Full Text
Date of Decision: 01.10.2013 RFA (OS) NO.78 OF 2013
SH RAJENDER GAUTAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.Krishnan and Mr.Naveen Pandey, Advocates.
Through: Mr.A.S.Chadha, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vaibhav Jairaj, Advocate for R-1
Mr.Sushil Kabra, Advocate for R-6 Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Gaurav Goel, Mr.Mudit
Jain, Advocates for R-3 Mr.Harshita Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Mr.A.K.Aggarwal, Advocate for R-4.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT(Open Court)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed against an order dated 13.3.2013 of the learned Single Judge dismissing Civil Suit bearing CS(OS) no.480/2013.
2. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that another suit for permanent injunction against the six defendants, bearing CS(OS) No.1529/2011 in respect of the same piece of land i.e. 1 Bigha 7 2013:DHC:5072-DB Biswas out of Khasra No.24/2, Village Masudabad, Najafgarh, Delhi was pending and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present suit amounted to multifarious litigations.
3. During the course of hearing, it was suggested to the appellant as well as the respondents who were impleaded as the defendants in the suit that the impugned order would not be disturbed and that the plaintiff’s request for appropriate amendment may be considered in the light of the contentions of the parties to incorporate the necessary reliefs, which were claimed in the present suit, may also be considered.
4. The learned counsel for the parties expressed no objection to this. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 through Mr. Amit Chadha, learned senior counsel, that an application for impleadment bearing CM 11212/11 may be considered. The learned counsel for the appellant does not oppose this request. Accordingly, by consent of the parties, IA 11212/2011 in Suit No.1529/2011 is allowed. Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 (Sh. Parmanand Sharma and Sh. Naresh Dagar) are directed to be impleaded in the pending Suit.
5. Likewise, it is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that respondent Nos.[3] and 4 that they may be impleaded as parties/defendants in the suit. Ordered accordingly.
6. The counsel for the appellant submits that an application to implead Sh. Ashok Kumar would be made. In case the same is made, in CS(OS) no.1529/2011, the same shall be considered and appropriate relief be granted.
7. It is also agreed by the counsel for the parties that the plaintiff/appellant’s request for appropriate amendment in CS(OS) No.1529/2011 seeking the reliefs that are sought in CS(OS) no.480/2013 may be considered, in the light of the contentions advanced by the parties and order made in accordance with law.
8. Nothing stated in this order would be construed as an expression on the merits of the case of either of the parties.
9. The observations by the learned Single Judge on the merits of the appellant’s contention shall not be conclusive on the contentions which may be available to him in law.
10. Likewise, the rights of the parties to advance such arguments as are available in law in CS(OS) no.1529/2011 are reserved.
12. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
13. Dasti. Crl.M.A.No. 13945/2013 (U/s 340 Cr.PC)
14. The learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge. Permission is granted.
15. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
(JUDGE) NAJMI WAZIRI, J (JUDGE) OCTOBER 01, 2013 RN