Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Joginder Singh vs Amar Nath Gupta on 1 October, 2012

Joginder Singh vs . Amar Nath Gupta on 4 September, 2013

The defendant contested the present suit and filed the Written Statement in which allegations levelled in the the plaint have been 4 Joginder Singh Vs. Amar Nath Gupta CS NO. 232/12 denied and it is stated that present suit is liable to dismissed U/o 07 Rule 11 CPC as no cause of action arose or has been shown agaisnt the defendant and the plaintiff has filed the present suit as counter blast against the eviction petition filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. It is also stated that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the roof of the suit property and initially suit property was given to the plaintiff of Rs. 1100/­ per month on 14.01.2009. It is also stated that the defendant has not raised any wall of the roof of the tenanted premises and affixed shed on 05.04.2012 or any other date as alleged and the construction whatsoever is there, is an old construction and the defendant did not raise any construction as alleged by the plaintiff and the photographs produced by plaintiff are forged and manipulated. It is also stated that on 05.4.2012, the defendant was out of station on account of Mahavir Jayanti. There is also prayer for the dismissal of the suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vide The Instant Order vs Shri Ashok Kulshresth And Record ... on 26 April, 2016

8. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Joginder Singh v. Amar Nath Gupta, in CM(M) 1449/2011 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 01.10.2012, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that Order VII Rule 14 CPC, would apply where the suit is filed upon a document or the document relied upon, is in the power and possession of the Plaintiff. It was held that neither the Inspection Report of the DVB of the inspection conducted by it of the premises, nor the notice dated 17.11.1993 of DVA were in possession and power of the Respondent/ Plaintiff. The Court further observed that there is no bar to file the documents alongwith affidavit of evidence. However, the admissibility thereof is to be decided by the Court as per provisions contained in Order 13 Rule 4 CPC. It cannot be said that the documents which are not produced alongwith the plaint, cannot be allowed to be produced alongwith the affidavit of the evidence. On the contrary, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC provides for submission of documents, if any relied upon, alongwith the affidavit. In the instant case, list of reliance filed by the Plaintiff pertains to records available with Delhi Developement Authority, Land & Building Department of Delhi Administration, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other records. Hence, it cannot be stated that the said records were in power and possession of the Plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1