Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 27 CS DJ 817/25 USHA GHAI Vs. SANJAY GHAI
07.03.2026.
Present: Mr. Chandan Rai Chawla, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and plaintiff
through VC.
Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in person.
Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 3
alongwith defendant No. 3.
Defendant No. 4 in person.
No reply to the application filed under order 11 Rule 11 & 14 CPC
on behalf of Defendant No.3, is filed by plaintiff.
Now, submission on application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC are heard in
part.
During the course of submissions, it is stated that in fact
documents stated by defendant No. 1 to be executed by plaintiff on 20.05.1999
and documents executed in favour of plaintiff on 27.04.1992, are intended to be
introduced and mentioned by making amendments since same came into the
knowledge of plaintiff later. These are the documents through which defendant
Nos. 1 & 2 are submitting to have been gained the title.
On the other hand, in para No. 5 & 7 of the original plaint, the
plaintiff has herself pleaded to have derived her title and ownership from Ms.
Jaspaul and not Ms. Savita Chakraborty. She has also pleaded that purchase of
the property was of 1994 and not 1992. She has also placed the documents in
this respect on record with plaint. Ld. Counsel for defendant Nos. 1 & 2
contends that on plain reading of plaint and documents attached, no cause of
action to file present suit gets disclosed. Thus, considering these pleadings and
the documents relied and placed already on record, this Court is of the view that
firstly the plaintiff should address the arguments on the following aspect :-
“Whether the plaint in original or even if amended, is disclosing
any valid cause of action”.
Now, put up for arguments on this aspect on 30.03.2026.
Now, date is changed to 18.04.2026 at the request of LD. Counsel
for plaintiff.
(Aanchal)
District Judge-03, Rohini Courts
North District, Delhi
07.03.2026(amt)
-- 1 of 1 --