Full Text
Translation output
$-25 & 26 •
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV.389/2015 & CM APPL.13638/2015 &
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV.389/2015 & CM APPL.13638/2015 &
CMAPPL.27532/2015
RC.REV.404/2015 & CM APPL. 14124/2015 &
CMAPPL.27568/2015
PANKAJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Siddharth Pandit,Advocate with Mr.Narender Sharma,Advocate
PANKAJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Siddharth Pandit,Advocate with Mr.Narender Sharma,Advocate
VERSUS
ANOOP KUMAR AGGARWAL Respondent
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.SHALI
30.11.2015
30.11.2015
ORDER
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.
2. I do not find that there is any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the rejection ofthe leave to defend application ofthe petitioner and accordingly the present revision petitions are dismissed being without any merit.
3. Moreover,the respondent has already retrieved the possession ofthe suit premises,the petitions on that score have also become infructuous.
4. Pending applications also stand disposed of. V.K.SHALI,J. NOVEMBER30,2015 - n U\^ ^ \ ■.. ~Rev«u) f-'f- H