Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Shri Satya Narain Bansal on 23 July, 2016
Also, the Ld. Advocate for the petitioners had submitted that the dispute raised by the
respondent regarding the site plan is inconsequential because the purpose of the site plan
is only to identify the tenanted premises. In support of her submissions, the Ld. Advocate
for the petitioners had relied upon the law laid down in Sudhir Sabharwal v Rajesh Pruthi,
2014(3) CLJ 675 Del., Radha Devi v Deep Narayan Mandal and others, (2003) 11 SCC
759, Prem Chand Sharma (Now Deceased) & Anr. v Ram Gopal, 2016(2) CLJ 259 Del.,
Maya Devi v Lalta Prasad, CA No. 2458/2014 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
E No.106/2013
Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v Satya Narain Bansal
Page no. 7 of 13
19.02.2014.