Full Text
Translation output
r
% 21.01.2011
Present: Mr. Girish Aggarwal, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. for MCD.
Respondent No.2 in person.
+ C.M. 1321/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. (M) No. 60/2011 & CM No.1320/2011 (stay)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 4.12.2010, 18.3.2009, 17.12.2009, 4.3.2010, 2.8.2010, 9.9.2010 and 2.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Senior Civl Judge, Delhi.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
Society had filed an application dated 14.12.2009 on behalf of the petitioner Society under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for withdrawal of the suit pending before learned trial Court but learned trial Court did not pass orders of the withdrawal of suit.
Thereafter, petitioner society again filed a detailed application under
Order 23 rule 1 for withdrawal of the said suit on 2.12.2010.
However, learned trial Court still did not pass the formal order of withdrawal of the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the suit was filed by the petitioner Society for demolition of unauthorized
2011:DHC:19919 construction raised by respondent No.2 and the said suit stood satisfied as unauthorized construction raised by respondent No.2 stands demolished and Status Report submitted by MCD in this regard.
In view of above facts, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner before learned trial Court is dismissed as withdrawn.
S.L. BHAYANA, J.
JANUARY 21, 2011
Kb
2011:DHC:19919
Present: Mr. Girish Aggarwal, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. for MCD.
Respondent No.2 in person.
+ C.M. 1321/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. (M) No. 60/2011 & CM No.1320/2011 (stay)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 4.12.2010, 18.3.2009, 17.12.2009, 4.3.2010, 2.8.2010, 9.9.2010 and 2.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Senior Civl Judge, Delhi.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
Society had filed an application dated 14.12.2009 on behalf of the petitioner Society under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for withdrawal of the suit pending before learned trial Court but learned trial Court did not pass orders of the withdrawal of suit.
Thereafter, petitioner society again filed a detailed application under
Order 23 rule 1 for withdrawal of the said suit on 2.12.2010.
However, learned trial Court still did not pass the formal order of withdrawal of the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the suit was filed by the petitioner Society for demolition of unauthorized
2011:DHC:19919 construction raised by respondent No.2 and the said suit stood satisfied as unauthorized construction raised by respondent No.2 stands demolished and Status Report submitted by MCD in this regard.
In view of above facts, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner before learned trial Court is dismissed as withdrawn.
S.L. BHAYANA, J.
JANUARY 21, 2011
Kb
2011:DHC:19919
JUDGMENT