Full Text
Translation output
, \ $-29 and 30 , HIGH COURT OF DELHI -K W.P.(C)8790/2014
SATISHc&ORS
-• , Petitioners
Through Mr.Sameer Kumar Ojha,Advocates I / I
SATISHc&ORS
-• , Petitioners
Through Mr.Sameer Kumar Ojha,Advocates I / I
VERSUS
' , ■
,' EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS
Respondents
Through Mr.Parvinder Chauhan and Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocates for EDMC
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for R-
■ ■ • ' ^ 3 '
,' EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS
Respondents
Through Mr.Parvinder Chauhan and Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocates for EDMC
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for R-
■ ■ • ' ^ 3 '
W.P.(C)8791/2014
SATISH&ANR Petitioners
Through • Mr.Sameer Kumar Ojha,Advocates
SATISH&ANR Petitioners
Through • Mr.Sameer Kumar Ojha,Advocates
VERSUS
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS
Respondents
Through Mr.Parvinder Chauhan and Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocates for R-1/EDMC
Mr. Shatrajit Banerji and Mr. Gautam Narayan,ASC for R-2 >
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for R-
. 3 ■
Respondents
Through Mr.Parvinder Chauhan and Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocates for R-1/EDMC
Mr. Shatrajit Banerji and Mr. Gautam Narayan,ASC for R-2 >
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for R-
. 3 ■
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR OR D E R ' '27.02.2017
Counsel for the petitioner had requested for a pass over at the first call. At the second call also a request for adjournment has been made. It is
2017:DHC:9011 Vr'' stated that counsel is busy in the Saket Court. This adjournment has been opposed.This Courtnotes that onthe last date i.e. on 20.02.2017the counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment on the ground that he was suffering from fever. In fact contention of the respondent had been noted that the petitioner had been time and again seeking adjournments and not allowing the case to proceed further. This Court notes that this petition had been filed by the unfortunate parents ofa victim boy who had succumbed to his death on 12.12.2012. By way of this petition the petitioner had sought compensation from the respondent/EDMC.
In the course ofthese proceedings it had been brought to the notice of this Court that.pursuant to an FIR which had beeii registered qua this incident i.e. FIR No. 394/2012(under sections 288/336/338/304/34 of the
IPC)petitioner no.l namely Satish who was a witness in those proceedings had appeared in the witness box before the competent Court; he had been arrayed as PW-6. PW-6 had been declared hostile in those proceedings; he had denied that any boundary wall was being constructed over the plot where his house was situated; he had denied any statement made to the police implieating private respondents(i.e respondents no.3 and 4).
The present petition is based primarily on the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 1/ EDMC is,negligent for the reason that the boundary wall which had been construeted over the plot was not being looked after by the statutory body i.e. EDMC and the EDMC being negligent along with private respondents were liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The stand ofthe petitioner no. 1(PW6 in FIR No. 394/2012) on oath was to the effect that no boundary wall was being eonstrueted over the plot where his house was situated.'The^present petition has thus fallen flat as this statement ofPW6(petitioner No.l) reiterated that no boundary wall had been eonstructed over the plot where his house was situated. The question ofany negligence qua the respondent would not arise. This petition has thus become infructuous.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J FEBRUARY 27,2017 gb , ,
Counsel for the petitioner had requested for a pass over at the first call. At the second call also a request for adjournment has been made. It is
2017:DHC:9011 Vr'' stated that counsel is busy in the Saket Court. This adjournment has been opposed.This Courtnotes that onthe last date i.e. on 20.02.2017the counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment on the ground that he was suffering from fever. In fact contention of the respondent had been noted that the petitioner had been time and again seeking adjournments and not allowing the case to proceed further. This Court notes that this petition had been filed by the unfortunate parents ofa victim boy who had succumbed to his death on 12.12.2012. By way of this petition the petitioner had sought compensation from the respondent/EDMC.
In the course ofthese proceedings it had been brought to the notice of this Court that.pursuant to an FIR which had beeii registered qua this incident i.e. FIR No. 394/2012(under sections 288/336/338/304/34 of the
IPC)petitioner no.l namely Satish who was a witness in those proceedings had appeared in the witness box before the competent Court; he had been arrayed as PW-6. PW-6 had been declared hostile in those proceedings; he had denied that any boundary wall was being constructed over the plot where his house was situated; he had denied any statement made to the police implieating private respondents(i.e respondents no.3 and 4).
The present petition is based primarily on the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 1/ EDMC is,negligent for the reason that the boundary wall which had been construeted over the plot was not being looked after by the statutory body i.e. EDMC and the EDMC being negligent along with private respondents were liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The stand ofthe petitioner no. 1(PW6 in FIR No. 394/2012) on oath was to the effect that no boundary wall was being eonstrueted over the plot where his house was situated.'The^present petition has thus fallen flat as this statement ofPW6(petitioner No.l) reiterated that no boundary wall had been eonstructed over the plot where his house was situated. The question ofany negligence qua the respondent would not arise. This petition has thus become infructuous.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J FEBRUARY 27,2017 gb , ,
JUDGMENT