Delhi High Court - Orders
Ajay Kumar Jain vs Vardhman Properties Ltd & Ors on 23 July, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 595/2024
AJAY KUMAR JAIN .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr.D.K. Rustagi, Mr.Mayank
Rustagi and Mr.Chiranjeev
Mahto, Advs.
versus
VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr.Rohit Gandhi, Mr.Hargun
Singh Kalra, Mr.Surender
Sheron, Ms.Akshita Nigam and
Ms.Nikita Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 23.07.2024 I.A. 33956/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
I.A. 33957/20242. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing of the present suit. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 33955/20244. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff seeking exemption from undergoing pre-institution mediation as prescribed by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. The plaintiff, through another application, is praying for ad-
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 27/07/2024 at 00:44:14 interim ex-parte orders of injunction. In view thereof, the plaintiff is entitled to the exemption as prayed for.
6. Accordingly, in terms of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, exemption is granted.
7. The application is allowed.
CS(COMM) 595/2024
8. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.
9. Issue summons to the defendants.
10. Summons is accepted by Mr.Rohit Gandhi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants.
11. The defendants shall file their Written Statement(s) to the Plaint within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the defendants shall also file the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
12. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file the Replication within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the Written Statement(s). Along with the Replication, if any, filed by the plaintiff, the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of documents of the defendant(s) be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be taken on record.
13. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
14. List on 26th September, 2024 before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).
I.A. 33952/2024 & I.A. 33953/2024, I.A. 33954/2024
15. Issue notice.
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 27/07/2024 at 00:44:14
16. Notice is accepted by Mr.Rohit Gandhi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants.
17. This Suit has been filed by the plaintiff who claims to be the owner of Unit Nos. 361 and 362 of Vardhman Fortune Mall, which was constructed and is managed by the defendants.
18. The plaintiff claims that after taking possession of the suit property, he commenced renovation work in the year 2014. The plaintiff further asserts that due to certain differences arising in the form of the plaintiff claiming right of maintenance of the said Mall/property through the Vardhman Fortune Mall Welfare Association, the defendants have, by way of a Notice dated 16.12.2020, called upon the plaintiff to restore a partition wall between Unit Nos. 361 and 362.
19. The plaintiff asserts that in the replies to a query raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005, NDMC has not raised any issue of structural safety due to the removal of the said wall. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants are now threatening the plaintiff of dispossession from the suit property in case the wall is not re- constructed.
20. The learned counsel for the defendants, who appears on advance notice, submits that due to the removal of the load bearing wall between the two units, there arise issues of structural stability. He submits that therefore, the plaintiff was asked to restore the said wall. He, however, submits that as far as the defendants are concerned, presently they are not intending to take any coercive steps against the plaintiff on this account.
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 27/07/2024 at 00:44:14
21. Keeping in view the submissions made, in my view, the plaintiff has been able to make out a good prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff is likely to suffer a grave irreparable injury in case an ad interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.
22. Accordingly, it is directed that the defendants shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property till further orders. However, it is clarified that this Order shall in no manner act as a restraint on the NDMC to carry out an inspection of the suit property, and to issue necessary directions in that regard in accordance with law.
23. Let reply(ies) to these applications be filed by the defendants within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.
24. List on 26th September, 2024 before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).
NAVIN CHAWLA, J JULY 23, 2024/ns/SJ Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 27/07/2024 at 00:44:15