Full Text
Translation output
$—3, 4, 21 and 22 (4cases)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 533/2018
NIRMAL KANTA SEHGAL
Petitioner
Through Mr.D.K.Mehta, Advocate.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 533/2018
NIRMAL KANTA SEHGAL
Petitioner
Through Mr.D.K.Mehta, Advocate.
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA
Respondent
Through Ms.Megha Katari, Ms.Krati Somvanshi, Advocates with respondent in person. i/ RC.REV. 535/2018
Respondent
Through Ms.Megha Katari, Ms.Krati Somvanshi, Advocates with respondent in person. i/ RC.REV. 535/2018
VERSUS
SURESH DHAWAN
RC.REV. 530/2018
VERSUS
RAMESH KUMAR
2019:DHC:7948
2019:DHC:7948
RC.REV. 531/2018
VERSUS
ARVINDER PAL SINGH
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
27.03.2019 This petition challenges the impugned order dated 22.09.2018 whereby the leave to defend in all four eviction petitions filed by the petitioner herein were allowed and the matter was listed for filing of the written statements etc. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the applications for leave to defend did not show any triable issue and as such ought to have been dismissed by the learned
ARC.
I have gone through the order dated 22.09.2017 which allowed such applications. The basis of such order was the petitioner herein was herself not sure as to how many shops she would require for her grand daughter-in-law to start the business. Reference can also made to para 18(a) (xiv) and (xvi) wherein somewhere the petitioner say she require one shop for her grand daughter-in-law but whereas in paragraph (xvi) she stated 2/3 shops are required. The fact as to which of these four shops would be best suitable for her is also not described in the petition and hence the applications for leave to defend were allowed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner says he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the learned ARC to expedite the trial of eviction petitions.
Hence all the revision petitions and pending applications stands disposed of with a directionto the learned ARC to decide the eviction petitions as expeditious as possible^preferably within a year from
01.04.201^on which date the parties shall appear before him.
MARCH 27, 2019 (DV Il YOGESH KHANNA, J.
27.03.2019 This petition challenges the impugned order dated 22.09.2018 whereby the leave to defend in all four eviction petitions filed by the petitioner herein were allowed and the matter was listed for filing of the written statements etc. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the applications for leave to defend did not show any triable issue and as such ought to have been dismissed by the learned
ARC.
I have gone through the order dated 22.09.2017 which allowed such applications. The basis of such order was the petitioner herein was herself not sure as to how many shops she would require for her grand daughter-in-law to start the business. Reference can also made to para 18(a) (xiv) and (xvi) wherein somewhere the petitioner say she require one shop for her grand daughter-in-law but whereas in paragraph (xvi) she stated 2/3 shops are required. The fact as to which of these four shops would be best suitable for her is also not described in the petition and hence the applications for leave to defend were allowed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner says he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the learned ARC to expedite the trial of eviction petitions.
Hence all the revision petitions and pending applications stands disposed of with a directionto the learned ARC to decide the eviction petitions as expeditious as possible^preferably within a year from
01.04.201^on which date the parties shall appear before him.
MARCH 27, 2019 (DV Il YOGESH KHANNA, J.
JUDGMENT