Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Vijay Gupta vs Gagninder Kr Gandhi & Anr on 8 February, 2022

Author: Prateek Jalan

Bench: Prateek Jalan

                   $~2 (2022 Cause List)
                   *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +          CM(M) 905/2017

                              VIJAY GUPTA                                        ..... Petitioner
                                                 Through:     Mr. Raman Gandhi, Advocate

                                                         versus

                              GAGNINDER KR GANDHI & ANR             ..... Respondents
                                           Through: Mr. Manish Makhija, Advocate

                   CORAM:
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

                                           ORDER

% 08.02.2022 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 483/2022 (for clarification of order dated 23.08.2017)

1. The present application, filed by the petitioner in the year 2022, is for clarification of an order dated 23.08.2017, by which the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed. Notice in this application was issued on 05.01.2022. Mr. Manish Makhija, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in CS No. 10306/2016 pending before the Court of the Additional District Judge-02 (South-East), Saket Courts, Delhi, this Court has not dealt with all the reliefs claimed in the petition.

3. During the course of arguments, Mr. Raman Gandhi, learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:08.02.2022 18:36:23 CM(M) 905/2017 Page 1 of 2 counsel for the plaintiff, submits that although the suit was confined to the plaintiff's entitlement to a particular location for parking his car, the plaintiff made applications under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] for directions with regard to water supply to his residential property on the first and second floors of the suit property [A- 148, Defence Colony, New Delhi]. According to Mr. Gandhi, an injunction can be passed under Section 94 of the CPC beyond the scope of the suit. Mr. Gandhi seeks permission to place judgments on record with regard to the scope of interlocutory orders which can be passed in a suit.

4. Learned counsel for both the parties are directed to file their written submissions and compilations of judgments on this issue within four weeks.

5. List on 01.04.2022.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 8, 2022 'hkaur' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:08.02.2022 18:36:23 CM(M) 905/2017 Page 2 of 2