Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of both the mandatory injunctions, as prayed for? OPP.
(vi) Relief.

16. Pursuant to framing of issues in the matter, vide order dated 19.12.2023, Shri O.P Gupta, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (retired) was appointed as "Local Commissioner" to record evidence in the matter.

17. In order to discharge the onus of issues put upon him, plaintiffs examined six witnesses namely Shri Anil Tanwar (plaintiff No.1 herein) as PW-1; Shri Ojas Kaushik, Clerk from Bank of India, Kirti Nagar Branch as PW-2; Shri Devi Singh, ASO from Delhi Jal Board, Kanhiya Nagar as PW-3; Shri Harswroop Bakshi, Manager TPDDL, Keshav Puram as PW-4; Shri Devashish Chakarwati, Executive Secretary, Keshav Puram Industrial Area CETP Society, as PW-5; and Shri Akshay Dabas, Junior Assistant from the O/o Sub-Registrar VI-A, North-West-II, Ambedkar Bhawan, Dr.K.N Katju Marg, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi as PW-6.

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of both the mandatory injunctions, as prayed for? OPP.
Additional Issue:
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to additional claim with respect to damage caused to the suit property by the defendant(s) at the time of vacation thereof; recovery of arrears of electricity charges and water charges uptil 21.12.2023; recovery of CETP charges? OPP.
(vii) Relief.

31. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Shri Manish Tanwar, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Shri Ajay Uppal and Shri Gambhir Chauhan, Advocates, learned counsels for the defendants and perused the entire material on record. My issue wise CS (Comm) No.291/2023: Anil Tanwar & Anr. V/s M/s Haldiram Bhujiawala Inc. & Anr.:

40. Both the plaintiffs are accordingly held entitled to the amount of Rs.1,14,77,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f 01.04.2022 till recovery thereof. Needless to say, the aforeaid amount shall be shared by both the plaintiffs as per the formula given in Ex.PW1/DB. Issues No.

(i) to (iv) are decided accordingly.

41. Issue No.(v):

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of both the mandatory injunctions, as prayed for? OPP.