Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 1544/2010 & CM No. 21884/2010 (stay)
SP CHOPRA & CO Petitioners
Through: Mr. DeepakGupta& Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Advs.
CM(M) 1544/2010 & CM No. 21884/2010 (stay)
SP CHOPRA & CO Petitioners
Through: Mr. DeepakGupta& Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Advs.
VERSUS
CHANDER MOHAN GUPTA «fe ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhruv Grover, Adv. for LRs ofR-1.
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhruv Grover, Adv. for LRs ofR-1.
CM(M) 1572/2010 & CM Nos. 22041-42/2010, 20223/2016
SP CHOPRA & CO Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Gupta & Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Advs.
SP CHOPRA & CO Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Gupta & Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Advs.
VERSUS
CHANDER MOHAN GUPTA &ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. withMr.
Dhruv Grover, Adv. for LRs ofR-1.
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. withMr.
Dhruv Grover, Adv. for LRs ofR-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
®/o 25.04.2018 The learned counsel for the petitioner in both these petitions which are connected to each other, they having arisen out ofthe same proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller submits that he is under instructions to withdraw the petitions.
CM(M) I544/20I0 page I of2 2018:DHC:9308 f V The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
At this stage, the senior counsel appearing for the first respondent
(petitioner before the Additional Rent Controller) submits that the proceedings in the eviction petition were adjourned sine die by Court of
Additional Rent Controller (then presided over by Mr. Amitabh Rawat), New Delhi atPatiala House by order dated 3'^'^ January, 2017 because ofthe pendency of the captioned petitions, also for the reason that the trial court records have been lying here.
Since the petitions challenging the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the order of the Additional Rent Controller allowing amendment to the eviction petition at the instance of the first respondent and the subsequent order on review application have been withdrawn and dismissed accordingly, the proceedings in the eviction case will have to be revived. Thus, with the consent of both sides, it is directed that the proceedings stand revived on the file of the Additional Rent
Controller.
The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Additional
Rent Controller on 17^*' May, 2018.
It is stated by both sides that the case is now almost 48 years old. In these circumstances, it is directed that the Additional Rent Controller will proceed with the matter expeditiously on day-to-day basis and take it to the logical conclusion at the earliest. /^\
R.K.^UBA,J APRIL 25, 2018
®/o 25.04.2018 The learned counsel for the petitioner in both these petitions which are connected to each other, they having arisen out ofthe same proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller submits that he is under instructions to withdraw the petitions.
CM(M) I544/20I0 page I of2 2018:DHC:9308 f V The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
At this stage, the senior counsel appearing for the first respondent
(petitioner before the Additional Rent Controller) submits that the proceedings in the eviction petition were adjourned sine die by Court of
Additional Rent Controller (then presided over by Mr. Amitabh Rawat), New Delhi atPatiala House by order dated 3'^'^ January, 2017 because ofthe pendency of the captioned petitions, also for the reason that the trial court records have been lying here.
Since the petitions challenging the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the order of the Additional Rent Controller allowing amendment to the eviction petition at the instance of the first respondent and the subsequent order on review application have been withdrawn and dismissed accordingly, the proceedings in the eviction case will have to be revived. Thus, with the consent of both sides, it is directed that the proceedings stand revived on the file of the Additional Rent
Controller.
The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Additional
Rent Controller on 17^*' May, 2018.
It is stated by both sides that the case is now almost 48 years old. In these circumstances, it is directed that the Additional Rent Controller will proceed with the matter expeditiously on day-to-day basis and take it to the logical conclusion at the earliest. /^\
R.K.^UBA,J APRIL 25, 2018
CM(M) 1544/2010 page 2of2
2018:DHC:9308
2018:DHC:9308
JUDGMENT