Rani Parvati Devi v. Turner Morrison Ltd.

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER This application has been made by the applicant/plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for filing objections in terms of order dated 10th August, 2009 passed by the Division Bench pursuant to order dated 6th July, 2009 passed by the Supreme court in SLP No. 12330-31/09.

2. A perusal of order of Division Bench would show that Division Bench while disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4138/2008 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14645/2006 had allowed the application of the applicant Turner Morrison Land 2009:DHC:4302 Limited (TMLL) to be impleaded as a party in the Writ Petition. Against this order an SLP was preferred wherein the Supreme Court passed following order: We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all objections to the effect that the impleaded party has no right over the disputed property.

3. It is obvious that by the above order the Supreme Court had given liberty to the applicant to raise all objections in respect of right of TMLL over the disputed property in the Writ Petition. The petitioner’s filing this application before this Court under the cover of order of Supreme Court is not understood. In any case TMLL is a party in the present suit and the matter has been referred to the arbitration by this Court and an Arbitrator has already been appointed and the applicant and non-applicant have been given liberty to file claim and counter-claim before the learned Arbitrator. The applicant is at liberty to raise objections about the ownership rights of TMLL in the property before the Arbitrator. The application is disposed of with these observations. October 15, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn