Janak Datwani vs Pacifica Infrastructure Company Pvt ... on 12 March, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Janak Datwani vs Pacifica Infrastructure Company Pvt ... on 12 March, 2020

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

$~14
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CS(OS) 1798/2011
     JANAK DATWANI                                  ..... Plaintiff
                      Through    Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Mr.
                                 Sarthak Mehrotra, Mr. Mayank Joshi
                                 and Ms. Tanisha Bawa, Advs.
                      versus
     PACIFICA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PVT LTD &ORS
                                                          ..... Defendants
                      Through    Mr. Siddhant Jain, Adv. for D-1.
                                 Mr. Deepak Khosla and Ms. Sweety
                                 Das, Advs. for D-2.
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                      ORDER

% 12.03.2020 I.A. 3405/2020

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

I.A. 3404/2020

2. This is an application filed by defendant no.2 i.e. Mr. Anand Datwani.

3. The substantive prayers made in the application are as follows:-

"(a)Exercise power contained in Chapter II [Rule 3(53)] of The Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018,, praying that in view of lack of objections filed by the interested parties to the application listed in para 2 above on affidavit, the application may be treated as an "uncontested application".

(b)Consequently, allow applications listed at serial number (1) of the table at para 2, which be favourably disposed of in favour of the respective applicant(s) on the date of listing of the present application, by granting 4 weeks to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee, or such other short period of time this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

CS(OS) 1798/2011 1/2

(c)Pass ex parte orders, as prayed above."

4. Mr. Khosla, who appears for the applicant i.e. defendant no.2 Mr. Anand Datwani says that he does not wish to press prayer clause

(b).

5. Insofar as the remaining prayers are concerned, they are principally based on the fact that no reply has been filed by the non- applicants to the application referred to in paragraph no.2 of the captioned application.

6. It appears that defendant no.2/Mr. Anand Datwani on 22.1.2020 had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC and since, according to the applicant i.e. defendant no.2/Mr. Anand Datwani, no reply has been filed to the same, it should be treated as an "uncontested application".

7. Mr. Mahajan, who appears for the plaintiff, says that the reply has been filed to the application. According to him reply to the application was filed with the Registry today (i.e. 12.3.2020) vide diary no.385668.

7.1 I am told, a copy of the same has been furnished to Mr. Khosla, in Court, today.

8. Consequently, in my view, no further directions need to be issued qua prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).

9. The application is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MARCH 12, 2020/rb Click here to check corrigendum CS(OS) 1798/2011 2/2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders