Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 11
CS SCJ45/23
AMARNATH Vs. SUNDRAM
`
19.04.2023
Present: Ms. Kamakshi Garg, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Vasundhra Nagrath, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant states that she has received a
copy of the plaint on 10.04.2023 and further states that WS will be filed
within the stipulated period.
Today, reply to Application u/O XXXIX R 1 and 2 CPC has
been filed on behalf of the Defendant. Ld. Counsel for the defendant
undertakes to supply the copy of the same to the opposite party during
the course of the day today itself.
At this stage, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
that she intends to lead arguments on the said application.
Arguments heard.
The case of the Plaintiff is that he had been working as the
sole proprietor of M/S Vishwa Karl Engineering Lathe Works having its
office at A-21, Khasra no. 30/1, Gali no. 6, Master Mohalla, Libaspur,
Delhi wherein he carried out the work of industrial machines, machine
for masks etc and he later on shifted to the adjacent commercial shop
bearing no. 20, Khasra no. 30/1, Gali no. 6, Master Mohalla, Libaspur,
Delhi on the expiry of the previous tenancy. The Plaintiff claims that on
29.09.2022, he was thrown out from the suit premises and the
Defendants started using the machines in the latter shop as their own
and have been trying to sell out the same. By way of the Application
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
CS SCJ45/23
AMARNATH Vs. SUNDRAM
u/O XXXIX R 1 and 2 CPC, Plaintiff has sought the relief that the
Defendants be restrained from selling out the machinery and other
belongings of the Plaintiff lying at the shop no. 20 as stated above.
Per contra, the Defendants have argued that the machines in
question belong to them and have requested for dismissal of the present
application.
It is pertinent to note here that neither party has furnished
any ownership proof as regards the machines which is the centre of
controversy between them. The Plaintiff has merely filed some
photographs but the same cannot be treated to be sufficient ownership
proof of the machines in question. The Defendants, similarly, have
failed to annex any ownership proof qua the machines in question.
However, owing to the fact that both the parties are claiming ownership
of the machines, as ennumerated in para 5 of the plaint, this Court is of
the considered opinion that if the machines are sold off, that would lead
to the suit becoming infructuous. Accordingly, the Defendants are
hereby restrained from disposing off the machines in question till
NDOH.
Be taken up for filing of WS / further proceedings on
31.07.2023.
Alternative date, if any, stands cancelled.
(PRITU RAJ)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/19.04.2023
-- 2 of 2 --