Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 34
CS DJ
140/24
AYSHA PARVEEN S
VS.
GURCHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS
06.04.2024
Present : Sh. Naveen Dabas , Ld. LAC for the plaintiff.
Sh. Subhash Chawla, Ld.Proxy Counsel for the
defendants no. 1 to 4 through VC.
Sh. Deepak Kumar, Senior Assistant on behalf of the Sub
Registrar Office/defendant no. 5.
1. No WS is filed by the defendants. However, an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants on
04.04.2024. Ld. Counsel submits that he may be supplied with the
whatsapp no. of the Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff and he shall supply
the copy of the application to him. Ld. Counsel has provided his
number as under:-7840060385.
2. Copy of the application be supplied within a week under
proper receipt.
3. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has pressed on
his application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stating that the
defendants are carrying out regular construction over the suit
-- 1 of 4 --
property. It is submitted that the plaintiff was earlier residing with
her husband Lt.Sh Vijaydeep Joneja, who was the erstwhile owner
of the suit property. She was ousted from the suit property by the
defendants and the structure built at the spot was demolished.
Hence, it is submitted that the defendants may be restrained from
carrying out any further construction over the suit property.
4. Application is strongly opposed on behalf of the Ld.
Counsel for the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not
placed on record any proof to show that she is the legally wedded
wife of Lt. Sh. Vijaydeep Joneja. Further, she has also not placed
on record to show any document that she was in possession of the
suit property. It is submitted that the plaintiff has fraudulently filed
the present suit. She has also not filed any ad valorem court fees
though she is seeking the possession of the suit property. Hence, it
is submitted that the suit is not maintainable. Hence, the application
may be dismissed.
5. Record persued.
6. First and foremost, the plaintiff has not filed the ad-
valorem court fees, as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the
defendants. The plaintiff is directed to file the same by the NDOH.
-- 2 of 4 --
7. Regarding the merits of the case, despite direction WS
was not filed by the defendants. The matter was specifically listed
for arguments on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
today. However, even the reply to the said application was not filed.
The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed only on
03.04.2024 and even the advance copy was not supplied. As
mentioned above, the plaintiff has sought stay on the ongoing
construction over the suit property. She has alleged that her husband
Sh. Vijaydeep Joneja was the owner of the suit property and the
same has been sold fraudulently by the defendant no. 1 to the
defendants no. 2 to 4, concealing the fact that the plaintiff was his
wife and upon his death, she became the sole owner of the suit
property.
8. The plaintiff has placed on record copy of one page of
an order dt. 08.05.2019 in a bail application No.1231/19 which was
allegedly filed by Sh. Vijaydeep Joneja in FIR No. 99/19 PS South
Rohini. The complete order has not been placed on record. Hence,
the court is unable to ascertain as to which court has passed the said
order. The plaintiff has also placed on record a plain copy of the bail
application which is unsigned. As per the said bail application,
Sh.Vijaydeep Joneja had alleged that he was married to the present
plaintiff. However, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has rightly
pointed out that the certified copy of the said record is not placed on
-- 3 of 4 --
record. As mentioned above, even the copy of the complete order
has not been placed on record. Hence, these documents cannot be
considered.
9. Apart from this, the plaintiff has not placed on record
any document to show that she is the legally wedded wife of Sh.
Vijaydeep Joneja. She has merely relied upon these documents to
show that she is the wife of deceased Sh. Vijaydeep Joneja. Copy of
one Aadhar Card is placed on record. However, the same cannot be
relied upon. In view of the same, as the plaintiff herself has prima
facie failed to show that she is the wife of the deceased Sh.
Vijaydeep Joneja, no prima facie balance of convenience lies in her
favour. Hence, the court is not inclined to pass any order on the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC at this stage.
Put up for arguments on an application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC 12.08.2024.
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
DJ-03 (N/W)
Rohini Courts :Delhi/06.04.2024
-- 4 of 4 --