Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 31 CS SCJ 435/24 Hansraj Vs. S.D.M./R.A(ALIPUR)
15.01.2025
Present: Sh. Suresh Nunwal Ld. Proxy Counsel for
plaintiff.
Ms. Sukhbir Kaur, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3
and 4 through VC.
Ms. Vasu Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and
2.
Sh. Arman Monga Ld. Proxy Counsel for proposed
defendant/DDA through VC.
Arguments heard on the application U/o 1 rule 10
CPC moved on behalf of plaintiff seeking impleadment of DDA as
defendant in the present suit.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that at the time of
filing of the suit the DDA was not made a party to the suit and now
officials of DDA are threatining the plaintiff for demolition of the
suit property without any sufficient cause. It is submitted by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff that DDA is necessary party in the suit and be
impleaded as defendant.
Ld. Counsel for proposed defendant/DDA submits
that he has no objection, if DDA is made a party/defendant to the
suit.
Keeping in view the submissions made by the Ld.
Counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that DDA is
necessary party to the present suit. Accordingly, application U/o 1
rule 10 CPC stands allowed. Plaintiff is directed to supply copy of
plaint to defendant no.5/DDA and also file amended memo of
parties.
Be put up on 21.03.2025.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/15.01.2025
-- 1 of 1 --