Delhi High Court - Orders
And Duly Notarised Affidavits) Mrs. ... vs Col. (Retd.) Mr. Rajender Nath Sharma & ... on 10 July, 2020
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 170/2020
I.A. 5421/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
I.A. 5422/2020 (exemption)
I.A. 5423/2020 (exemption from filing court fee, original vakalatnama
and duly notarised affidavits)
MRS. GITA SHARMA & ANR. ..... Plaintiff
Represented by: Mr.Sandeep Mittal, Advocate with
Mr.Anupam Singh and Mr.Udit
Mehra, Advocates
versus
COL. (RETD.) MR. RAJENDER
NATH SHARMA & ORS. ..... Defendant
Represented by: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 10.07.2020 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. I.A. 5422/2020 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
I.A. 5423/2020 (exemption from filing court fee, original vakalatnama and duly notarised affidavits)
1. The plaintiffs are exempted from filing the court fees, notorised affidavits in support of the plaint and applications as also the vakalatnama at this stage. The same be filed within one week of the resumption of the CS(OS) 170/2020 Page 1 of 3 normal Court functioning.
2. Application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 170/2020 I.A. 5421/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
1. Plaint be registered as a suit.
2. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to the defendants on the plaintiff taking steps through Email, SMS and Whatsapp, returnable before this Court on 21st September, 2020.
3. Case of the plaintiffs in the present suit is that the plaintiff No. 1 got married to defendant No. 1 and at the time of the said marriage, property bearing No. 135, Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi had been purchased by father of the defendant No. 1 and father-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 from the sale proceeds of their ancestral property at Kalkaji. After the marriage, the construction of this property i.e. 135, Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi was from the joint funds including the funds of the plaintiff No. 1 given to her by her parents as also through her streedhan. It is stated that the differences arose between the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 in the year 2000-2001 when plaintiff No. 1 started residing on the second floor and the defendant No. 1 on the ground floor. Without the knowledge and concurrence of plaintiff No. 1, the defendant No. 1 sold the first floor of the suit property. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1, out of whom, the defendant No. 3 resides with plaintiff No. 1 on the second floor of the suit property. The plaintiff No. 1 thus claims an equal rights in the ownership and possession of the suit property.
4. Grievance of the plaintiff at the moment is that the defendant No. 1 due to his ill intention is now trying to dispossess the plaintiff No. 1 from CS(OS) 170/2020 Page 2 of 3 the second floor of the suit property as well and trying to sell the second floor to a third party.
5. Considering the averments made in the plaint as also the documents filed therewith, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case in their favour and in case no ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss.
6. Consequently, till the next date of hearing before this Court, the defendant No. 1 is restrained in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of IA 5421/2020.
7. Compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be done within one week.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 10, 2020 'akb' CS(OS) 170/2020 Page 3 of 3