Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 4 CS 2627/24
DAYASHANKAR BHARDWAJ VS. NITIN JAIN AND ORS
19.05.2025
Second regular stenographer is on leave today.
Present : Sh. B.D Sharma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff alongwith
plaintiff.
Defendant no.1 in person.
Sh. Nishi Kant Pandey, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.4
alongwith defendant no.4.
A. In between written statement filed by the defendant no.1
alongwith application under Order 8 Rule 1 for condonation of delay in
filing of WS, alongwith list of documents alongwith vakalatnama
running upto 82 pages.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that defendant no.1 was
served on 25.11.2024. Ld. Counsel further submits that on the last date
of hearing defendant no.1 was directed to file WS within 15 days
alongwith condonation of delay application, however, the same has been
e-filed on 05.04.2025. Ld. Counsel further submits that however, he has
no objection if the condonation of delay application is allowed subject
to cost.
Considering the facts and circumstances and in order to
decide the case on merit and further in view of the no objection of the
Counsel for the plaintiff the condonation of delay application is
disposed off as allowed, however subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- to be paid
by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff.
-- 1 of 3 --
B. Plaintiff has filed replication to the WS filed by the
defendant no.1. Copy supplied.
C. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC filed by
defendant no.4 for deleting him from the array of parties. Ld. Counsel
for applicant submits that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for
recovery which do not pertains to defendant no.4.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he had advanced
Rs.4,10,000/- to the defendant no.1 for the purchase of two floors of
immovable property as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint. Ld. Counsel
further submits that said property were thereafter sold to defendant no. 2
& 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that defendant no.4 is subsequent
purchaser. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he has not filed suit for
specific performance and the suit is only for recovery of Rs. 8,20,000/-
from defendant no.1. Ld. Counsel thus submits that he has no objection
if the extent application is allowed and defendant no.2 is deleted from
the array of parties.
Considering the fact that the plaintiff has filed the present
suit only for recovery against defendant no.1, the above said application
is disposed off as allowed and defendant no. 4 is deleted from the array
of parties.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that defendant defendant
no.2, 3 & 5 may also be deleted from the array of parties for the same
above reason. Heard.
In view of the facts that plaintiff is also not having any
claim against defendant no.2, 3 & 5 as they are also subsequent
purchaser defendant no. 2, 3 & 5 are also deleted from the array of
parties.
-- 2 of 3 --
Defendant no.6 is Sub Registrar. Admittedly, plaintiff is not
having claim against defendant no.6 as such defendant no.6 is also
deleted from the array of parties.
Plaintiff is directed to file amended memo of parties.
Plaintiff and defendant Sh. Nitin Jain are directed to file
affidavit of admission-denial of the documents of the opposite side
within two weeks. Both the parties are directed to appear on the next
date of hearing for their examination under Order 10 CPC.
Put up for the above purpose and framing of issues on
26.08.2025.
(MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM)
District Judge-03 (Shahdara),
KKD Courts, Delhi. 19.05.2025
-- 3 of 3 --