Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Mamta Bajaj vs M/S Unitech Ltd. & Ors on 15 September, 2011

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI  J.P.S. MALIK :  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
       JUDGE­04  : SOUTH DISTRICT  :  SAKET COURT COMPLEX   
                            NEW DELHI 
  
Suit No. 636/10

In the matter of  :

Mamta Bajaj                                                             .... Plaintiff

                     Versus

M/s Unitech Ltd. & Ors.                                                 ....Defendant

ORDER :

1 This is an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC moved by plaintiff no. 1 for impleading the LR's of plaintiff no. 2.

2 Plaintiff no. 1 Mamta Bajaj is the daughter­in­law of Sh. Y. V. Bajaj plaintiff no. 2, and as per the suit filed, both of them had booked a flat at plot no. 58 at Woodstock Floors, Nirvana Country, Gurgaon with the defendant and have filed the suit for recovery of the registration amount, after having sought cancellation of the same. The flat was booked in their joint names.

3 In the application moved by the plaintiff no. 1, it is stated that the plaintiff no. 2 had died on 03.07.2010, and there are two LR's of plaintiff no. 2 namely Rakesh Bajan and Smt Manju Malik. It is also stated that another daughter of deceased/plaintiff no. 2 namely Smt. Anju Arora is asserting that she had been adopted out of the family, and has no connection with the family of deceased/plaintiff no. 2.

Contd..// ­2­ 4 Plaintiff no. 1 wants the Court to implead the LR's of deceased/plaintiff no. 2 as, 2A and 2B on its own.

5 Arguments were heard and plaintiff no. 1 is relying upon the case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case titled as Valluri Sambasiva Rao & Anr. Vs. Motamarri Veeraiah Gupta reported as 2003(3)ALD 585.

6 The issue involved in the case law being relied upon, was as regards, the abatement of the suit filed, after passing of preliminary decree in a suit for partition.

7 There is no such issue involved in the present proceedings, suit was filed by both the plaintiffs jointly, and in case plaintiff no. 1 feels that she can continue with the suit in her own right, without impleading LR's of deceased/plaintiff no. 2, plaintiff no. 1 is entitled to proceed as a sole plaintiff in the matter and in case plaintiff no. 1 feels that LR's of plaintiff no. 2 need to be impleaded, she can either ask LR's of plaintiff no. 2, either to join her in the proceedings or to implead them as defendants.

8 It appears that the LR's of plaintiff no. 2 are not inclined to join plaintiff no. 1 in the present proceedings. Plaintiff no. 1 has also relied upon another case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan titled as Abdul Samad and Ors. Vs. Wasal and Ors. reported as AIR 1957 Rajasthan

302. Contd....// ­3­ 9 In the case being relied upon, only two of the LR's of deceased/plaintiff had come forward to be impleaded within the period of 90 days and the question involved, was whether suit could have been dismissed as having abated under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.

10 With due respect, it is submitted that the case law being relied upon has no application to the facts of the present case.

11 Plaintiff no. 1 may choose her course of action. 

Announced in the open Court                           (J.P.S. MALIK)
on 14.09.2011                                   ADJ­04  : SOUTH DISTRICT
All pages signed                                    NEW DELHI  : 14.09.2011