Full Text
Translation output
A-2
% 13.09.2011
Present: Mr. Mayank Jain and Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Srivastva, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
Mr. G.P. Thareja, Advocate for the respondent No. 3.
+CM(M) NO. 706/2009
*
Learned counsel for the respondent points out that this petition has become infructuous. This petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 04.06.2009 which had .endorsed the findings of the Trial Judge dated 25.02.2009 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff, namely, Satyam Welfare Association under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction; plaintiff is stated to be an association; it was formed for the welfare of the members of the said association who are stated to be owners of the flats constructed prior to the incorporation of the said association. Contention is that the officials of the defendant NO. 1 (NDPL) had on 21.07.2008 visited the spot and started taking measures to install an electricity transformer therein; plaintiff protested against this act; defendant No. 1, namely, Kailash Aggarwal, threatened the manager of the plaintiff that in case transformer was not allowed to be installed, he would be beaten; defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are illegally trying to install the transformer therein; present suit was accordingly filed. The interim apphcation under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code had accompanied the plaint. The Trial Judge after considering the prima facie
2011:DHC:19475
•" I' r facts of the case as borne out from the files and the documentary evidence annexed alongwith the petition had noted that no case is made out in favour of the plaintiff for granting him an interim relief for de- installment of the said transformer; this application had been dismissed; this finding was endorsed by the impugned order dated 04.06.2009.
On 15.12.2009, the predecessor of this court had also noted and deliberated on the respective contentions made by the respective parties before the court; ex parte interim order passed earlier on 27.07.2009 had been vacated and the respondent/NDPL had been held to be entitled to install the transformer at the place identified in the property. It is not in dispute that subsequent thereto, the transformer has since been installed; learned counsel for the respondent states that the current of the electricity connection in the said transformer has also been given effect to.
This petition has become infructuous; it is disposed of accordingly.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19475
% 13.09.2011
Present: Mr. Mayank Jain and Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Srivastva, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
Mr. G.P. Thareja, Advocate for the respondent No. 3.
+CM(M) NO. 706/2009
*
Learned counsel for the respondent points out that this petition has become infructuous. This petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 04.06.2009 which had .endorsed the findings of the Trial Judge dated 25.02.2009 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff, namely, Satyam Welfare Association under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction; plaintiff is stated to be an association; it was formed for the welfare of the members of the said association who are stated to be owners of the flats constructed prior to the incorporation of the said association. Contention is that the officials of the defendant NO. 1 (NDPL) had on 21.07.2008 visited the spot and started taking measures to install an electricity transformer therein; plaintiff protested against this act; defendant No. 1, namely, Kailash Aggarwal, threatened the manager of the plaintiff that in case transformer was not allowed to be installed, he would be beaten; defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are illegally trying to install the transformer therein; present suit was accordingly filed. The interim apphcation under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code had accompanied the plaint. The Trial Judge after considering the prima facie
2011:DHC:19475
•" I' r facts of the case as borne out from the files and the documentary evidence annexed alongwith the petition had noted that no case is made out in favour of the plaintiff for granting him an interim relief for de- installment of the said transformer; this application had been dismissed; this finding was endorsed by the impugned order dated 04.06.2009.
On 15.12.2009, the predecessor of this court had also noted and deliberated on the respective contentions made by the respective parties before the court; ex parte interim order passed earlier on 27.07.2009 had been vacated and the respondent/NDPL had been held to be entitled to install the transformer at the place identified in the property. It is not in dispute that subsequent thereto, the transformer has since been installed; learned counsel for the respondent states that the current of the electricity connection in the said transformer has also been given effect to.
This petition has become infructuous; it is disposed of accordingly.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19475
JUDGMENT