Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.8 This Court vide order dated 23.09.2014, framed the issues and thereafter, Vijay Kumar and Chaman Lal were directed to lead evidence. The suit was subsequently transferred to the jurisdictional subordinate court i.e. the trial court. Vijay Kumar and Chaman Lal filed an application seeking issuance of directions to Union of India and CEPI to answer certain interrogatories and file complete original documents available with them. Union of India and CEPI filed their reply whereby they answered all the interrogatories, admitting that CEPI had submitted the report of ADM dated 28.10.2015 and report of CEPI bearing file no. 08-00-68 dated 02.12.2015 to R.L. Meena, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

7. Sh. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for Vijay Kumar and Chaman Lal advanced oral arguments and also filed written submissions wherein besides mentioning the factual position, stated that the trial court has rightly decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code on the basis of interrogatories answered by Union of India and CEPI/the appellants and ADM wherein it is stated that the suit properties are liable to be divested in favour of Vijay Kumar and Chaman Lal. The trial court vide order dated 26.02.2018 interpreted the provisions of the Act and observed that the amended provisions of the Act would not be applicable to the subject suit as it had been filed prior to the insertion of the amended provisions. Virindra Kapoor i.e. the respondent no. 4 in RFA 234/2019 challenged the order dated 26.02.2018 before this Court in CM (M) 887/2018 titled as Virindra Kapoor V Vijay Kumar Sharma and others which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment 18.12.2023. Section 18B of the Act was inserted with effect from 07.01.2016 and a suit filed prior to the said Signing Date:07.11.2024 W.P.(C) 6461/2018 & RFA 234/2019 Page 29 date cannot be rejected or dismissed because of insertion of section 18B.