Delhi High Court - Orders
Bdr Builders And Developers Pvt Ltd vs Romi Garg & Ors on 6 August, 2024
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 150/2020&I.A. 4834/2020, 6917/2020
BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Diksha Goswamin, Adv.
versus
ROMI GARG & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. for D-1 &
D-4.
Ms. Anumeha Singhai, Adv. for D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 06.08.2024
1. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues are framed:
(i) Whether suitis without cause of action?OPD
(ii) Whether suit is undervalued?OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?[Onus on parties]
(iv) Whether the suit is barred by law as it has been filed by an incompetent person? OPD
(v) Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant no.1 and 4 asthey have no privity of contract with plaintiff? OPD 1
(vi) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties for unnecessarily joining defendant no.4 as party to the suit? OPD
(vii) Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable as plaintiff has filed forged and fabricated documents allegedly signed by defendant no.2? OPD 2
(viii) Whether plaintiff has any right in law to challenge the lawful decree dated 14.05.2020 as modified by order dated 17.06.2020 which is 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 12/08/2024 at 21:01:59 valid and subsisting? OPD
(ix) Whether the Award dated 21.11.2016 in favour of plaintiff is without jurisdiction, fraudulent and collusive? OPD
(x) Whether the pleadings, particularly in para 17 and 18 of the plaint, which are liable to be struck out in view of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC being false, bogus and derogatory statements made against defendant no.1 and hiscounsel? OPD
(xi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed in prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)? OPP
(xii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the alleged arbitral award dated 21.11.2016, also being a matter of issue and sub-judice in OMP No. 7 of 2017? OPD 2
(xiii) Whether the plaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of Mr. Dinesh Gupta? OPD 2
(xiv) Relief.
2. No other issue arises or pressed by the parties.
3. Let the parties file a list of witnesses within a period of 15 days.
4. Let the plaintiff file an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief within a period of four weeks from the filing of date of list of witnesses.
5. List before the learned Joint Registrar for fixing the date of plaintiff's evidence on 19.11.2024.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 6, 2024/dss 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 12/08/2024 at 21:01:59