Full Text
Translation output
%
29 to 62
03.02.2010
Present: Mr Arun Khosla,Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr Rajender Agarwal,Advocate for defendant nos 1 &2in CS(OS)Nos.
1132/2008 to CS(OS)No.1860/2008 and for defendant no.l in CS(OS)
No.1860/2008. f
+IAN0. 14740/2009 in CSfOS)No.l132/2008 lANo. 14734/2009 lANo. 14762/2009 lANo. 14741/2009 lANo. 14717/2009 lANo. 14742/2009 lANo.14750/2009 lANo.14725/2009 lANo.14754/2009 lANo.14722/2009 lANo. 14747/2009 lANo. 14748/2009 lANo. 14753/2009 lANo. 14763/2009 lANo. 14759/2009 lANo. 14730/2009 lANo. 14738/2009 lANo. 14752/2009 lANo. 14749/2009 lANo. 14727/2009 lANo.14726/2009 lANo. 14728/2009 lANo. 14743/2009 lANo. 14761/2009 lANo. 14760/2009 lANo. 14764/2009 lANo.14756/2009 lANo.14736/2009 lANo. 14765/2009 lANo. 14746/2009 lANo. 14723/2009 lANo. 14724/2009 lANo. 14719/2009 lANo. 14729/2009 nCSrOS)No.1508/2008 nCSlOSl No.1509/2008 nCSfOS)No.l510/2008 nCS(OS)No.1511/2008 nCSlOSl No.1512/2008 nCSfOS)No.1513/2008 nCSfOS)No.1524/2008 nCSrOSl No.1525/2008 nCSfOSl No.1526/2008 nCSrOSl No.1527/2008 nCSfOSl No.1528/2008 nCSrOS)No.1529/2008 nCSfOS)No.1530/2008 nCSfOSl No.1532/2008 nCSfOS)No.1534/2008 nCSfOS)No.1536/2008 nCSfOSl No.1537/2008 nCSrOSl No.1538/2008 nCSrOSl No.1539/2008 nCSfOS)No.1540/2008 nCSfOSl No.1541/2008 nCSrOS)No.1542/2008 nCSfOSl No.1543/2008 nCSfOS)No.1544/2008 nCS(OS)No.1545/2008 nCS(OS)No.1546/2008 nCSrOS)No.1547/2008 nCSlOSl No.1548/2008 nCSfOSl No.1549/2008 nCSfOSl No.1857/2008 nCSlOSl No.1858/2008 nCSrOS)No.1859/2008 nCSfOS)No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10404
* Mr Khosla says thatthe reliefsoughtin the present applications is common. It is not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit had claimed that it was entitled to specific performance ofthe renewal clause in the lease deed dated 19.12.2005 which commenced on 07.12.2007 and would have expired on 07.12.2010. However, in the captioned applications there is an averment to the effect that the demised premises have been surrendered to the defendants as on 31.01.2010. Mr Aggarwal refutes this position. Mr
Aggarwal further states that the defendants have not secured possession ofthe demised premises. Inrejoinder MrKhosla says possession was offered butsince it was nottaken, onlyto safeguard the propertyin issue the possession is with the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the difference in stand on the issue ofpossession ofthe demised premises, one fact is clear that the plaintiff does not wish to continue with the suit for specific performance and, towards that end he is ready and willing to hand over the possession. Mr Khosla says that he shall hand over the key by today i.e., 03.02.2010 at
4.00 pm to the representative ofthe defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office hearing no.S-1,American Plaza,International Trade Tower,Nehru Place,New Delhi.
In these circumstances, since the suit for specific performance is rendered infructuous Mr Khosla wishes to withdraw the suit. Mr Khosla's concern is that this should not prejudice his defence to the claim made in the suits filed bythe defendants. It is made clear thatthe withdrawal ofthe suit shall he withoutprejudice to any stand taken by either party in the suits filed bythe defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances,the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY 03,2010 mb
?.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J y-'j 1. bi'/A '''l-
2010:DHC:10404
29 to 62
03.02.2010
Present: Mr Arun Khosla,Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr Rajender Agarwal,Advocate for defendant nos 1 &2in CS(OS)Nos.
1132/2008 to CS(OS)No.1860/2008 and for defendant no.l in CS(OS)
No.1860/2008. f
+IAN0. 14740/2009 in CSfOS)No.l132/2008 lANo. 14734/2009 lANo. 14762/2009 lANo. 14741/2009 lANo. 14717/2009 lANo. 14742/2009 lANo.14750/2009 lANo.14725/2009 lANo.14754/2009 lANo.14722/2009 lANo. 14747/2009 lANo. 14748/2009 lANo. 14753/2009 lANo. 14763/2009 lANo. 14759/2009 lANo. 14730/2009 lANo. 14738/2009 lANo. 14752/2009 lANo. 14749/2009 lANo. 14727/2009 lANo.14726/2009 lANo. 14728/2009 lANo. 14743/2009 lANo. 14761/2009 lANo. 14760/2009 lANo. 14764/2009 lANo.14756/2009 lANo.14736/2009 lANo. 14765/2009 lANo. 14746/2009 lANo. 14723/2009 lANo. 14724/2009 lANo. 14719/2009 lANo. 14729/2009 nCSrOS)No.1508/2008 nCSlOSl No.1509/2008 nCSfOS)No.l510/2008 nCS(OS)No.1511/2008 nCSlOSl No.1512/2008 nCSfOS)No.1513/2008 nCSfOS)No.1524/2008 nCSrOSl No.1525/2008 nCSfOSl No.1526/2008 nCSrOSl No.1527/2008 nCSfOSl No.1528/2008 nCSrOS)No.1529/2008 nCSfOS)No.1530/2008 nCSfOSl No.1532/2008 nCSfOS)No.1534/2008 nCSfOS)No.1536/2008 nCSfOSl No.1537/2008 nCSrOSl No.1538/2008 nCSrOSl No.1539/2008 nCSfOS)No.1540/2008 nCSfOSl No.1541/2008 nCSrOS)No.1542/2008 nCSfOSl No.1543/2008 nCSfOS)No.1544/2008 nCS(OS)No.1545/2008 nCS(OS)No.1546/2008 nCSrOS)No.1547/2008 nCSlOSl No.1548/2008 nCSfOSl No.1549/2008 nCSfOSl No.1857/2008 nCSlOSl No.1858/2008 nCSrOS)No.1859/2008 nCSfOS)No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10404
* Mr Khosla says thatthe reliefsoughtin the present applications is common. It is not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit had claimed that it was entitled to specific performance ofthe renewal clause in the lease deed dated 19.12.2005 which commenced on 07.12.2007 and would have expired on 07.12.2010. However, in the captioned applications there is an averment to the effect that the demised premises have been surrendered to the defendants as on 31.01.2010. Mr Aggarwal refutes this position. Mr
Aggarwal further states that the defendants have not secured possession ofthe demised premises. Inrejoinder MrKhosla says possession was offered butsince it was nottaken, onlyto safeguard the propertyin issue the possession is with the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the difference in stand on the issue ofpossession ofthe demised premises, one fact is clear that the plaintiff does not wish to continue with the suit for specific performance and, towards that end he is ready and willing to hand over the possession. Mr Khosla says that he shall hand over the key by today i.e., 03.02.2010 at
4.00 pm to the representative ofthe defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office hearing no.S-1,American Plaza,International Trade Tower,Nehru Place,New Delhi.
In these circumstances, since the suit for specific performance is rendered infructuous Mr Khosla wishes to withdraw the suit. Mr Khosla's concern is that this should not prejudice his defence to the claim made in the suits filed bythe defendants. It is made clear thatthe withdrawal ofthe suit shall he withoutprejudice to any stand taken by either party in the suits filed bythe defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances,the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY 03,2010 mb
?.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J y-'j 1. bi'/A '''l-
2010:DHC:10404
JUDGMENT