Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS DJ No. 11/2024 Shiv Partap Singh Vs. DUSIB Page No. 1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-2:
NORTH ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-014446-2023
CS DJ No. 11/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SHIV PRATAP SINGH
….Plaintiff
Versus
DELHI URBAN SHELTER
IMPROVEMENT BOARD
….Defendant
11.03.2025
Present : Sh. Amit Srivastava, LAC counsel for the plaintiff
(through VC).
Sh. Munish Kumar, counsel for the defendant No.1
(through VC).
Sh. Madan Kumar Jha, counsel for proposed
defendant Sh. Ranjit Sah.
ORDER
1. Counsel for the applicant presses his application dt.
10.01.2025 u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC for getting impleaded in the present
case.
2. It is argued by counsel for the applicant that the suit
property is bearing no. E-74, Sector-25, J.J. Colony, Rajpur Kalan,
Rohini, Delhi. The plaintiff has filed suit for mandatory injunction
-- 1 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 11/2024 Shiv Partap Singh Vs. DUSIB Page No. 2 of 5
against DUSIB. Prayer in the suit is for directing defendant not to
dispossess the plaintiff from suit property.
3. It is argued that original allottee of suit property was
Smt. Atulika Shrivastava. She was allotted vide letter dt.
30.06.1998. She executed GPA dt. 12.05.2008 in favour of her son
Sh. Vishal. Sh. Vishal executed GPA dt. 16.04.2012 in favour of the
applicant for managing and care taking of the suit property. It is
further argued that plaintiff tress-passed in the suit property in
December, 2023. The applicant informed DUSIB. DUSIB put
applicant in possession. It is further argued that applicant is a
necessary party. Suit cannot be decided in his absence. No effective
decree can be passed without the presence of applicant. The
presence of applicant is necessary to enable the court to effectually
and completely adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the
suit.
4. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff argues that no care
taking power has been given vide GPA by Sh. Vishal in favour of
Sh. Ranjit Sah (Page 13 of the paper book).
5. It is further argued by counsel for the plaintiff that in
para No. 3 of the reply to application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC, it is
specifically mentioned that on 18.12.2023 at 01.00 pm, applicant
impersonated as DUSIB official and gave beatings to the plaintiff,
and his wife was abused.
-- 2 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 11/2024 Shiv Partap Singh Vs. DUSIB Page No. 3 of 5
6. It is further argued by counsel for the plaintiff that
there is no document of possession filed by the applicant.
7. Heard. File perused.
8. Perusal of record shows that the suit property is
bearing no. E-74, Sector-25, J.J. Colony, Rajpur Kalan, Rohini,
Delhi. The plaintiff has filed suit for mandatory injunction against
DUSIB. Prayer in the suit is for directing defendant not to
dispossess the plaintiff from suit property.
9. There is force in submission by counsel for the
applicant that original allottee of suit property was Smt. Atulika
Shrivastava. This stand is taken by the DUSIB in its written
statement in Para No. 2 of the preliminary submissions as well.
She was allotted vide letter dt. 30.06.1998. She executed GPA dt.
12.05.2008 in favour of her son Sh. Vishal. Sh. Vishal executed
GPA dt. 16.04.2012 in favour of the applicant for managing and
care taking of the suit property. As to whether the plaintiff tress-
passed in the suit property in December, 2023, will be a moot point
during the trial.
10. The submissions made by counsel for the plaintiff that
no care taking power has been given vide GPA by Sh. Vishal in
favour of Sh. Ranjit Sah (Page 13 of the paper book), is without
merit. This submission is rejected. Document is to be read as a
whole. GPA gives power to Sh. Ranjit Sah to take physical
possession, to get water and electricity connection, to make
-- 3 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 11/2024 Shiv Partap Singh Vs. DUSIB Page No. 4 of 5
instructions, to authorize for sewage connection and also to realize
rent from the tenants. When GPA is read as a whole, the care taking
powers are manifest from the same.
11. The further submissions by counsel for the plaintiff
that in Para No. 3 of the reply to application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC, it is
specifically mentioned that on 18.12.2023 at 01.00 pm, applicant
impersonated as DUSIB official and gave beatings to the plaintiff
and his wife was abused, requires evidence and trial. Suffice to say
that applicant has interest in suit property and his presence will
enable the court to reach at a just conclusion.
12. The further arguments by counsel for the plaintiff that
there is no document of possession filed by the applicant, is without
merit. Same is rejected. The first paragraph of GPA dt. 16.04.2012
itself gives power to Sh. Ranjit Sah to have physical possession of
the plot.
13. It is case of the applicant that the applicant informed
DUSIB. DUSIB put applicant in possession. It is rightly argued that
applicant is a necessary party. Suit cannot be decided in his
absence. No effective decree can be passed without the presence of
applicant. The presence of applicant is necessary to enable the court
to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all questions
involved in the suit.
14. In view of above discussion, the application u/o 1 Rule
10 CPC dt. 10.01.2025 is allowed.
-- 4 of 5 --
CS DJ No. 11/2024 Shiv Partap Singh Vs. DUSIB Page No. 5 of 5
15. Applicant Ranjit Sah is impleaded as defendant No. 2.
Counsel for defendant No. 2 states that he already has copy of
plaint and documents. Counsel for the plaintiff is directed to file
amended memo of parties.
16. At request of counsel for defendant No.2, to come up
for filing of written statement with advance copy to counsel
opposite at least a week before the next date of hearing, for filing of
replication by the plaintiff, affidavit of admission/denial of
documents and framing of issues on 29.04.2025.
(VIKRAM BALI)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/NORTH/ROHINI
DELHI/11.03.2025
-- 5 of 5 --