Full Text
Translation output
29 to 62
03.02.2010
Present; Mr ArunIKhosla,Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr Rajerider Agarwal,Advocatefor defendant nos 1 &2in CS(OS)Nos.
1132/20Q8 to CS(OS)No.1860/2008 and for defendant no.fin CS(OS)
No.1860/2008.
>
+lANo.14740/2009ingcsrOS)No.l132/2008 lA No. 14734/2009 in CS/QS)No.1508/2008 lA No. 14762/2009 in CS/QS^ No.1509/2008 lA No. 14741/2009in dS/OS)No.1510/2008 lANo.14717/2009in dS/OS^ No.1511/2008 lA No. 14742/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1512/2008 lA No. 14750/2009 in CS(OS)No.1513/2008 lA No. 14725/2009 in CSrOSl No.1524/2008 lA No. 14754/2009 in C'S/OS^ No.1525/2008 lANo.14722/2009 in CSIOSI No.1526/2008 lA No.14747/2009 in dSCQS)No.1527/2008 lA No. 14748/2009 in CSCOSl No.1528/2008 lA No.14753/2009 in C'SfOS)No.1529/2008 lA No. 14763/2009 in CS/OS)No.1530/2008 lA No. 14759/2009in C'S/OS^ No.1532/2008 lA No. 14730/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1534/2008 lA No. 14738/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1536/2008 lA No. 14752/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1537/2008 lA No. 14749/2009 in CSfOS^ No.-1538/2008 lA No..14727/2009 in C'SfOSl No.1539/2008 lA No. 14726/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1540/2008 lA No.14728/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1541/2008 , lA No. 14743/2009 in CSfOSl No.1542/2008 lA No. 14761/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1543/2008 lA No. 14760/2009 in CS/OSl No.1544/2008 lA No. 14764/2009 in CSfOS)No.1545/2008 lANo.14756/2009 in CSfOS)No.1546/2008 lA No. 14736/2009 in CS(OS)No.1547/2008 lA No. 14765/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1548/2008 lA No. 14746/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1549/2008 lANo.14723/2009 in CSCOSI No.1857/2008 lANo.14724/2009 in CS/OSl No.1858/2008 lANo.14719/2009 in CS/OSl No.1859/2008 lA No. 14729/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10421
T
03.02.2010
Present; Mr ArunIKhosla,Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr Rajerider Agarwal,Advocatefor defendant nos 1 &2in CS(OS)Nos.
1132/20Q8 to CS(OS)No.1860/2008 and for defendant no.fin CS(OS)
No.1860/2008.
>
+lANo.14740/2009ingcsrOS)No.l132/2008 lA No. 14734/2009 in CS/QS)No.1508/2008 lA No. 14762/2009 in CS/QS^ No.1509/2008 lA No. 14741/2009in dS/OS)No.1510/2008 lANo.14717/2009in dS/OS^ No.1511/2008 lA No. 14742/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1512/2008 lA No. 14750/2009 in CS(OS)No.1513/2008 lA No. 14725/2009 in CSrOSl No.1524/2008 lA No. 14754/2009 in C'S/OS^ No.1525/2008 lANo.14722/2009 in CSIOSI No.1526/2008 lA No.14747/2009 in dSCQS)No.1527/2008 lA No. 14748/2009 in CSCOSl No.1528/2008 lA No.14753/2009 in C'SfOS)No.1529/2008 lA No. 14763/2009 in CS/OS)No.1530/2008 lA No. 14759/2009in C'S/OS^ No.1532/2008 lA No. 14730/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1534/2008 lA No. 14738/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1536/2008 lA No. 14752/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1537/2008 lA No. 14749/2009 in CSfOS^ No.-1538/2008 lA No..14727/2009 in C'SfOSl No.1539/2008 lA No. 14726/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1540/2008 lA No.14728/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1541/2008 , lA No. 14743/2009 in CSfOSl No.1542/2008 lA No. 14761/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1543/2008 lA No. 14760/2009 in CS/OSl No.1544/2008 lA No. 14764/2009 in CSfOS)No.1545/2008 lANo.14756/2009 in CSfOS)No.1546/2008 lA No. 14736/2009 in CS(OS)No.1547/2008 lA No. 14765/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1548/2008 lA No. 14746/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1549/2008 lANo.14723/2009 in CSCOSI No.1857/2008 lANo.14724/2009 in CS/OSl No.1858/2008 lANo.14719/2009 in CS/OSl No.1859/2008 lA No. 14729/2009 in CS/OS^ No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10421
T
* Mr Khosla says that the reliefsoughtin the present applications is common. It is not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit had claimed that it was entitled to specific performanceoftherenevjjalclauseintheleasedeeddated 19.12.2005whichcommenced j| on 07.12.2007 and would have expired on 07.12.2010. However, in the captioned i! applications there is ani|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 ii premises. In rejoinder Mr Khosla says possession was offered but since it was nottaken, i| t
| only to safeguard the property in issue the possession is with the plaintiff.
■'i
Notwithstanding the difference in stand on the issue of possession of the demised il premises, one fact is cle^^ that theplaintiff does not wishto continue withthe suit for specific performance ank, towards that end he is ready and willing to hand over the
Ii possession. Mr Kliosla says that he shall hand over the key by today i.e., 03.02.2010 at
4.00 pm to the representative of the defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office bearing
I no. S-1, AmericanPlazaJInternational Trade Tower,NehruPlace,NewDelhi.
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 ij
' I
Ii shouldnot prejudice his defence to the claimmade in the suits filedby the defendants. It is made clear that the withdrawal of the suit shall be without prejudice to any stand taken by either party in the suits filedby the defendants. il
In the aforesaid circumstances, the suits and the applications stand dismissed as l! withdrawn. ij
FEBRUARY 03,2010 mb
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
2010:DHC:10421
Aggarwal further states that the defendants have not secured possession ofthe demised ii premises. In rejoinder Mr Khosla says possession was offered but since it was nottaken, i| t
| only to safeguard the property in issue the possession is with the plaintiff.
■'i
Notwithstanding the difference in stand on the issue of possession of the demised il premises, one fact is cle^^ that theplaintiff does not wishto continue withthe suit for specific performance ank, towards that end he is ready and willing to hand over the
Ii possession. Mr Kliosla says that he shall hand over the key by today i.e., 03.02.2010 at
4.00 pm to the representative of the defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office bearing
I no. S-1, AmericanPlazaJInternational Trade Tower,NehruPlace,NewDelhi.
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 ij
' I
Ii shouldnot prejudice his defence to the claimmade in the suits filedby the defendants. It is made clear that the withdrawal of the suit shall be without prejudice to any stand taken by either party in the suits filedby the defendants. il
In the aforesaid circumstances, the suits and the applications stand dismissed as l! withdrawn. ij
FEBRUARY 03,2010 mb
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
2010:DHC:10421
JUDGMENT