Apeejay Global Industrial And Logistic ... vs Bhawar Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Apeejay Global Industrial And Logistic ... vs Bhawar Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2020

Bench: Mukta Gupta

$~42
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 457/2018
      APEEJAY GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL AND LOGISTIC PARK
      LIMITED (ERSTWHILE M/S ORIENTAL SPUN PIPE COMPANY
      LIMITED                                          ..... Plaintiff
                Represented by: Mr.Manish Srivastava and
                                Ms.Shivangi Krishna, Advocates.
                     versus

      BHAWAR SINGH & ORS.                                ..... Defendants
              Represented by:          Mr.Khowaja Siddiqui and Mr.Arup
                                       Sinha, Advocates for defendant Nos.1
                                       and 2.
                                       Mr.Ketan Madan, Advocate for
                                       defendant No.3.
                                       Mr.Pranav Pathak, Advocate for
                                       Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate for
                                       defendant No.8.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

                         ORDER

%                        04.03.2020
I.A. 3085/2020 (exemption)
      Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

I.A. 3084/2020 (delay in filing I.A. 3083/2020)

1. Issue notice.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant accepts notice.

3. By this application, defendant No.3/applicant seeks condonation of delay of 40 days in filing I.A. No.3083/2020.

CS(OS) 457/2018 Page 1 of 3

4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 40 days in filing I.A. No.3083/2020 is condoned.

5. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 3083/2020 (under Section 151 CPC-recalling of orders dated 16th September, 2019 and 11th December, 2019-by defendant No.3)

1. Issue notice.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant accepts notice.

3. By this application, defendant No.3 seeks recalling of the orders dated 16th September, 2019 and 11th December, 2019.

4. Vide order dated 16th September, 2019 this Court had issued notice in I.A. No.12732/2019 under Order XXVIII Rule 5 CPC to defendant No.3. This Court also directed that till the next date of hearing no third party interest be created in property, that is, Flat No.101, T-5, Anandam Tower, Ansal Royal Heritage, Sector-70, Faridabad-121004 as mentioned in Para-4 of the application and also directed defendant No.3 to file an affidavit showing his assets in terms of Appendix E Form 16A CPC.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff had filed a similar application against defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 being I.A. No.12579/2016. In the said application, this Court vide order dated 19th November, 2018 noted that the defendant Nos.1 and 2, when they appeared before this Court, stated that properties at Sl. No.(a) of Para-4 of the application, that is, I.A. No.12579/2016 had already been sold whereas property listed at Sl. No.(c) had already been transferred to a blood relative vide a transfer deed and qua property mentioned at Sl. No.(b) a decree has been passed. Thus this Court CS(OS) 457/2018 Page 2 of 3 directed the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 to file their affidavits of assets in terms of Appendix E Form 16A CPC.

6. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction and recovery for a sum of ₹2,74,81,229/- along with interest thereon. On 11th December, 2019 this Court reiterated that the defendant No.3 will file its affidavit in terms of the order dated 16th September, 2019 and granted four weeks time for the same.

7. Today learned counsel seeking recalling of the orders dated 16th September, 2019 and 11th December, 2019 states that though the property for which this Court had directed no third party rights to be created is jointly owned by the defendant No.3 along with his father, however, this Court could not have passed the order on 16th September, 2019 directing that no third party rights will be created in the said property for the reason the plaintiff has not explained the source from which it got to know that the defendant No.3 owns the said property and no document in this regard has been placed on record.

8. Plaintiff was not required to place any document on record and the application based on the affidavit of the plaintiff being correct as the property mentioned above being jointly owned by the defendant No.3 with his father, it cannot be said that merely because the plaintiff did not file any document showing the ownership of the defendant No.3 in the property, the orders need to be recalled.

9. Application is dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

MARCH 04, 2020/'vn' CS(OS) 457/2018 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders