Full Text
Translation output
>
A-54
% 21.07.2011
Present: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for the MCD.
+CM No. 17 144/2011 in CM (M) No. 825/2011
*
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 825/2011 & CM No. 17 145/2011 (stay)
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
23.03.2011 vide which the application filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 30.11.2009 had been dismissed.
Vide order dated 30.11.2009, the application filed by the applicant seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code had been dismissed. Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant to the effect that the plot of land as shown in the portion marked black in the plan (annexed along with plaint) is illegally being usurped by the defendant; the plaintiff has cultivatory possession over the land; prayer restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession has been sought.
The applicant is stated to be a resident of the Nizamuddin
East, his contention as per his averment in the application under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is that he is owner of plot Nos. 5, 6 &
7 which is abutting this strip of land; he has interest in this strip
2011:DHC:7838 of land and is seeking impleadment to ensure that this land is not usurped by the plaintiff or any other person; being a resident of
Nizamuddin, he wants to ensure that piece of land continues to be used as a park. This application seeking impleadment had been dismissed on 30.11.2009; court was of the view that the parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant had to establish their respective pleas; the appellant did not have any interest in the lis between the plaintiff and the defendant; no document had also been filed by him to support his plea; his averments had accordingly be rejected.
This order had been the subject matter, of a review which had been dismissed by the impugned order. The Court had recorded the averments as contended by the appellant; none of the ingredients of Order 47 of the Code had been satisfied. There was no mistake or error from which the order dated 30.11.2009 had suffered. The impugned order calls for no infirrrjity
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 21, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7838
A-54
% 21.07.2011
Present: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for the MCD.
+CM No. 17 144/2011 in CM (M) No. 825/2011
*
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 825/2011 & CM No. 17 145/2011 (stay)
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
23.03.2011 vide which the application filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 30.11.2009 had been dismissed.
Vide order dated 30.11.2009, the application filed by the applicant seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code had been dismissed. Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant to the effect that the plot of land as shown in the portion marked black in the plan (annexed along with plaint) is illegally being usurped by the defendant; the plaintiff has cultivatory possession over the land; prayer restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession has been sought.
The applicant is stated to be a resident of the Nizamuddin
East, his contention as per his averment in the application under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is that he is owner of plot Nos. 5, 6 &
7 which is abutting this strip of land; he has interest in this strip
2011:DHC:7838 of land and is seeking impleadment to ensure that this land is not usurped by the plaintiff or any other person; being a resident of
Nizamuddin, he wants to ensure that piece of land continues to be used as a park. This application seeking impleadment had been dismissed on 30.11.2009; court was of the view that the parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant had to establish their respective pleas; the appellant did not have any interest in the lis between the plaintiff and the defendant; no document had also been filed by him to support his plea; his averments had accordingly be rejected.
This order had been the subject matter, of a review which had been dismissed by the impugned order. The Court had recorded the averments as contended by the appellant; none of the ingredients of Order 47 of the Code had been satisfied. There was no mistake or error from which the order dated 30.11.2009 had suffered. The impugned order calls for no infirrrjity
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 21, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7838
JUDGMENT