Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 151 civil procedure code in Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 21 December, 2012Matching Fragments
I.A. No.42/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 & 2 CPC), I.A. No.3918/2012 (u/o VII, R.11 CPC) & I.A. No.15990/2012 (u/s 151 CPC for brining subsequent developments and facts on record) in CS(OS) No.5/2012 and I.A. No.4798/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 & 2 CPC) and I.A. No.15989/2012 (u/s 151 CPC for brining subsequent developments and facts on record)
1. By this common order, I propose to decide the abovementioned applications along with other pending applications which were filed during the hearing of interim applications.
CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.11 of 53
6. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 being I.A. No.42/2012 seeking interim order against the defendant from interfering, disturbing or causing hindrance in usage of the portions being basement, ground floor, second floor and terrace of the suit property.
7. The suit along with the interim application was listed before the Court first time on 3rd January, 2012 when the matter was taken up by the Court for the purpose of settlement. However, it appeared that the settlement did not arrive at between the parties as the plaintiff filed further two applications being I.A. No.1079/2012 under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to the defendant to deposit rent and I.A. No.1078/2012 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner, on 17th January, 2012. Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to inquire with respect to the status of possession and use of basement, ground floor, second floor and the terrace of the suit property. As per the order, the Local Commissioner visited the premises on the same day and submitted his report. In the concluding para, it was stated by him that the defendant was not in possession of any of the floors of the suit property except the first floor and he was informed by the plaintiff that the entire premises was/is being used for commercial purposes. However, he found that the basement, ground floor and the second floor of the suit property were locked as no commercial activity was undertaken therein at that time. Objections to the said report were filed by the defendant.
10. The defendant also filed another application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. No.3918/2012 on the ground that the CS(OS) Nos.5/2012, 508/2012 & 641/2012 Page No.13 of 53 plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fee. One more application was filed by the defendant being I.A. No.3917/2012 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner to inquire as to who is in actual possession of the basement, first floor and the second floor of the suit property.
15. During the course of hearing of the interim application, it was agreed by the parties that all the three suits be clubbed and tried together. It has also been noticed that various fresh applications i.e. I.A. No.11433/2012 in CS(OS) No.5/2012, under Section 151 CPC for bringing the subsequent facts/information on record, I.A. Nos.14445/2012 and 14446/2012 were filed by the plaintiff for willful disobedience of order dated 10th February, 2012 on the ground that the defendant started illegal construction in the suit property in the month of July, 2012 and one other application being I.A. No.15990/2012 was filed by the defendant under Section 151 CPC for bringing subsequent development of facts on record.