Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 679/2015 and I.A. 5206/2015 (u/O XXXIX R 1 &2 CPC)
FITJEE LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocate
Through: Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate for D-2 and D-3.
Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate with Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for D-4.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for permanent injunction praying inter alia that the defendant No.1/DUSU, its members, agents, students etc. be restrained from holding any agitation, demonstration, gate meetings, blockade affecting the ingress and egress of the officials of the plaintiff, its students, employees, man and material etc. and in any manner staging Dharnas, indulge in slogan shouting etc. at its institute situated in Punjabi Bagh or at any other branch in Delhi.
2. Vide ex-parte ad interim order dated 13.03.2015, defendants No.1 to 4 were restrained from conducting any agitations, 2015:DHC:6417 demonstrations, gate meetings or blockades affecting the ingress and egress of the officials of the plaintiff, its students, other employees, man and material etc. into its premises.
3. Summons were served on the defendants through ordinary process on 05.05.2015. Appearance is entered by the counsel for the defendants No.2 and 3, who states that the defendant No.1/DUSU has been incorrectly impleaded through the Vice Chancellor, Delhi University and as the defendant No.2 is the President and defendant No.3 is the Secretary of the defendant No.1/DUSU, he has instructions to appear on behalf of defendant No.1/DUSU as well.
4. Appearance is also entered on behalf of the defendant No.4/Delhi University. Counsel for the defendant No.4 states that her client is a performa party and no relief has been prayed for against the Delhi University.
5. Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 states that though the defendant No.1/DUSU had served a notice dated 09.02.2015 on the Chairman of the plaintiff/Institute, they had not commenced any agitation against the plaintiff by holding any demonstration, blockade, gate meeting etc. held outside/at the plaintiff’s premises, and nor do they intend to do so in the future.
6. The said fact is confirmed by the counsel for the plaintiff, who states that the suit may be disposed of by recording the statement of the defendants No.1 to 3 that they shall not conduct any unlawful agitation/demonstration/gate meeting etc. that may adversely affect the ingress and egress of the officials, students, employees, man and material etc. of the plaintiff at its premises situated at Punjabi Bagh.
7. While binding the defendants No.1 to 3 to the aforesaid statement, the suit is disposed of alongwith the pending application. No orders as to costs. HIMA KOHLI, J AUGUST 10, 2015 rkb