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 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sh. Siddhartha Tytler vs Sh. Jagdish Tytler on 9 July, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~18
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(OS) 721/2023 & I.A. 22170/2023
                                    SH. SIDDHARTHA TYTLER                                                           .....Plaintiff
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Senior
                                                                                      Advocate and Mr. Vasuh Mishra,
                                                                                      Advocate.
                                                  versus
                                    SH. JAGDISH TYTLER                                                 .....Defendant
                                                  Through:                            Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocate.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                                                  ORDER

% 09.07.2025

1. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the suit is listed today for framing of issues, however, having perused the pleadings and the joint document schedule it is the contention of the plaintiff that no triable issue arises for consideration. He therefore prays that as per Order 15 CPC the Court may consider decreeing the suit on the basis of the pleadings and the admitted documents.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant seeks an accommodation. He also states that he will respond to the submissions made by the plaintiff today.

3. Separately, he states that in order dated 08.08.2024 at Paragraph 3 there is a reference to an immovable property located at Pushpanjali, Ansal Farms, Bijwasan, New Delhi. He states that the address has been wrongly recorded as F-8, however the correct number is F-16.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also confirms the submission of the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:59:03 defendant.

5. The submission of the defendant is taken on record and it is directed that reference to immovable property at Pushpanjali Ansal Farms Bijwasan, New Delhi in order dated 08.08.2024 shall read as 'F-16' instead of 'F-8'.

6. At request of the defendant, list for hearing on 17.11.2025.

7. The parties are also directed to file their written submissions not exceeding three (3) pages, at least one week prior to the next date of hearing.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 9, 2025/mr This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 21:59:03