Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 47/2012
PURAN CHAND SHARMA Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Varun Nischal, Advocate
CS(OS) 47/2012
PURAN CHAND SHARMA Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Varun Nischal, Advocate
VERSUS
LATA SHARMA Defendant
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
04.03.2013 LA. No.14204/2012 (u/o 8 R. 10 CPC)
This an application filed by the plaintiff for striking off the defence of the defendant because of her failure to file her written statement within the given by this Court to her vide order dated 18^'' April,2012 on which date
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, advocate had appeared on her behalf and had sought time for filing of written statement and was granted thirty days time for that purpose. Thereafter the matter was ordered to be taken up by the Joint defendant filed her written statement nor her counsel appeared before the
Joint Registrar on 18"^ July,2012 and so he ordered the matter to be placed before the Court on 14"' September,2012. Then this application came to filed and on that date also none appeared for the defendant. Still notice of this application was ordered to be given to her as well as her counsel.
CS(OS) 47/2012 Page1 of3
2013:DHC:6723 There is no appearance on behalf of the defendant though her counsel is reported to have been served with the notice ofthis application.
Since the defendant has failed to her file written statement within the period given to her by the Court and in fact till date also it has not been filed her defence is struck off This application accordingly stands allowed, accordingly.
CS(OS) 47/2012
In view of the fact that today the defence of the defendant has been struck off the plaintiff has also become entitled to get a
04.03.2013 LA. No.14204/2012 (u/o 8 R. 10 CPC)
This an application filed by the plaintiff for striking off the defence of the defendant because of her failure to file her written statement within the given by this Court to her vide order dated 18^'' April,2012 on which date
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, advocate had appeared on her behalf and had sought time for filing of written statement and was granted thirty days time for that purpose. Thereafter the matter was ordered to be taken up by the Joint defendant filed her written statement nor her counsel appeared before the
Joint Registrar on 18"^ July,2012 and so he ordered the matter to be placed before the Court on 14"' September,2012. Then this application came to filed and on that date also none appeared for the defendant. Still notice of this application was ordered to be given to her as well as her counsel.
CS(OS) 47/2012 Page1 of3
2013:DHC:6723 There is no appearance on behalf of the defendant though her counsel is reported to have been served with the notice ofthis application.
Since the defendant has failed to her file written statement within the period given to her by the Court and in fact till date also it has not been filed her defence is struck off This application accordingly stands allowed, accordingly.
CS(OS) 47/2012
In view of the fact that today the defence of the defendant has been struck off the plaintiff has also become entitled to get a
ORDER
against the defendant.
All the factual averments made by the plaintiff in this suit for possession and damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant stand admitted by her because of her not filing written statement opposing the suit of the plaintiff It stands admitted by her that the plaintiffhad become the owner of the suit property in her occupation under the Will of its erstwhile owner late Smt. Bhanwati, who was also the mother-in-law of the defendant. It also stands admitted by the defendant that her deceased mother-in-law had permitted her and her deceased husband to stay in the suit property as licensees and after death of her husband she was allowed to continue to stay there being her widow daughter-in-law, and that too without any licence fee. Her having failed to vacate the suit property after being asked by the plaintiffto do so on his becoming owner of the suit property after the death of defendant's mother-in- law necessitated filing this suit for possession and damages for unauthorised use and occupation.
There is no opposition to the rate of Rs.5000/- p.m. being claimed by the plaintiff as damages for use and occupation.
All the factual averments made by the plaintiff in this suit for possession and damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant stand admitted by her because of her not filing written statement opposing the suit of the plaintiff It stands admitted by her that the plaintiffhad become the owner of the suit property in her occupation under the Will of its erstwhile owner late Smt. Bhanwati, who was also the mother-in-law of the defendant. It also stands admitted by the defendant that her deceased mother-in-law had permitted her and her deceased husband to stay in the suit property as licensees and after death of her husband she was allowed to continue to stay there being her widow daughter-in-law, and that too without any licence fee. Her having failed to vacate the suit property after being asked by the plaintiffto do so on his becoming owner of the suit property after the death of defendant's mother-in- law necessitated filing this suit for possession and damages for unauthorised use and occupation.
There is no opposition to the rate of Rs.5000/- p.m. being claimed by the plaintiff as damages for use and occupation.
CS(OS) 47/2012 Page 2of3
A decree of possession in respect of the first floor ofproperty bearing No.637-C, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 comprising of two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and store as shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the plaint is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. A decree for a sum of ? 3320/- on account ofdamages of use and occupation of the suit property for the period to the filing of the suit is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. A decree for payment of damages for unauthorised use and occupation @ ^ 5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the defendant vacates the suit property or for a period three years from today, whichever is earlier, is also passed. A decree ofpermanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining her from parting with possession of the aforesaid property or creating any kind of third party interest therein.
The plaintiff'shall also be entitled to costs ofthe suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly, but the decree in respect of the pendente lite and future damages shall be executable only upon the plaintiff furnishing requisite court fees.
MARCH 04,2013 rsk
A decree of possession in respect of the first floor ofproperty bearing No.637-C, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 comprising of two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and store as shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the plaint is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. A decree for a sum of ? 3320/- on account ofdamages of use and occupation of the suit property for the period to the filing of the suit is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. A decree for payment of damages for unauthorised use and occupation @ ^ 5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the defendant vacates the suit property or for a period three years from today, whichever is earlier, is also passed. A decree ofpermanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining her from parting with possession of the aforesaid property or creating any kind of third party interest therein.
The plaintiff'shall also be entitled to costs ofthe suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly, but the decree in respect of the pendente lite and future damages shall be executable only upon the plaintiff furnishing requisite court fees.
MARCH 04,2013 rsk
CS(OS) 47/2012 Page 3 of3