Sapna Mahajan v. Rakesh Passi & Ors.

4 Defendant No.3

WITH CS (05) 452 of 2013 & IA No. 3962 of 2013 (Order XXXIX VINEET CHANDER MAHAJAN Plaintiff versus RAKESH PASSI & ORS Defendants Defendant No.3 4 WITH 453 of 2013 & IA No. 3964 of 2013 (Order XXXIX MONIKA MAHAJAN Plaintiff versus 2013:DHC:6735 RAKESH PASSI & ORS. Defendants Defendant No.3 CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER % 11.11.2013

1. Vakalatanama on behalf of the Plaintiffs has been filed by diary Nos. 171717, 171718 and 171719 dated 8th November 2013, but the same is not on record. The Registry is directed to trace it out and place the same on record.

2. Each of the Plaintiffs is present in Court and is identified by their counsel. They wish to make statements that they wish to withdraw their respective suits.

3. The statements of each of the Plaintiffs have been recorded on oath and • are placed below. They shall form part of this order.

4. In view of the statements made by the Plaintiffs, the suits are dismissed as withdrawn. The pending applications are also dismissel<,

S. MURALIDHAR, J

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 g $-.-53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 453/2013 MONIKA MAHAJAN Plaintiff Through: Ms.Harpreet K. Athwal, Advocate versus RAKESH PASSI & ORS Defendant Through: Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER % 23.04.2014 l.A. 7385/2014(EXEMPTION) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. l.A. 7383/2014 This is an application for condonation of 130 days' delay in filing the application lA.No.7384/2014 for clarification of the order dated - 11.11.2013. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the application IA.No.7384/2014 is condoned. Application stands disposed of. l.A. 7382/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking clarification of the order dated 11.11.2013. Counsel for the applicant /plaintiff submits that on the assurance given by the office bearers of defendant no.3 society, the plaintiff had unconditionally withdrawn the suit on 11.11.2013. Counsel also submits that the necessity of filing the present application for clarification has arisen on account of the statement made on 20.3.2013 by counsel for the society, to the following effect: "Counsel for the defendant no.3, society informs that in view of the dispute between the plaintiff-wife and defendant no.1husband in respect of the ownership of the flat in question, the society is keeping the possession of the flat and shall not hand it over to anyone, till further orders of this court." Counsel for the plaintiff /applicant submits that the society is misinterpreting the statement of their counsel made on 20.3.2013 as an order of the Court. Counsel for the defendant submits that the present application is not maintainable as the same is motivated and the same has been filed only to circumvent the orders, which are likely to be passed in the suit filed by defendant no.1, herein. A bare reading of the order dated 20.3.2013 leaves no room for doubt that it is only the statement made by the counsel for the defendant no.3 society, which was recorded and not an order of the Court. In view of above, the application stands disposed of.

APRIL 23, 2014 —G.S.SISTANI, J ssn