Delhi High Court - Orders
R Vaithiyanathan vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 6 February, 2019
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J. Mehta
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 112/2019
R VAITHIYANATHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.A.Niyazi, Advocate
(9810413706)
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-
1/DDA.
(9811071260)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
ORDER
% 06.02.2019 CM No. 5664/2019 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No.5665/2019 (delay in re-filing)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned, subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No.5663/2019 (delay in filing)
3. The application for condonation of delay is allowed because earlier the self-same impugned judgment dated 29.9.2006 was challenged before this Court in RFA No. 73/2007 and this RFA No. 73/2007 was remanded on the limited issue of maintainability of the suit for want of notice under Section 53-B of the Delhi Development Act (in short DD Act) vide order dated 19.9.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Now the trial court has held that the suit is maintainable by allowing the exemption application filed by the appellant/plaintiff for not serving of the requisite notice under Section 53-B of the DD Act. After the application for exemption under Section 53-B of the DD Act of the appellant/plaintiff was allowed, the appellant/plaintiff instead of filing an appeal against the judgment dated 29.9.2006 filed an application being CM No. 32603/2018 for revival of the earlier appeal being RFA 73/2007, and which application was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 29.9.2006. Hence this appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and CM No. 5663/2019 is allowed and disposed of. RFA No.112/2019
4. ADMIT.
5. List in due course in the category of 'Regular Matters' as per the year of its seniority.
CM No.5662/2019 (stay)
6. The crucial issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the defendant no.2 in the suit, and who is the respondent no.2 herein, did or did not take allotment of the suit flat in question bearing No.16-H, Pocket-IV, Third Floor, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, and that some other person of the same name of the defendant no.2 namely Smt. Raj Kumari Verma impersonated the real allottee being the present defendant no.2/respondent no.2 and obtained allotment documents as also physical possession of the suit property. The suit property which was said to be allotted to Smt. Raj Kumari Verma was sold by Smt. Raj Kumari Verma to defendant no.3/respondent no.3/Smt. Geeta Babu and from whom the appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property by paying valuable consideration.
7. It is a crucial issue to be decided as to whether or not the defendant no.2 did not did not take allotment and possession or that defendant no.2 was impersonated, and it is this issue which though has been held against the appellant/plaintiff, is called for determination in this appeal. The appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit flat since the year 1995, and therefore, during the pendency of the appeal if the appellant is dispossessed by the respondents, then the appeal would become infructuous and rights of the appellant will get seriously affected.
8. Accordingly, till the disposal of the appeal, respondent will take no coercive action against the appellant with respect to the subject/disputed flat.
CM stands disposed of.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 06, 2019 ib