Full Text
Translation output
$-9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 351/2013
MRS POONAM iCAPHAI Appellant, j
Through: Mr. Ashok Gumani, Adv.
FAO(OS) 351/2013
MRS POONAM iCAPHAI Appellant, j
Through: Mr. Ashok Gumani, Adv.
VERSUS
SHPRADEEPMALHOTRA&ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jdn, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Mr. Rohan Thawani, Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Ms. Kriti Singh Ghlourt, Ms. Ashama Sehgal and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advs. j
HO^^EMR.JUSTICES.RAVINDRABHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
02.08.2013 The present appeal is directed against an order dated 7'"
October, 2013 made by learnedSingleJudge permittingthe extension ofalease in favour ofthe Embassy of Saudi Arabia for aperiod of thirtymonths with effectfrom l" October, 2012. The plaintiffinthe pending suit CS(OS) 2565/2010 claims ashare in the suitprope^ which is the basement, ground and first floor of 2, Paschimi Marg, 2013:DHC:7279-DB
Vasant Maxg, New Delhi. The suit is premised upon the amendment made to Section 6of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff contends that she is entitled to ashare equal to that any of the co-parceners in the suit property. The learned Single Judge after consideringthe submissionsofthe partiesfelt thatthe plaintiffdidnot urge any cogentreasons for refusing to extend the lease, andthatthe order was necessary to preserve the property. It had also been concurrently apprised of the fact that no other offer to lease the premisesduringthe pendencyofthesuithadbeenmade.
It is contended by Mr. Gumani, learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order results in extraordinary prejudice inasmuch as the proceedings in the suit are amere formality and ye^ likely to be decreed at any time. It was contended that if the impugned order is allowedto stand, itwouldresult in graveprejudice to the plaintiffs rights inasmuch as in the event of the preliminary decree beingdrawn up during the subsistence oftenancy, the plaintiff would be unable to seek afinal decree for partition and for separate physical possession ofher share ofthe suit property. It was further contended that even ifthe property were to be put to auction, due'to the subsistence of the lease, the property would be incapable of fetching as much as it would have if vacant property were handpd over to the auctionpurchaser.
This Court has considered the submissions. The suit was filed in 2010. The lease originally granted in favour of the Embassy of
Saudi Arabia has been in existence ofthe last ten years. All that the
Court has done is to extend the period for fiirther thirty months with effect from V' October, 2012. The period oflease would thus end on
March, 2015. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the respondent/defendant has preferred an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC and the issues have not yet been framed.
Having regard to these overall conspectus ofcircumstances, the
Court is satisfied that the unpugned order would not cause any irreparable prejudice ofthe naturebeingadvocatedbythe counsel.
The appeal is devoid ofmerit and is, therefore, dismissed. •
S.RAVINDRABHAT, J sn :;iRi, J AUGUST 02,2013
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jdn, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Mr. Rohan Thawani, Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Ms. Kriti Singh Ghlourt, Ms. Ashama Sehgal and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advs. j
HO^^EMR.JUSTICES.RAVINDRABHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
02.08.2013 The present appeal is directed against an order dated 7'"
October, 2013 made by learnedSingleJudge permittingthe extension ofalease in favour ofthe Embassy of Saudi Arabia for aperiod of thirtymonths with effectfrom l" October, 2012. The plaintiffinthe pending suit CS(OS) 2565/2010 claims ashare in the suitprope^ which is the basement, ground and first floor of 2, Paschimi Marg, 2013:DHC:7279-DB
Vasant Maxg, New Delhi. The suit is premised upon the amendment made to Section 6of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff contends that she is entitled to ashare equal to that any of the co-parceners in the suit property. The learned Single Judge after consideringthe submissionsofthe partiesfelt thatthe plaintiffdidnot urge any cogentreasons for refusing to extend the lease, andthatthe order was necessary to preserve the property. It had also been concurrently apprised of the fact that no other offer to lease the premisesduringthe pendencyofthesuithadbeenmade.
It is contended by Mr. Gumani, learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order results in extraordinary prejudice inasmuch as the proceedings in the suit are amere formality and ye^ likely to be decreed at any time. It was contended that if the impugned order is allowedto stand, itwouldresult in graveprejudice to the plaintiffs rights inasmuch as in the event of the preliminary decree beingdrawn up during the subsistence oftenancy, the plaintiff would be unable to seek afinal decree for partition and for separate physical possession ofher share ofthe suit property. It was further contended that even ifthe property were to be put to auction, due'to the subsistence of the lease, the property would be incapable of fetching as much as it would have if vacant property were handpd over to the auctionpurchaser.
This Court has considered the submissions. The suit was filed in 2010. The lease originally granted in favour of the Embassy of
Saudi Arabia has been in existence ofthe last ten years. All that the
Court has done is to extend the period for fiirther thirty months with effect from V' October, 2012. The period oflease would thus end on
March, 2015. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the respondent/defendant has preferred an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC and the issues have not yet been framed.
Having regard to these overall conspectus ofcircumstances, the
Court is satisfied that the unpugned order would not cause any irreparable prejudice ofthe naturebeingadvocatedbythe counsel.
The appeal is devoid ofmerit and is, therefore, dismissed. •
S.RAVINDRABHAT, J sn :;iRi, J AUGUST 02,2013
JUDGMENT