Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Maya D. Chablani vs Smt Radha Mittal & Ors on 24 September, 2020
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)No.277/2020 & I.A.Nos.8509-11/2020
DR. MAYA D. CHABLANI .....Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Jos Chiramel, Mr. Ramesh
Kumar, Mr. Devansh Gupta, Mr.
Abhishek Gusain and Mr. Sam C.
Mathew, Advs.
versus
SMT RADHA MITTAL & ORS. .....Defendants
Through : Mr. D.K. Pandey, Adv. for D-1.
Mr. Deepak Mehra and Mr. Devender
Dhiryan, Advs. for D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 24.09.2020 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] I.A. No. 8511/2020
1. Allowed, subject to the plaintiff filing original, legible and certified copies of the dim documents within two weeks from today. 1.1 In particular, the original sanctioned plan will be placed on record by the plaintiff.
2. The captioned application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CS (OS) No. 277/2020 & I.A. Nos. 8509-10/2020
3. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the captioned applications.
CS(OS)No.277/2020 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:25.09.2020 10:42:52 3.1 Mr. D.K. Pandey enters appearance on behalf of defendant no. 1
while Mr. Devender Dhiryan enters appearance on behalf of defendant no. 2. 3.2 On steps being taken, notice shall issue to defendant no. 3. The plaintiff will be free to take recourse to all permissible modes of service including e-mail.
3.3 Written statement(s) in the suit and reply(ies) to the captioned applications will be filed within four weeks from today. Replication(s) and rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.
4. Mr. Jos Chiramel, who appears on behalf of the plaintiff, says that construction is being carried out contrary to the sanctioned plan by defendant no. 1.
4.1 To my mind, this cannot be ascertained till such time the sanctioned plan is placed on record.
4.2 I may only record that it is not disputed by Mr. Chiramel that construction, contrary to the sanctioned plan, was also carried out, albeit by defendant no. 2, on the second floor, at which point in time, the plaintiff turned a blind eye.
4.3 The defendant no. 2 is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff.
5. On record is a copy of a partition deed dated 20.03.2009 along with a site plan executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2. 5.1 It appears that defendant no. 2 executed a sale deed dated 20.10.2015 in favour of defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 3, in turn, executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1.
5.2 At the moment, the contesting defendant i.e. defendant no. 1 is in possession of the second floor and partially constructed third floor.
CS(OS)No.277/2020 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:25.09.2020 10:42:52 5.3 It is not clear as to whether the sale deed executed between defendant
no. 3 and defendant no. 1, a copy of which has been placed on record on page 112 of the documents filed by the plaintiff, is the correct sale deed. 5.4 This is so as Mr. Pandey, who appears on behalf of defendant no. 1, says that the date of the original sale deed is 24.06.2020 while the copy placed on record bears the date 15.06.2020.
5.5 Defendant no.1 will place on record an attested copy of the original sale deed before the next date of hearing.
6. Given these circumstances, for the moment, no interim directions can be issued. Needless to say, any steps taken by the parties concerning the suit property will be subject to the final outcome of the instant proceedings.
7. List the matter on 24.11.2020.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 24, 2020
Aj/KK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
CS(OS)No.277/2020 page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:25.09.2020
10:42:52