Full Text
Translation output
$-15 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
I FAO (OS) 362/2013
CMAPPL.12189, 12190, 12191, 12192 & 12193/2013
KAMAL KALRA Appellant
Through; Mr. S.C. Jha with Mr. Rahul Kashyap, Advocates.
I FAO (OS) 362/2013
CMAPPL.12189, 12190, 12191, 12192 & 12193/2013
KAMAL KALRA Appellant
Through; Mr. S.C. Jha with Mr. Rahul Kashyap, Advocates.
VERSUS
SANJAY SEHGAL & ORS. Respondents
Through: None.
COIMM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR:.TUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
12.08.2013
Through: None.
COIMM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR:.TUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
12.08.2013
CM APPL.12189/2013 (condonation of delay in filing the appeal), 12193/2013 (condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL.12192/2013 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2013:DHC:7045-DB
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2013:DHC:7045-DB
FAQ (OS) 362/2013 & CM APPL.12190/2013 (stay), 12191/2013
(seeking permission to file additional documents)
The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the order ofthe learned
Single Judge dismissing an application under Order-I Rule-10 CPC.
The appellant had sought to be impleaded in a pending partition suit
[CS (OS) 1086/2008]. His claim was premised upon his being owner of Shop No.12, opposite electric power house, Malka Ganj, Delhi-7.
The application had been opposed by the parties to the suit claiming that the appellant had no interest which could be the subject matter of the partition proceedings. Learned counsel endeavoured to submit that the observations, based upon which the learned Single Judge dismissed the application, are erroneous. He also submitted that the observations in the impugned
(seeking permission to file additional documents)
The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the order ofthe learned
Single Judge dismissing an application under Order-I Rule-10 CPC.
The appellant had sought to be impleaded in a pending partition suit
[CS (OS) 1086/2008]. His claim was premised upon his being owner of Shop No.12, opposite electric power house, Malka Ganj, Delhi-7.
The application had been opposed by the parties to the suit claiming that the appellant had no interest which could be the subject matter of the partition proceedings. Learned counsel endeavoured to submit that the observations, based upon which the learned Single Judge dismissed the application, are erroneous. He also submitted that the observations in the impugned
ORDER
would be an impediment in setting up independent title in separate substantive proceedings.
This Court has considered the submissions as well as the material on record.
The observations of the learned Single Judge facially are only tentative and cannot in any manner be considered as conclusive.
That apart, observations were made in the course of an order rejecting the appellant's application under Order-I Rule-10 CPC. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the order of the learned
Single Judge has not in any manner precluded the examination of the merits of the appellant's claim for being the owner of the premises that he claims.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the appeal and seek independent remedies in y f" ^ accordance with law. Liberty granted.
The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn along with the accompanying applications.
AUGUST 12, 2013 /vks/ S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J I WAZIRI, J
This Court has considered the submissions as well as the material on record.
The observations of the learned Single Judge facially are only tentative and cannot in any manner be considered as conclusive.
That apart, observations were made in the course of an order rejecting the appellant's application under Order-I Rule-10 CPC. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the order of the learned
Single Judge has not in any manner precluded the examination of the merits of the appellant's claim for being the owner of the premises that he claims.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the appeal and seek independent remedies in y f" ^ accordance with law. Liberty granted.
The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn along with the accompanying applications.
AUGUST 12, 2013 /vks/ S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J I WAZIRI, J