Delhi District Court
Mohanjit Singh (Deceased) vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 14 November, 2014
Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE06: CENTRAL: DELHI
CS No.40/09
Mohanjit Singh (Deceased)
Through Legal Heirs:
i). Smt. Amarjit Kaur,
W/o Late Sh Mohanjit Singh,
ii). Sh Aniljeet Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Mohanjit Singh,
Both R/o 11B, Mathura Road,
Jankpura Bhogal,
New Delhi110048. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
(Earlier known as ESSO Standard Eastern Inc)
11th floor, Jeevan Bharti Tower I,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi - 110001. .....Defendant
Unique case I.D No.
:
0240IC5043842004
Date of Reserving Order : 05.11.2014
Date of Order : 14.11.2014
Result : Applications dismissed 1/22
Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2)
R/W SECTION 151 CPC FOR IMPLEADMENT
IN THE SUIT AS DEFENDANT NO. 2.
ORDER (ORAL)
1. This application is preferred by Sh Sanjeev Malik under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment in the suit in caption as defendant no. 2. I must state at this juncture itself that the application has been forcefully argued for and against by the appearing counsels on behalf of the intervenor i.e Sh R.S Tomer, Advocate and on behalf of plaintiff i.e Sh Gaurav Librahan, Advocate.
2. Before adverting to the merits of the application, a brief outline of the suit, defence and the developments so far is required for appreciation.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER PLAINTIFFS.
3. On 24.5.2000, this suit came up to be registered in the original side of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein, the then sole plaintiff namely Sh Mohanjit Singh sued the sole defendant M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (earlier known as ESSO Standard Eastern Inc) whereby which the possession of a piece of land measuring 2763 sq. yds of land (200 X 125 X 198 X Result : Applications dismissed 2/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 125 ft) situated at Mile 11/1, Mathura Road, New Delhi was claimed. Besides a decree for recovery of money amounting to Rs.6,01,350/ was also claimed. The plaintiff also considered himself entitled to a decree of recovery of damages for use and occupation of the above land at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per month w.e.f 1.4.2000 till put into actual and physical possession of the said land.
3.1. Further stated briefly, the plaintiff, claiming to be the owner/landlord of the above land was requested by the defendant to be inducted as tenant therein and upon due negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant (then known by its earlier name), the plaintiff inducted the defendant as tenant in respect of said land vide lease deed dated 21.11.1964 initially for 10 years with a renewal clause of further 10 years subject to necessary legal/contractual obligations. The lease could be extended on two occasions for 10 years each by giving at least two months' written notice prior to its determination by efflux of time. The tenancy expired on 31.10.1974 as clause of extension was not exercised. The tenancy, thereafter could have been extended for further 10 years only on the execution of fresh lease. Nothing of the sort was done. The plaintiff now considers the defendant as his monthly tenant w.e.f 1.11.1974 as the tenancy would now be commencing from the first day of each English calender month ending on its last day. In short, it Result : Applications dismissed 3/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 became a month to month tenancy.
3.2. As plaintiff was no more interested to keep the defendant as tenant and therefore, so terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 1.12.1999 sent by two different modes. It was terminated w.e.f 31.12.1999 and in alternate subject to above, terminated on the close hours of 1.1.2000. A cheque of Rs.8100/ towards lease amount was returned by the plaintiff. Despite the subsequent notice dated 3.3.2000 sent without prejudice to the rights and contentions of previous notice dated 1.12.1999, the defendant did not act in compliance.
DEFENDANT'S CASE.
4. By virtue of the amended written statement, the defendant takes refuge of ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India ) Act no. 4 of 1974, which is a purely legal aspect left for determination on appreciation of evidence. The defendant also denies service of proper notice in respect of termination of alleged tenancy and again takes refuge of Section 106 as well as Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. In nutshell, no dispute is raised to the effect that the defendant was not inducted as a tenant in the premises in question. The factum of determination of tenancy or not is again an aspect that has been left to be determined on the basis of evidence on issues. Of course, the plaintiff did file his Result : Applications dismissed 4/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 replication which is primarily a reassertion of the contents of the suit plaint as correct. The parties also filed their respective documents. As many as eight issues were settled on 22.5.2001 for determination on merits.
4.1. It would clarify that by the month of August, 2001, not only pleadings were complete but the case was ready for trial which did begin during its own course of time. As a matter of fact, the proceedings in the case did remain stayed for a considerable period of time during different places of its trial as the parties according to the legal guidance they received, litigated in higher Courts also. On one such occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while hearing SLP (C) No. 2794/2007 also directed the stay of proceedings. Even the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while hearing CM(M) No. 3161/2005 and C.M. No. 17736/2005 directed the trial to be completed and disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of order i.e 20.5.2006. It so happened that during the course of trial, the defendant herein preferred C.M (M) 2162/06 which was disposed off on 2.2.2007. Subsequently thereafter SLP (C) No. 2794/2007 was preferred on 23.2.2007 which was disposed only on 7.8.2013. The observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 39 of the order dated 2.2.2007 were set aside leaving the parties free to approach the trial Court for disposal of the suit. It was held by Hon'ble High Result : Applications dismissed 5/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 Court of Delhi that 'no useful purpose would be served for the plaintiff proving that it exercised its right to renew the lease. Needless to state that said renewal could not go beyond 31.10.2004'. That aspect having been taken care of, the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that suit is pending for last 13 years and also expected this Court to give priority to the trial of the suit. 4.2. The trial of the suit concluded on 16.7.2000 finally. During this period, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the defendant. Further, during the interregnum, the matter stood stayed by the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Subsequently, the defendant also filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC which was disposed of on 18.11.06. The matter was re posted for final arguments. Same could not be heard as the matter was subsequently stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was only on 14.9.2012 that the present applicant Sh Sanjiv Malik came knocking the door of this Court seeking to become co defendant. This application was taken up on 17.9.12 and due notices were issued. It was brought to the notice of the Court on 31.10.13 that the SLP has been since disposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. On the said date, the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for substitution of LRs of deceased plaintiff was allowed in the wake of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 7.8.13. The plaintiff has filed a detailed reply to the Result : Applications dismissed 6/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 application in hand. A rejoinder too was filed. I must also point out that on 4.9.14 intervenor also filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 and under Order 11 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC, the outcome of which shall be subject to the disposal of application in hand.
BRIEF FACTS IN THE APPLICATION
5. Coming straight to the highlighted facts, the applicant claims the suit to be mysteriously filed as it was in the knowledge of the deceased plaintiff that prior to execution of lease deed dated 21.11.1964, he had already transferred his ownership in favour of the partnership firm i.e Globe Service Station vide partnership deed dated 6.11.1964. The applicant is denying that the deceased Sh Mohanjit Singh was the owner when the property was alleged to be leased out to ESSO Standard Eastern Inc now known as HPCL. Sh Sanjiv Malik claims to be the sole proprietor of Globe Service Station which is not a mere piece of land but a filing/ service station. The applicant urges that the deceased was initially one of the partners of Globe Service Station which partnership was dealer of ESSO Standard Eastern Inc (now HPCL) and presently the applicant is the dealer since 2006 as sole proprietor of Globe Service Station and before this as a partner of the same firm since 16.6.1986. He claims to be a necessary and Result : Applications dismissed 7/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 proper party in the suit and further clarifies that after the death of one Sh Bimal Rawal, Auditor, he engaged Sh A K Batra & Associates, Chartered Accountant, who after scrutining the documents and the entire record on 16.7.12 or there about advised the applicant to claim rental from HPCL. He accordingly made a detailed representation dated 28.7.12 to the HPCL. On no response solicited from the representation, the applicant through counsel issued a letter dated 3.8.12. The defendant sent a representation vide reply dated 3.9.12 expressing its inability to do so in the absence of a judicial order. The applicant was called at HPCL, Delhi office after 28.7.12 and was apprised about the present suit and the fact that the defendant had been paying rent to the deceased. They also informed him about the SLP No. 2794/2007 pending in Hon'ble Apex Court where the applicant immediately appeared as intervenor. I will now set out brief details in their conjunction with dates as narrated in the application;
28.02.1961 : The oral partnership was created amongst four persons which was reduced in writing later on 6.11.1964.
15.09.1964 : The suit premises was acquired by the plaintiff who transferred the same to partnership firm for running service station and was so transferred on Result : Applications dismissed 8/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 6.11.1964.
06.11.1964 : The oral partnership was reduced in writing amongst four persons one being the deceased, who assigned and transferred the suit premises as a property of partnership. Following extracts therefrom are relied upon :
'Whereas the party of the first part acquired a suitable premises which had been handed over to the partnership for running the service station on partnership basis'.
That the business of the firm shall continue to run under the name and style of 'Globe Service Station'.
"That the partnership shall be deemed to have commenced with effect from 28th February 1961."
"...... that the party of the first part got land freehold plot situated at Mathura Road, New Delhi Khasra No. 113/1 and 113/2 measuring about 2777 yards purchased from the Messrs Delhi Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals works, 4, Darya Ganj, Delhi vide registration dated 1`5.09.1964 "acquired for running service station in his own name. The said property is being utilized by the partnership and shall here after be property of the firm. The total net expenditure for acquiring the said property is Rs.11508=12p incurred by the party of the first part S. Mohanjit Singh whom the credit of the like amount is given."
21.11.1964 : It is averred that the lease deed between the deceased and ESSO concealed that the suit premises was already transferred in the name of Result : Applications dismissed 9/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 partnership firm.
19.09.1967 : Fresh partnership deed dated 19.9.67 executed and the existing partnership firm reconstituted with additional partners namely Smt. Sunder Kaur in place of her husband Sh Harbhajan Singh and Sh Mohan Singh. The parties agreed to carry same business under the same style at the same premises and as per last partnership deed dated 6.11.64.
07.09.1968 : A new partnership deed of this date was entered into between the deceased and Smt. Sunder Kaur. A new firm took over all the assets and liabilities of old firm which include the land assigned to the firm.
05.12.1969 : A new partnership was constituted. 18.11.1970 : A fresh partnership deed was entered into between the deceased, Smt. Sunder Kaur, Smt. Harminder Kaur and one fresh inductee Sardar Ranbir Singh. The forth party was to have no right to the land registered in the name of party of first part thereby meaning that Sardar Ranbir Singh was to have no right in the petrol pump and its lease money.
09.10.1975 : The deceased as partner of Globe Service Station submitted partnership deeds dated 19.9.67, 7.9.68, Result : Applications dismissed 10/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 5.12.69 and 18.11.1970 to the Sales Tax Department vide his letter dated 9.10.1975. 21.1.1997 : Deed of dissolution was executed between the deceased and Smt. Sunder Kaur and the firm Globe Service Station was dissolved. The assets and liabilities of the firm were left with the deceased to exclusion of Smt Sunder Kaur. It was provided for that the deceased will be free to carry the same business himself or in partnership.
21.1.1977 : Fresh deed of partnership was made on this date between the deceased and one Sh Vasdev Mariwalla. This firm took over all assets and stocks of the firm dissolved which is stressed upon that by virtue of the same document. The deceased had agreed to transfer the dealership to Vasdev Mariwalla on certain terms and conditions available at page 40 of the paper book. On the strength of the above, it is averred that the deceased ceased to be a partner for all intents and purposes.
20.10.1977 : The plaintiff wrote letter to HPCL to appoint Sh.
Vasdev Mariwalla as dealer of the same dealership. 16.07.1986 : The deed of partnership was executed between Sh Vasdev Mariwalla and present applicant.
Result : Applications dismissed 11/22
Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09
19.10.2002 : The above partnership was terminated on
19.10.2002 upon retirement of Sh Mariwalla
leaving the applicant as sole proprietor of the business.
05.04.2006 : Vide subsisting dealership agreement, HPCL appointed the applicant as sole proprietor dealer in the same trade name.
Hence the present application.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY.
6. The application is said to be an attempt to delay and prolong the suit which has been filed by the applicant at the instance of the defendant. It is averred that the suit can not be converted into title suit of the applicant being impermissible in law. His presence is neither stated to be necessary nor proper. It is submitted that the application is based on forged and fabricated documents. It is informed that the impleadment application filed by the present applicant has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 14.8.12 and therefore, application in hand requires to be summarily dismissed on this ground alone. Further, the application is said to be barred by limitation as admittedly the property was leased to the defendant vide lease deed dated 21.11.1964 effective from 1.1.1964. The plaintiffs are Result : Applications dismissed 12/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 said to be receiving rent since 1964 whereas the applicant never claimed any rent. Bar of Article 58 of the Limitation Act 1963 has been pressed. It is informed that the applicant has already filed a suit before the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Saket Courts, seeking Declaration, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction, which suit is presently at the stage of disposal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and is informed to the Court that no interim relief has been passed therein so far in favour of the present applicant. It is also a case of the plaintiffs that according to his own admission, the applicant claims title on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed dated 16.7.1986 and the dissolution deed dated 19.10.2002. It can not constitute a transfer of the property under the Transfer of Property Act 1852. The history of litigation between the parties has already been provided in the facts, however, it is also a matter of fact that in I.A No. 3 in the SLP No. 2794/2007, the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the defendant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs per month untill further orders as damages.
6.1. It is claimed that the present applicant is allegedly only a dealer of the defendant and as such merely a licensee under the defendant. He is said to be in conspiracy with the defendant/its officials, leading into creation of false and fabricated documents being the partnership deeds dated 6.11.1964, 19.9.1967, 7.9.1968, 5.12.1969, 18.11.1970, 21.1.1977 and 21.10.1977. It is prayed that Result : Applications dismissed 13/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 the application be dismissed with costs.
7. Rejoinder to the application in hand is primarily a reiteration of the facts constituted in the application as correct and further denial of the averments made therein. The applicant admits that in SLP No. 2794/2007, he did move an application seeking intervention, however, since the issue involved in the said SLP was limited, therefore, the application was dismissed.
8. The arguing counsels have accordingly placed submissions before the Court in similar lines as is provided in the above gist. Besides, the applicant has placed on record the additional submissions in writing on the lines above whereby placing reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v Juggilal Kamalapat AIR 1967, SC 401. The judgment is on the aspect of partnership. The ratio of the judgment is that once a person brings any property in partnership, it would cease to be his exclusive property. By way of other additional submissions, the applicant submits that Govt. of NCT, Delhi is compiling the data comprising of all property details like ownership etc of each property in Delhi creating egovernance regime converting paperless system. He relies on notification No. F.14(2)/LA2011/lclaw/128 dated 20.4.2011 titled, "The Delhi Geo Spatial Data Infrastructure (Management Control, Administration, Security and Safety) Act, 2011. This act has been communicated by virtue of the above notification making it Result : Applications dismissed 14/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 mandatory in all government agencies to ensure proper, actual and real data. The said fact has been urged in support of the averment that the applicant is the owner of the suit property and has already placed on record all related documents.
9. Conversely, Sh Gaurav Librahan, Advocate argued that no Court can permit the basic structure of the suit to be changed. He relies on Kasturi v Iyyamperumal & Ors (2005) 6 SCC 733 to the effect that the person who claims independent title and possession adversely to title of vendor is not a necessary party, since an effective decree can be passed in his absence and no relief can be claimed against such party. The Hon'ble three judges bench of Hon'ble Apex Court held that test for determining necessary party are that (i) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversies involved in the proceedings, or,
(ii) no effective decree can be passed in his presence. 9.1. In said matter, the intervenors were basing their claim on independent title and possession of the contracted property. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that in the event they are added or impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale shall be enlarged from the suit for specific performance to a suit for title and possession which is not permissible in law. It was held, "this addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated litigation by which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally outside the Result : Applications dismissed 15/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 scope of the suit would have to be gone into. More over, if, whoever asserts his independent possession of the contracted property has to be added in the suit, then this process may continue without a final decision of the suit. A third party or a stranger to the contract can not be added so as to convert a suit of of one character into a suit of different character".
RESULT.
10.I have given my thoughtful findings to the facts before me. I have kept in mind the legal character of the litigating parties including the legal character that the applicant now urges this Court to be noted. I am mindful of the fact that on 1.8.13, the present applicant has filed a suit against Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Sh Aniljeet Singh (being LRs of late Sh Mohanjit Singh) and HPCL which is defendant herein. The said suit wherein the similar facts are asserted as in the application in hand, the applicant is seeking restraint against the defendants, their agents, heirs etc from alienating or creating any encumbrance in respect of possession and ownership rights of the suit property herein. In the same, he is also seeking restraint against the first and second defendants therein from visiting or extending threats to the applicant herein in respect of possession and ownership rights and transfer of property. They are seeking decree of declaration to the effect that the applicant herein is the sole owner of the suit Result : Applications dismissed 16/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 property herein. In addition, a decree of declaration is also prayed to the effect that the deceased had transferred his rights in the suit property in favour of the partnership firm M/s Globe Service Station vide partnership deed dt. 6.11.64 and had no right to execute lease deed dated 21.11.64 in favour of HPCL after having executed the partnership deed dated 6.11.64 which is a challenged document. Restraint is sought against the defendants, their agents etc from intervening in any manner with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the applicant over the suit property. Same set of documents as filed herein have been relied. It is, therefore, clear that the present applicant has already sought the equally efficacious remedy which is available to him in the law. This act of the applicant herein is just in sink with what has fallen from the Hon'ble three judges bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi's case (Supra). Having said so, I am again not oblivious to the fact that the present applicant did file an application seeking intervention in SLP (C) no. 2794/2007. Its copy is available for ready reference. I have gone through the same. There is no fact which has not been found that is constituted in the application in hand although shortend in details in I.A no. 3 in SLP. However, the documents relied alongwith I.A application which are now relied in the instant application are same. Although it was not argued much too vocally in the Court by Sh Tomer, Advocate, yet, as stated earlier, Result : Applications dismissed 17/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 it can be found in the written submissions that the matter subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court was different as the subject matter herein for consideration before Ld. Apex Court was the order dated 2.2.07 passed in C.M (M) no. 26206 which arose out of disposal of application of defendant under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC by the Predecessor Court on 18.11.06. By virtue of the said application, the defendant sought recall and re examination of the only witness examined by them and also to place on record certain relevant documents. The order is a detailed order in which all facts were taken into consideration. The order has now become final. To my mind, the very fact that the order itself takes note of facts of the case would be an occasion sufficient for me to consider that the Apex Court also considered the facts while rejecting the impleadment application. It is not nobody's case that application was not argued. The copy of the order dated 7.8.13 is on record. It clearly states that application for impleadment is rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court very much had the occasion to deal with the merits of the case as had note in the following words :
"This special leave petition has been filed by the plaintiff (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, in short, Corporation) challenging the order dated 2.2.07 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi by which the High Court has infact dismissed the Result : Applications dismissed 18/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 application filed by the petitioner but made observation which practically amounts to dismissal of the suit as it has been observed that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the plaintiff to prove that it exercised its right to renew the lease."
11.The Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the observations made in para 39 of the order impugned. Interim relief was also granted to the present plaintiff. The above in itself is sufficient to hold that the only option left with the applicant herein was to file his own suit and not the application in hand. As stated earlier, the applicant has already availed equally efficacious remedy available to him in law. It is not a case where the defendant disputed the initial partnership deed. It is also not a case where the defendant filed its own counterclaim of any nature by disputing the initial partnership deed. Conversely, it would be worth while to note that at page 38 of the paper book which is Annexure H, applicant filed copy of partnership deed made on 21.1.1977 between the deceased and Sh. Vasdev Mariwalla. It would be very much clear that by virtue of earlier deed of dissolution dated 21.1.1977 the property in question came again in favour of deceased Sh. Mohanjit Singh and he would have carried the business under the name and style of Globe Service Station either himself or in partnership. The deed of Result : Applications dismissed 19/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 dissolution is available at para 37 of the paper book. The subsequent date of partnership deed dt. 21.1.1977 is a later event. It implies that the partnership was indeed created between the persons above named. However, very interestingly, there is no document to show as to whether Clause 11 thereof that the opening of bank account in New Bank of India was ever undertaken. It is also clear from recital clause 3 of the partnership deed that the parties named therein had merely agreed to work together as partners on some terms and conditions subject to their fulfillment.
12.Just next below this document is a document at page 40 of the paper book which is typed on a two Rupee non judicial stamp paper. In this document, deceased Sh. Mohanjit Singh declares that he is a licensee of dealership from HPCL and that he has agreed to transfer this dealership to Sh Vasdev Mariwalla on certain terms and conditions. Now, this document has been projected as a document leaving nothing in the hand of late Sh Mohanjit Singh. The next document is purportedly a deed of dissolution between the same persons. This document clearly indicates that Sh Mohanjit Singh had merely expressed his desire to retire from the partnership, however, this desire was subject to several conditions that are set out in the document itself. The document indeed is a Result : Applications dismissed 20/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 registered document. As to whether all these conditions as referred in the document itself were ever carried out is yet to see the light of the day. The letter dated 20.10.1977 purportedly written by Sh Mohanjit Singh to HPCL annexed at page 45 bears the same date as that of deed of dissolution. As said earlier, there were several other aspects that the parties were to act upon for a formal dissolution of partnership. To my mind, the same has not been done.
13.All the above observations lead me to conclude that the present application is not maintainable in the present form meaning thereby that the present applicant is neither proper nor necessary party to the present proceedings. Reliance placed by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on case title Kasturi (Supra) has been very rightly so placed. Conversely, the ratio of judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v Juggilal (Supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case. More particularly, in view of my observations contained in page 18 of this order, the averment of the applicant in respect of The Delhi Geo Spatial Data Infrastructure (Management Control, Administration, Security and Safety) Act, 2011 has no reference at all to the facts of the present case. Application aforesaid is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the second application of the applicant under Order 11 Rule 14 and under Order 11 Rule Result : Applications dismissed 21/22 Mohanjit Singh v Hindustan Petroleum CS No. 40/09 16 read with Section 151 CPC becomes infructuous and not maintainable. The same is also hereby dismissed.
14.No orders are passed as to costs.
Announced in open Court. (Manish Yaduvanshi) Dated: 14.11.2014. ADJ06(Central)Delhi Result : Applications dismissed 22/22