Sanjay Gambhir vs Jatinder Manchanda & Ors on 16 July, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sanjay Gambhir vs Jatinder Manchanda & Ors on 16 July, 2020

Bench: Mukta Gupta

$~3
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 10/2020
       SANJAY GAMBHIR                                          ..... Plaintiff
               Represented by:         Mr.Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate.

                          versus

       JATINDER MANCHANDA & ORS.                  ..... Defendants
                Represented by: Mr.Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                          ORDER

% 16.07.2020 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. I.A. 5512/2020 (exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavit, certified/fair copy and court fees-by plaintiff)

1. By this application, plaintiff seeks exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavits, certified/fair typed copies within 72 hours of the resumption of the regular functioning of the Court. Reply has been filed by the plaintiff however, in view of the COVID-19 situation no affidavit in support of the reply has been filed and hence this application.

2. Plaintiff/applicant is exempted from filing the affirmed affidavits at this stage along with the typed copies. The same be filed within 72 hours of the resumption of the normal functioning of the Court.

3. Application is disposed of.

4. Reply affidavit of I.A. No. 4225/2020 be taken on record.

CS(OS) 10/2020 Page 1 of 3

I.A. 4225/2020 (under Section 151 CPC-by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3)

1. By this application, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 seek permission of this Court to let out the portion of the suit premises which the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are entitled to as per their share.

2. It is the case of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 that initially also the said portion was also occupied by tenant however, in the meantime tenant vacated when this Court vide order dated 13 th January, 2020 noting that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and also directing compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC adjourned the matter to 24th May, 2020. It is apparent that though this Court had granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiff however, the said portion was not typed and in view thereof the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, seek permission of this Court to let out the portion of the property in their possession.

3. A perusal of the plaint itself reveals that the share of the plaintiff in the suit property even as per the claim of the plaintiff is 657.72 sq.yards. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed the site plan along with the application which shows that part B comprising of 600.0987 sq.yards area is in possession of the plaintiff which the plaintiff is using.

4. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 who are entitled to 66% of the total area admeasuring 2418 sq.yards seek permission to let out 1596 sq.yards marked as Part-A leaving aside part-C and part-D areas. As per the case of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 is entitled to part-A and part-B portion of the document-B i.e. the site plan filed along with the application.

5. Considering the fact that best claim of the plaintiff to the share in the property, that is, 657.72 sq.yds this Court deems it fit to permit defendant CS(OS) 10/2020 Page 2 of 3 Nos.1, 2 and 3 to let out part-A portion of the site plan filed as document B along with this application admeasuring 1596 sq.yards area.

6. Application is disposed of.

7. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

JULY 16, 2020 'vn' CS(OS) 10/2020 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders