Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 1001/24
SATISH KATARIA
Vs.
VIJAY PAL SINGH @ KANWAR VIJAY PAL SINGH
11.05.2026
Present: Plaintiff in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Ms.
Gyanmitra. (Ph. No.:- 9599950460)
Son of defendant no. 1 in person alongwith Ld. Counsel
Mr. Jitender Kumar. (Ph. No.:- 8860088142)
Mr. Rohan Nagar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant
no. 2 / MCD through VC.
An application U/s 379 BNS filed on behalf of the
defendant no. 1. Taken on record. Copy supplied. Such proceedings,
as was informed on LDOH as well are required to be filed and
pursued independently and not together with the present proceedings.
Accordingly, such an application, as was apprised on LDOH, is
amenable for no action herein.
Further, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff points out that in
terms of order dated 24.10.2024, 26.11.2024 and 03.02.2026,
compliance has still not been made vis-a-vis handing over of duplicate
keys. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 seeks to distinguish such
orders but the same is not entirely convincing.
Be that as it may, looking forward, it is noted that keys
were required to be given over to the plaintiff for the purposes of
repairing any defect in the functioning of the lift in question. Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff states that such repair is to be carried out qua
the lift for which access to the lift room and the shaft area shall also be
required and accordingly, presence of defendant no. 1 is necessary for
the concerned technician’s visit at all times. Previously, it is claimed
that due to such non attendance, work could not be undertaken. To the
same, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 assures the Court that
defendant no. 1 shall make available all the keys for the requisite work
to be undertaken. In this regard, it is agreed that upon communication
-- 1 of 2 --
with the technician, communication shall be made with defendant no.
1 through call or if it does not go through, via Whatsapp with regards
the date and time of visit of the technician. Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff has further stated that the technician may require 3-4 such
visits to do the work completely and as such therefore, defendant no. 1
cooperation shall be required on all such occasions, to which as well
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 agrees. Since the time and day of
the technician visit is not to be decided by the plaintiff, defendant no.
1 to make sure that he is available all seven days of week from 10:00
AM to 05:00 PM to receive call / message from the plaintiff with
regards coordination as to site visit by the technician, so that work for
repair of lift can be undertaken and completed, uninterrupted, at one
go.
Since defendant no. 1 had undertaken to do the needful
previously as well, but the work remains pending as on date for
several reasons, it is hereby made clear that present directions be
treated as under O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC and any non compliance on part
of defendant no. 1 shall invite adverse orders under O 39 R 2A CPC.
The above arrangement put in place to be abided by both
the sides in a collaborative manner, especially by the defendant no. 1,
without quibbling over minor issues which may arise.
Re-list on 06.06.2026.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
(Gaurav Sharma)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
North West/Rohini Courts/Delhi
11.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --