liable to be
stayed.
Let appropriate application be moved by the RP citing
the relevant provisions in the light of which proceedings are sought
to be stayed, within 15 days with advance copy to opposite counsel.
After receipt of the copy of application, counsel for the plaintiff shall
file reply within 15 days thereafter.
Put up for consideration/further proceedings on
20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 11 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Misc. no. DJ 48 of 2020
Mukesh Kumar Vs. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and
anr.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh.Mukesh Kumar applicant in person through VC.
This is review application which is pending for
consideration.
Applicant heard. However, it is noted that review is
being sought of the order of dismissal of the appeal filed by the
applicant against the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed
by this court. The concerned file is however not attached with the
review.
Let concerned file be also tagged with this application.
Put up for consideration on 22.01.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 12 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 346 of 2020
Angellena Shore Vs. Through its Managing Director
25.11.2021
Present : None for plaintiff.
Sh.Vinit Virmani, Counsel for D-1
Sh. Aman Singh, proxy counsel for D-2.
As per record, none is appearing for plaintiff for the last
two dates of hearing. Counsel appearing for defendants informed
that the matter was referred to the Mediation Cell on 09.03.2021
and the same was amicably settled before Mediation Cell and in the
light of said settlement, plaintiff is just required to withdraw the
case.
However, perusal of the file shows that no Mediation Cell
order has been received so far. Copy of said order is filed on record
by counsel for the defendants.
Considering that there is neither order of Mediation Cell
received by this court nor the plaintiff is appearing in the matter, I
deem it appropriate to issue court notice to the plaintiff as well as to
the counsel for the plaintiff to appear on next date of hearing and
apprise the court regarding the correct position. Relist for
withdrawal/further proceedings on 01.02.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 13 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 356 of 2020
Pandey Ujjwal Anand Vs. Miniwool Rock Fibers Ltd.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Vivek Singh, Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Sunil Kumar, Counsel for the defendant.
WS on behalf of defendant seems to have been come on
record on 10.02.2021. Copy is however, stated to have not been
received by opposite counsel. Counsel for defendant submits that it
was immediately sent to opposite counsel through e-mail but he is
ready to supply physical copy of the WS alongwith the annexures.
Copies supplied today in the court.
Let replication, if any be filed within 30 days with
advance copy to opposite counsel. Parties are directed to file
affidavit of admission-denial of documents 15 days prior to next
date of hearing and exchange copies.
Put up for settlement of issues on 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 14 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 487 of 2019
K.K.Ropeways Ltd. Vs. Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd.
Misc. DJ no. 11 of 2021
K.K.Ropeways Ltd. Vs. Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd.
25.11.2021
Present : Ms. Geetika Kapur, Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Devyani Nath, Counsel for defendant through VC.
As per record, on 03.02.2021, the parties had shown
their inclination for settling the matter out of the court but it is
informed by the counsel for the plaintiff that despite efforts
defendant has not come up with any concrete proposal.
On the other hand, counsel for the defendant submits
that efforts for settlement are underway and matter is likely to get
settled very soon. She requests for 15 days time for the purpose of
settlement and assures the court that on the next date either she
would file the settlement on record or address the arguments on
merits of the case.
Counsel for plaintiff says that plaintiff has no objection to the
defendant’s application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act and the parties may be referred to Arbitration. She
however, requests that the plaintiff’s application for contempt, which
is separately registered may be heard and decided on the next date.
However, at request of defendant's counsel, put up for
settlement if any/ consideration and further proceedings on
13.12.2021.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 15 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
MCJ DJ no. 07 of 2021
Archana Nijhawan Vs. Sanjay Khanna.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Gitesh Aneja, counsel for the planitiff.
Sh. R.D.Singh, counsel for D-2 and D-3.
This is a misc. appeal against impugned order passed by
the court of Ms. Preeti, Ld. Civil Judge, PHC, New Dehli in a suit for
declaration and injunction. As per TCR, the suit has been valued at
Rs. 40/-. Considering the fact that the appeal is arising out of the
order passed in a suit valued less than Rs.1000/-, the appeal shall
lie before Senior Civil Judge especially in light of the order of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a reference titled as Court on its own
motion Vs. Rambir Singh, office reference no.01/2014 dated
14.10.2014. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
“17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following
conclusions emerge:-
(i) The Civil Courts at Delhi, were originally the Civil
Courts under the jurisdiction of High Court of Punjab, and in
view of notifications issued under Section 39(3) of the Act
(being the notification dated 16.5.1935 as stated above with
respect to suits whose pecuniary jurisdiction was upto Rs.500/-
and now Rs.1,000/- by virtue of the extant notification dated
11.8.2000) appeals which are to be filed from decrees and
orders passed by Civil Judges in suits having pecuniary
jurisdiction upto Rs.1,000/-, have to be filed before the courts
of Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge and not to
the Court of the DJ/ADJ.
(ii) If the first appeal is heard by the court of the Senior
Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge, the second appeal
against the order or decree passed by the Senior Civil
Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge will lie to the High Court by
virtue of Section 39(1)(b) read with Section 41 of the Act.
(iii) Where the Senior Civil Judges pass orders/decrees in
suits having pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.1,000/-, then, since
the original court and the appellate court cannot be the same,
court of the Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge,
therefore, against decrees and orders passed by the Senior Civil
Judges/Additional Senior Civil Judges in suits having pecuniary
-- 16 of 36 --
jurisdiction upto Rs.1000/-, the first appeal against the
orders/decrees passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Additional
Senior Civil Judge will lie to the court of the DJ/ADJ in view
of Section 39(1),(2) and (2A) read with Section 34 of the Act.
Counsel for parties submit that in view of the said
order and notification mentioned therein, the file may be sent
to the court of Ld. Sr. Civil Judge.
In view thereof, let the present file be sent to the
court of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, PHC, New
Delhi with a request to assign the same to the court of Ld. Sr.
Civil Judge. Parties are directed to appear before the court of
Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, PHC, New Delhi on
08.12.2021. Ahlmad is directed to send the file, complete in
all respect, for the date fixed.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 17 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 323 of 2021
Kartar Singh Vs. Anju Vohra and ors.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. V. K.Sharma, Counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff.
This is a suit filed for money recovery on the basis of
the cheques issued by one Sh. Rajeev Vohra, who has already
expired. In the suit plaintiff has impleaded the LRs of Late Rajeev
Vohra as defendants for seeking recovery from them.
Considering the said nature of the case, I am of the
view that the suit is not entertainable as summary suit against LRs
of the signatory of the cheques.
At this stage, Counsel for the plaintiff requests that the
suit may be treated as simple recovery suit.
In view of request of counsel for plaintiff, the suit is
treated as an ordinary recovery suit and summons be issued to
defendants on filing of PF/RC as well as through authorized courier.
Relist for service report on 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 18 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 59355 of 2016
Mirajuddin and sons Vs. The Great India Nautanki Company Pvt.
Ltd.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. S.P.Jha, Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Raghav, Counsel for the defendant through VC.
Affidavit of admission-denial from the plaintiff’s side has
already come on record. Defendant has yet not filed the same
despite opportunity and despite the fact that on the last date last
opportunity was given to them subject to payment of cost. Even the
cost has not been paid.
In these circumstances, the right of defendant to file
affidavit of admission-denial of documents is closed. Necessary legal
consequence shall follow.
On the basis of pleadings and documents on record
following issues are framed :
1. Whether this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the
present suit ? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of suit
amount ?OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest on the
suit amount, if so at what rate and for which period ?
OPP.
4. Relief.
No other issue arises or pressed for.
Let list of witnesses be filed by parties within 15 days
and plaintiff is directed to file evidentiary affidavits of plaintiff
witnesses 15 days prior next date of hearing with advance copy to
opposite side.
-- 19 of 36 --
Put up for PE on 20.04.2022. Defendant is directed to
pay the cost by next date of hearing.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 20 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no.1114 of 2018
Meera Bajaj Vs. Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd.
25.11.2021
Present : Ms. Pratibha Singh, counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is ex-parte.
Vakalatnama filed. Same is taken on record.
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that she has
instructions to withdraw the present suit but she seeks some time
to show some case law regarding return of court fee.
Considering her request, case is adjourned for
03.12.2021.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 21 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no.55645 of 2016
M/s Cargo Planners Ltd Vs. Bharat Agarwa anr.
25.11.2021
Present : Ms. Lalita, proxy cousnel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Mudrika Bansal, counsel for the defendant through
VC.
As per record, an application moved by defendant for
setting aside ex-parte order dated 16.03.2021 is pending.
Counsel appearing for plaintiff says that she has no
objection, if the said application is allowed subject to heavy costs.
I have perused the record. As per record, the
defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 16.03.2019 while the
application was moved on 23.12.2019. Considering the no objection
given by the opposite counsel, the application for setting aside the
ex-parte order is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by
the defendant to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing.
At this stage, counsel for the defendant requests for
supply of copy of the plaint and the documents. Let counsel for
plaintiff to supply plaint and annexures to the counsel for defendant
on her e-mail address (mudrikabansal@gmail.com as shared by her
in the chat box of the VC). Let the defendant to file WS within 30
days after with advance copy to the opposite counsel.
Replication, if any be filed 15 days prior to next date of
hearing with advance copy to opposite side.
Put up for settlement of issues on 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 22 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no.55465 of 2016
Kuldeep Singh Gill Vs. Sajal Walia anr.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Vivek Singh, counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Tarunesh Kumar and Sh. Siddharth Gill, counsel for
defendants.
Case is pending for consideration of certain applications
moved by the parties.
Perusal of the file shows that this suit is a tortious claim
of damages for seeking compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh filed against
defendant for defaming the plaintiff by way of a public notice
containing alleged defamatory content, published in the newspaper.
I have perused the alleged defamatory public notice filed on
record alongwith the plaint. After perusing the same, this court
entertains a doubt on the very maintainability of this suit because
the notice does not even mention the name of defendant nor it
prima facie contains any defamatory content. Hence, plaintiff is
directed to first convince the court on the maintainability of the suit.
Following preliminary issue is framed :
"Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for lack of
cause of action ?" OPP.
Counsel for the plaintiff seeks short adjournment for
addressing arguments aforementioned preliminary issue.
At request, put up for arguments on 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 23 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS Comm no.412 of 2019
IL&FS Education and Technology Services Ltd. Vs. Hi Commands
Tech India Ltd.
25.11.2021
Present : Ms. Priya Nagap, Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Aniket, Intern on behalf of defendant.
Adjournment sought on behalf of defendant on the
ground that main counsel is not available today for addressing
argument as he had to rush to his father in law who is ill.
Perusal of the record shows that many opportunities
have already been granted to the defendant for addressing
arguments. No written application for adjournment nor any medical
document is shown to the court by intern appearing for defendant.
Even the AR or the counsel of defendant is not present only Intern
is present.
In view of these facts and circumstance, defendant does
not deserve any indulgence of the court but in the larger interest of
justice, one last opportunity is given to defendant for addressing
argument on pending application subject to cost of Rs.8000/- to be
paid by defendant to plaintiff on next date of hearing.
Relist for arguments on 21.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 24 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
PC no. 24 of 2017
Jaswinder ingh Vs. State.
PC no. 25 of 2017
Jaswinder ingh Vs. State.
25.11.2021
Present : Counsel for parties.
Case is listed for arguments on application under
Section 10 of CPC moved by defendant seeking stay of the suit in
the light of pendency of the suit filed by the respondent herein in
the Hon’ble High court of Delhi i.e CS OS no. 205/2017. Copy of
plaint of said suit has also been filed with the application under
Section 10 of CPC.
Perusal of the said plaint shows that in that suit, plaintiff
is seeking declaration only in respect of Will dated 26.03.2010 and
there is no prayer with regard to the another Will dated 17.06.2009
in respect of which the petitioner herein has filed another probate
petition, which is also listed for today and wherein similar
application under Section 10 of CPC has also been moved. Counsel
for the respondent seeks time to clarify in this regard.
At request, adjourned for arguments on said application
on 15.03.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 25 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 59012 of 2016
M/s P.P.Enterprises Vs. Noida Medi Care Centre Ltd.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh.Ayushman, proxy counsel for the plaintiff through
VC.
None for defendant.
Case is listed for final arguments today. However, proxy
counsel for the plaintiff requests for short adjournment saying that
main counsel Sh. Sanjay Kumar is unable to appear as he is
traveling today.
Considering the request, case is adjourned for final
arguments on 16.02.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 26 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 135 of 2021
Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. Parsvnath Developers and ors
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. A.K.Gupta, counsel for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
Case is listed for some clarifications since, none is
present for defendant. Case is adjourned for clarification
02.12.2021 at 2 p.m, as prayed.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 27 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 403 of 2021
M/s Metal Tech Motor Bodies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Shri Tirupati Balaji
Electronics Pvt. Ltd and ors.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar, counsel for the petitioner.
Requisite court fee of Rs. 7226/- filed. Same is taken on
record.
Submissions heard. Perused.
Issue summons of the suit to the defendants on filing of
PF/RC and speed post as well as through e-mode for 20.04.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 28 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no.58937 of 2016
HDFC Vsn. Anuradh Mukherjee
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. J.S.Arora, Counsel for the applicant/defendant.
This is an application under Order 9 rule 13 and 7 r/w
Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated
01.07.2019.
Ahlmad seeks time to trace out the file, as it is already
decided matter. Let file be traced out and put up with the present
application. Relist on 15.12.2021.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 29 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 886 of 2019
Abhijit Iyer Vs. Dushyant Arora.
25.11.2021
Present : Counsel for parties.
Two applications moved by plaintiff one under Section
151 CPC seeking adding of one more witness Fransica Marino and
another application under Order 18 rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for
re- examination examination of plaintiff.
Counsel for defendant seeks time for filing reply to the
application under Order 18 rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC, however,
he gives his no objection to the application under Section 151 CPC
for addition of one more witness i.e. Fransica Marino. The addition
of said witness is hence allowed. Plaintiff may file evidentiary
affidavit of said witness before LC and also supply advance copy of
affidavit to opposite counsel.
Let reply be filed to application under Order 18 rule 17
r/w Section 151 CPC with advance copy to opposite side. Relist on
15.12.2021.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 30 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 55567 of 2016
Sunil Kumar vs. Union of India.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Sanjeev Yadav, Counsel for applicant.
File is taken up today on an application under Section
151 CPC for recalling order dated 04.10.2021.
Notice of application be issued to the opposite party on
filing of PF for date fixed i.e. 02.03.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 31 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Ex. 231 of 2017
Jasmeet Singh Vs. Anil Kumar
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. J.P.Shekhawat, Counsel for applicant/DH.
File is taken up today on an application under Section
151 CPC on behalf of DH for notice of DDO.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the present
application may be dismissed as withdrawn.
At his request, application is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be put up on date fixed.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 32 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Arbi no. 1841; 1839; 1838; 1837; 1834 and 1832 of 2021
Toyota Fin. Serv. India Ltd. Vs.
25.11.2021
Present : Sh. Ajay Kishore Verma, proxy counsel for the
petitioner.
At request, put up for consideration on 06.12.2021.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 33 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 55786 of 2016
Ram Kishan Gupta Vs. seed Infrastructure and Solution
25.11.2021
Present : None for the plaintiff.
Ms. Himanshi, proxy counsel for the defendant.
As per previous order, reply was called from the plaintiff
to defendant’s application under Order 11 rule 2 CPC which was
separately registered as misc. DJ no. 190/2019. However perusal of
the file shows that the said misc. application is under Order 2 rule 2
CPC and not under Order 11 rule 2 CPC as mentioned in the
previous order. It appears that on account of typographical error
wrong provision got mentioned. Last order accordingly stands
corrected.
It is further noted that the said application was kept in
abeyance by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 23.12.2019 by
observing that the application was moved in the midst of the
recording of DE and defendant was directed to first conclude the
evidence and the application was ordered to be taken up after
conclusion of evidence.
In view of these facts and circumstances, the defendant
is first directed to conclude the evidence of DW-2 Sh. Nitin whose
affidavit is already on record. Let DW-2 to appear on next date of
hearing for tendering his affidavit failing which DE shall be closed.
Likewise, plaintiff is also directed to cross examine said
witness/DW-2 on the next date failing which plaintiff's right to cross
examine said witness shall be closed.
Put up for DE on 24.03.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 34 of 36 --
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no. 511 of 2017
Mohan Singh Vs. Suresh.
25.11.2021
Present : Plaintiff in person.
Counsel for defendant.
Defendant’s application under Section 10 CPC is pending
consideration, wherein defendant is seeking stay of the proceeding
of the present suit in the light of the pendency of defendant's suit
CS no. 609303/2016 filed against plaintiff herein and the other LR
of deceased Sh. Ram Charan and Smt. Shanti Devi, for seeking
partition of the property no. WZ-251 out of Khasra no. 84/75,
Village Hastaal, Colony, known as Raj Rani Market, Hanuman
Market, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The copy of the plaint of said suit
as well as WS filed by the plaintiff herein in said suit, have also
been placed on record and I have perused the same.
In said suit which is said to have been instituted prior in
time, the plaintiff herein in his WS has claimed that besides the
aforementioned property WZ-251 out of Khasra no. 84/75, which is
sought to be partitioned in said suit, there is one more property WZ
316, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, left behind by their parents and both
said properties are liable to be partitioned. Said WZ 316, Nangal
Raya, New Delhi is now the subject matter of present suit for
partition filed by the plaintiff.
Considering the fact that in said previously instituted suit,
defendant is not seeking partition of said another property, plaintiff
had to file the present suit before this court for seeking partition of
that property as well.
In view of the fact that the property sought to be
partitioned in the suits are different, the subject matter of both the
-- 35 of 36 --
suits are not identical and hence, there no question of application of
Section 10 CPC.
However, I am of the considered view that since the parties in
the matter are same and both are claiming their right to succession
in the properties left behind by their parents, in order to avoid
conflicting judgements of two court, both the suits should be tried
and decided by the very same court. But, since the transfer of cases
has to take place inter district, parties have to approach the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi for clubbing of both cases in same court.
In the lights of above circumstances, I do not find any merits in
the application under Section 10 of CPC. Same is hence dismissed.
Put up for further proceedings on 18.02.2022.
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi
25.11.2021
-- 36 of 36 --