Full Text
Translation output
$5 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 500/2013 & CM No.7532/2013
JAGDISH KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Rupender Singh, Adv.
CM(M) 500/2013 & CM No.7532/2013
JAGDISH KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Rupender Singh, Adv.
VERSUS
SANGEETA Respondent
Through None.
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOIIAN SINGH hU.U9.LJIi
The respQndent Smt.Sangeeta filed a suit for possession and recovery of 42,000/- against the petitioner inter alia on the reason that one Sh.Ram
Roop was owner of portion of property bearing No.2097, Gali Mahavir, 'feliwara, Delhi- 110006, which he acquired under partition registered document in the year 1966. The respondent was already occupying the first floor comprising of one big room one small room, balcony, latrine and passage of the suitroperty. Sh.Ram Room sold and transferred his rights in
I favour of the respondent by sale deed dated 8th February, 2007 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 8hh1, February, 2007 and by virtue of the same the respondent became the owner of the said property and the licence granted by Ram Room to the petitioner to reside on the first floor of the property came to an end in view of the transfer of the property in favour of the respondent.
After execution of the said document, the respondent several times
2013:DHC:7437 asked the petitioner to vacate the premises and deliver the possession of the same to the respondent but the petitioner avoided the same on one pretext or the other. Left with no option, the suit for possession was filed by the respondent against the petitioner who filed the written statement in the suit and issues were framed on
19th May, 2009. PW-1 respondent was examined and cross-examined and her evidence was closed. The similar is the position of the petitioner. On the request of the petitioner, the Court had granted opportunity to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for taking the original documents from the court for sending the same for expert opinion.
It was also made clear that if no steps were taken by the petitioner and the report was also not filed by him as directed by the Court, the final arguments were to be heard. The learned trial court in the impugned order stated that despite of specific direction did not take steps and it was only 18th January, 2012 the application was moved by the petitioner when two dates had already been granted for extending the final arguments. The application of the petitioner was not maintainable at the belated stage. Therefore, the same was rejected. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 209 2013/jk 2013:DHC:7437
The respQndent Smt.Sangeeta filed a suit for possession and recovery of 42,000/- against the petitioner inter alia on the reason that one Sh.Ram
Roop was owner of portion of property bearing No.2097, Gali Mahavir, 'feliwara, Delhi- 110006, which he acquired under partition registered document in the year 1966. The respondent was already occupying the first floor comprising of one big room one small room, balcony, latrine and passage of the suitroperty. Sh.Ram Room sold and transferred his rights in
I favour of the respondent by sale deed dated 8th February, 2007 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 8hh1, February, 2007 and by virtue of the same the respondent became the owner of the said property and the licence granted by Ram Room to the petitioner to reside on the first floor of the property came to an end in view of the transfer of the property in favour of the respondent.
After execution of the said document, the respondent several times
2013:DHC:7437 asked the petitioner to vacate the premises and deliver the possession of the same to the respondent but the petitioner avoided the same on one pretext or the other. Left with no option, the suit for possession was filed by the respondent against the petitioner who filed the written statement in the suit and issues were framed on
19th May, 2009. PW-1 respondent was examined and cross-examined and her evidence was closed. The similar is the position of the petitioner. On the request of the petitioner, the Court had granted opportunity to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for taking the original documents from the court for sending the same for expert opinion.
It was also made clear that if no steps were taken by the petitioner and the report was also not filed by him as directed by the Court, the final arguments were to be heard. The learned trial court in the impugned order stated that despite of specific direction did not take steps and it was only 18th January, 2012 the application was moved by the petitioner when two dates had already been granted for extending the final arguments. The application of the petitioner was not maintainable at the belated stage. Therefore, the same was rejected. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 209 2013/jk 2013:DHC:7437
JUDGMENT