list new2.asp

CivilSuitNo:338/11GiteshNayyarVsAmarSharma

11.05.2015

Present: Noneforpartiesdespiterepeatedcalls.

In the interest of justice no adverse orders are being

passedagainstanyofthepartiesinviewofthefactthat lawyersare

abstainingfromworktoday.

Putupforfinalargumentson20.05.2015at2.30pm.

(ArunKumarGarg)CivilJudge(SW)/DwarkaCourts

NewDelhi/11.05.2015(mk)

ExecutionNo:59/13L&TFinanceLtdVSSanjayKumar&Another

11.05.2015

StatementofShriAmitGuptaS/oLateShriSPGupta,Age38years,R/oBG24,ShivaEnclaveA4,PaschimVihar,NewDelhi.ARoftheDecreeholder.EmployeeCodeNo.20037569issuedbyL&TFinanceLtd.

OnSA

IamARfordecreeholderinthepresentexecutionpetitionand

Ihavebeenauthorisedtomakestatementonbehalfofdecreeholder.

CopyofmyidentitycardisExP1.IhavedirectionsfromtheDecree

Holdertowithdrawthepresentexecutionpetitionasallclaimsofthe

petitionintermsofArbitrationAwarddated25.06.2012passedbyLd

SoleArbitratorShriM.SankaraNarayananinArbitrationproceedings

No.RPD/ARB/5948of2012havebeensatisfiedbyJudgmentDebtors.

Imaybeallowedtowithdrawthepresentexecutionpetitionagainst

theJudgmentDebtorsandthesamemaybedisposedofastheaward

has already been satisfied. I shall remain bound by my aforesaid

statement.

RO&AC (ArunKumarGarg)CivilJudge(SW)/DwarkaCourts

NewDelhi/11.05.2015

ExecutionNo:59/13L&TFinanceLtdVSSanjayKumar&Another

11.05.2015

Atrequest,filetakenupat12.45pm.

Present: Sh.AmitGupta,ARofDecreeHoldercompany.

JudgmentDebtorno.2inperson.

ItissubmittedbyARofdecreeholdercompanythathe

has instructions from theDecreeHolder company to withdrawthe

presentexecutionpetitionagainstJudgmentDebtorssinceallclaims

ofpetitionerintermsofArbitrationAwarddated25.06.2012passed

by Ld Sole Arbitrator Shri M. Sankara Narayanan in Arbitration

proceedings No.RPD/ARB/5948 of 2012 have been satisfied by

Judgment Debtors. Separate statement of AR of decree holder

companyhasbeenrecordedinthisregard.InviewofstatementofAR

of Decree Holder company, present execution petition is hereby

disposedofassatisfied. Filebeconsignedtorecordroomafterdue

compliance.



ExecutionNo:72/13L&TFinanceLtdVsVinodKumar

11.05.2015

StatementofShriAmitGuptaS/oLateShriSPGupta,Age38years,R/oBG24,ShivaEnclaveA4,PaschimVihar,NewDelhi.ARoftheDecreeholder.EmployeeCodeNo.20037569issuedbyL&TFinanceLtd.

OnSA

I am AR for decree holder in the present execution

petitionandIhavebeenauthorisedtomakestatementonbehalfof

decreeholder.CopyofmyidentitycardisExP1.Ihavedirections

fromtheDecreeHoldertowithdrawthepresentexecutionpetitionas

allclaimsintermsofArbitrationawarddated30.04.2013passedby

LdSoleArbitrator Shri Manoj BDalvi in Arbitrationproceedings

No.RPD/ARB/8039/LOT6/69 of 2013 have been satisfied by the

Judgment Debtors. I may be allowed to withdraw the present

executionpetitionagainsttheJudgmentDebtorsandthesamemaybe

disposedofas theawardhasalreadybeensatisfied. I shall remain

boundbymyaforesaidstatement.

RO&AC (ArunKumarGarg)CivilJudge(SW)/DwarkaCourts

NewDelhi/11.05.2015

ExecutionNo:72/13L&TFinanceLtdVsVinodKumar&Another

11.05.2015

Atrequest,filetakenupat12.45pm.

Present: Sh.AmitGupta,ARofDecreeHoldercompany.

ItissubmittedbyARofdecreeholdercompanythathe

has instructions from theDecreeHolder company to withdrawthe

presentexecutionpetitionagainstJudgmentDebtorssinceallclaims

ofpetitionerintermsofArbitrationAwarddated30.04.2013passed

byLdSoleArbitratorShriManojBDalviinArbitrationproceedings

No.RPD/ARB/8039/LOT6/69 of 2013 have been satisfied by

Judgment Debtors. Separate statement of AR of decree holder

companyhasbeenrecordedinthisregard.InviewofstatementofAR

of Decree Holder company, present execution petition is hereby

disposedofassatisfied. Filebeconsignedtorecordroomafterdue

compliance.



CivilSuitNo:413/11ShobhNathVsSheetlaPrashad

11.05.2015

Present: Plaintiffinperson.

Defendantinperson.

Ajointrequestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalf

ofpartiesonthegroundthattheircounselsarenotavailabletodayas

lawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.

Atjointrequest, putupforentireDEon06.07.2015at

11.00am.



CivilSuitNo:161/11RajinderKumarSabharwal&AnotherVsPradeepKumar&Another.

11.05.2015

Present: Noneforplaintiff.

Defendantshavealreadybeenproceededexparte.


passedagainsttheplaintiffaslawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.

Put up for appearance of plaintiff and for further

proceedingsintermsofpreviousorderon20.05.2015.



CivilSuitNo:10/14SatyapalSinghVsRajKumar

11.05.2015

Present: Nonefortheplaintiff.

Processnotissuedsincestepsintermsofpreviousorder

havenotbeentakenbytheplaintiff.Aperusaloffileshowsthaton

lastdateofhearingalsostepsforissuanceofsummonsofsuittothe

defendanthadnotbeentakenbytheplaintiff.Itseemsthatplaintiff

isnotinterestedinprosecutionofthepresentsuit.Accordingly,the

presentsuitisherebydismissedindefaultfornonprosecution.With

the dismissal of the suit all the pendingapplications, if any, have

becomeinfructuousandthesameareaccordinglydismissed.

Filebeconsignedtorecordroomafterduecompliance.



CivilSuitNo:739/11SmtPramilaBajaj&AnotherVsTheChairman&ManagingDirectorI.G.L.,NewDelhi

11.05.2015

Present: None.

No adverse orders are being passed against either of

partiessincelawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.

Put up for appearance of all parties and for further

proceedingsintermsofpreviousorderon04.06.2015.


NewDelhi/11.05.2015 (mk)

Misc.No:689/13ShehnaazVSMehraz&Ors

11.05.2015

Present: Noneforapplicant.

Respondentno.1inperson.

Arequestforadjournmentmadeonbehalfofrespondent

no.1onthegroundthathiscounselisnotavailabletodayaslawyers

areabstainingfromworktoday.Inviewofaforesaidsubmission,no

adverseordersarebeingpassedagainsttheapplicantalso.Putupfor

appearanceofapplicantandforfurtherproceedingson03.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:190/14SubhashChandGuptaVsDayanand

11.05.2015


Proxycounselfordefendant.


passedagainst theplaintiff sincelawyersareabstainingfromwork

today.Putupforappearanceofplaintiffandforfurtherproceedingsin

termsofpreviousorderon07.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:42/15MsBhartiAggarwalVsJointRegistrar

11.05.2015


Nonefordefendant.

Written statement along with certain documents has

alreadybeenfiledonbehalfofdefendanton01.05.2015.Sameistaken

onrecord.However,nonehasappearedonbehalfofanyoftheparties.

Sincelawyersareabstainingfromworktodaynoadverseordersare

beingpassedagainsteitherofparties.

Put up for appearance of both parties and for further

proceedingson07.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:68/15BalramAggarwalVSRakeshMalik

11.05.2015


Anapplicationhasbeenmovedonbehalfofplaintifffor

releaseofcertifiedcopyoforderandstatementinsuitno.2027/14on

20.04.2015.However, arequest foradjournmenthasbeenmadeon

behalfofplaintiffonthegroundthathiscounselisnotavailabletoday

sincelawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.

Athisrequest,putupforconsiderationon01.06.2015.



CivilSuitNo:69/15BalwanAggarwalVsRochakPahwa

11.05.2015


Nonefordefendant.

Summons sent through process Serving Agency have

beenreceivedbackunservedwhereasreportonsummonssentthrough

registeredADhasyetnotbeenreceivedback.Beawaitedforreporton

summons sent through registered AD. In the meantime, let fresh

summonsofsuitintermsofpreviousorderbeissuedtodefendanton

filingoffreshPFandRCalongwithcopyofplaintanddocuments

within7daysfromtodayfor13.07.2015.

Putupforfurtherproceedingson13.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:73/15NareshSharmaVsSumanSharma

11.05.2015


Nonefordefendant.

Processintermsofpreviousorderhasnotbeenissued

sincestepsforserviceofsummonsofthesuithavenotbeentakenby

theplaintiff. Lastandfinalopportunityisgiventoplaintiff totake

stepsintermsofpreviousorderforserviceofsummonsfailingwhich

present suit shall be dismissed in default for nonprosecution. Let

previousorderbecompliedwithafreshfor15.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:508/13SmtGyanDeviVsAjitSoni

11.05.2015


Defendantinperson.

Ajointrequestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalf

ofpartiesonthegroundthattheircounselsarenotavailabletodayas

lawyers are abstaining from work today. Accordingly, put up for

purposealreadyfixedon13.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:566/13BijenderSinghVsRamphal&Another

11.05.2015


Defendantno.1inperson.

Nonefordefendantno.2.

Arequestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalfof

plaintiffonthegroundthathehascometoknowyesterdaythathis

counselhasexpired.Heseekstimetoengageanewcounsel.Onthe

otherhand,itissubmittedbydefendantno.1thathiscounselisalso

notavailabletodayaslawyersareabstainingfromworktoday.

Putupforfurtherproceedingsintermsofpreviousorder

on13.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:271/14M/sInextLogistics&SupplyChainVs.SagarIndustries

11.05.2015


Nonefordefendant.


passedtodayagainstanyofthepartiessincelawyersareabstaining

fromwork.Putupforappearanceofboththepartiesandforfurther



NewDelhi/11.05.2015(akn)

CivilSuitNo:270/14M/sInextLogistics&SupplyChainVs.UdayTiwari

11.05.2015


Nonefordefendant.


passedtodayagainstanyofthepartiessincelawyersareabstaining

fromwork.Putupforappearanceofboththepartiesandforfurther




CivilSuitNo:625/13ShehnazVs.Mehraaj&Ors.

11.05.2015


Defendantno.1inperson.

Requestforadjournmentmadeonbehalfofdefendantno.

1onthegroundthathiscounselisnotavailabletodayaslawyersare

abstaining from work. In view of the aforesaid submissions, no

adverseorderarebeingpassedtodayevenagainsttheplaintiff.Putup

forappearanceofallthepartiesandforfurtherproceedingsinterms

ofpreviousorderon03.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:180/14SandeepKaurVs.BaldevSingh&Ors.

11.05.2015


Intheinterestofjusticenoadverseorderarebeingpassed

fortodaysincelawyersareabstainingfromwork.Putupforpurpose

alreadyfixedon06.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:583/13Sunita&Ors.Vs.DayaNand&Ors.

11.05.2015

Present: Plaintiffno.1inperson.Plaintiffno.1isalso

representingplaintiffnos.2&3asnextbestfriend.

Nonefordefendant.

NoticeofapplicationunderOrder1Rule10(2)&(4)and

under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC sent to the

defendantno.5hasbeenreceivedbackdulyservedwhereasnotice

senttodefendantnos.2,3&4havebeenreceivedbackunservedwith

thereportthatdefendantnos.2,3&4arenotbeenresidingonthe

addressesmentionedinthenotice.Noticetodefendantno.6hasbeen

receivedbackwiththereportofrefusalbymotherofdefendantno.6.

Accordingly, the same is deemed to have been duly served upon

defendantno.6.Plaintiffisdirectedtotakefreshstepsforserviceof

noticeupondefendantno.2,3&4byfilingPFandRCalongwith

freshaddressofdefendantnos.2,3&4withinsevendaysfromtoday

for the next date of hearing. Put up for further proceedings on

09.07.2015.



CivilSuitNo:23/15UmedSingh&Anrs.Vs.BSESRajdhaniPowerLtd.&Anothers.

11.05.2015

Present: Plaintiffnos.2&4inperson.

Sh.Mahesh,SeniorManagerandSh.N.Choudhury,

DeputyGeneralManageronbehalfofdefendantno.1

withLd.CounselSh.PratyushParimal.

Requestforadjournmenthasbeenmadeonbehalfofthe

plaintiffsonthegroundthat theircounsel is notavailable todayas

lawyersareabstainingfromwork.

On the other hand, counsel for defendant no. 1 has

pressed for passing of appropriate orders on the application of

defendantno.1underSection151CPCforearlyhearingofthecaseas

wellasanotherapplicationunderSection151CPCseekingpermission

ofthecourttoenergizeundergroundcableandforremovingofover

headelectricwirewhichareindisputeinthepresentcase.

Noticeofboththeaforesaidapplicationshasalreadybeen

servedupontheplaintiffson18.04.2015throughcounsel.However,

CivilSuitNo:23/15

UmedSingh&Ors.Vs.BSESRajdhaniPower&Anr. Pageno.02of10

noreplytotheaforesaidapplicationshasbeenfiledonbehalfofthe

plaintiffstilltoday.Itissubmittedbycounselfordefendantno.1that

defendant no. 1 may be permitted by the court to energize the

undergroundcablelaiddownbythedefendantno.1andtoremovethe

overheadelectricwireswhichareindisputeinthepresentcaseinas

muchasduetodelayinenergizationof theaforesaidunderground

line, work of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) has been

hamperedandstoppedbecausetheundergroundcablehasbeenlaid

down by the defendant no. 1 at the request of DMRC since the

overhead wires were coming in the way of Dwarka Najafgarh

Corridor,PhaseIIIofDelhiMetro.

Ithasbeensubmittedintheaforesaidapplicationthatdefendant

no. 1hasalreadyobtainedclearancesfromtheElectricalInspector

under the provisions of Central Electrical Authority (Measures

Relating to Safety and Electrical Supply) Regulation, 2010 on

07.04.2015andassuchthereisnohindranceinthewayofthiscourt

CivilSuitNo:23/15


ingivingpermissionforenergizationofundergroundcableandfor

removalofoverheadwires.Ithasfurtherbeensubmittedonbehalfof

defendantno.1thattheentireworkoflayingdowntheunderground

cablehasbeencarriedoutbydefendantno.1strictlyasperthesafety

specificationsandasperrulesandregulationslaiddownunderthe

various laws of land including the Indian Electricity Act, 1948.

AssistantVicePresidentofthedefendantno.1companyhasalready

filedanaffidavitbeforethiscourtthatdefendantno.1companyis

carryingouttheentireworkofcableasperthesaidspecifications.

It has been allegedonbehalf of the plaintiffs that there are

certainirregularitiesintheworkdonebythedefendantno.1andthey

have already obtained an opinion from one Executive Engineer

(Electrical)inthisregard.Whentheplaintiffswereaskedtocallthe

said Executive Engineer in the court for clarifying the alleged

irregularitiesortosubmitthesaidopinioninwritinginthecourtwith

reasons,itissubmittedbythemthatthesaidExecutiveEngineerhas

CivilSuitNo:23/15


refusedtocometothecourtinordertogivehisopinionregardingthe

irregularities/deficienciesintheworkcarriedoutbydefendantno.1.

Nosuchopinionhasbeenfiledonbehalfoftheplaintiffstilltoday

despitethefactthatnoticeofaforesaidapplicationwasservedupon

themwaybackin18.04.2015.

Ihaveheardthesubmissionsmadeonbehalfofthepartiesand

have perused the record. The present suit has been filed by the

plaintiffs against defendant no. 1 seeking a decree of mandatory

injunction against defendant no. 1 directing it to remove the

undergroundcableslaidbytheminGalino.3,RanajiEnclave,New

Delhiandto laythesaidundergroundcablesonanalternateroute

suggestedbytheplaintiff. Theplaintiffshavefurtherprayedfora

decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

connectingtheundergroundcablesinthelineoverthetowersituated

adjacenttoGalino.3,RanajiEnclave,NewDelhi.

Caseoftheplaintiffasperplaintisthatthereisexisting66KV

CivilSuitNo:23/15


HToverheadpower supply/ line which is passing over the houses

situatedinNangliVihar,RanajiEnclave,NewDelhi. ThesaidHT

lineiscomingfromthesideofGalino.3aswellascrossingthemain

NajafgarhRoadtowardsNajafgarhDrain.However,inthemonthof

December 2014 some labourers representing themselves as the

employeesofdefendantno.1starteddiggingworkintheGalino.3

approaching from main road to Ranaji Enclave which is near the

residencesoftheplaintiffnos.1to3andofficeofplaintiffno.4.The

saidgali,accordingtotheplaintiffs,is8ft. wideandtheplaintiffs

havecometoknowthatdefendantno.1hasplannedthatafterremoval

of overhead wires they would connect both the towers with tower

installedinNorthEastsideofmainNajafgarhRoadandthetowers

installed in Ranaji Enclave installed in above narrowgali through

undergroundcables. Accordingto theplaintiffs, theaforesaidwork

wasbeingcarriedoutbydefendantno.1withoutcomplyingwiththe

applicablesafetyguidelinesandnorms.Thustheplaintiffshadfiled

CivilSuitNo:23/15


thepresentsuitformandatoryaswellaspermanentinjunctionagainst

defendant no. 1. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiffs have filed an

applicationunderOrder39Rules1&2CPCseekinganexpartead

interiminjunctionagainstdefendantno.1fromconnectingtheunder

groundcablestothetowerssituatedadjacenttoGalino.3.

InitiallytheSHO,PSNajafgarhwasalsomadeapartytothe

present suit. Summonsof thepresent suit alongwithnoticeof the

accompanying application was accordingly served upon both the

defendantsandsubsequentlyon11.02.2015,suitquadefendantno.2

wasdismissedaswithdrawn.However,onthesameday,theplaintiffs

havepressedforpassingofappropriateorderofadinteriminjunction

against defendant no. 1, in view of submissions made in their

application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. On the basis of

submissionsmadeonbehalfofboththeparties,thiscourthaspassed

anorderdirectingthedefendantno.1tomaintainstatusquoinrespect

ofworkwhichwasbeingcarriedoutbydefendantno.1inGalino.3

CivilSuitNo:23/15


videorderdated11.02.2015. Subsequentlyon16.02.2015,thestatus

quoorderwasvacatedbythiscourtaftertheAssistantVicePresident

of defendant no. 1 company had filed an affidavit stating that

defendantno.1companywascarryingouttheentireworkoflaying

thecablesinthedisputedsiteasperspecificationsandasperallrules

and regulations laid down under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and

Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Defendant no. 1 has further

undertakentocomplywithallthesaidnormstillthetimetheworkis

completed on the disputed site. Defendant no. 1 has further

undertakennottoenergizethelineaftercompletionofworkwithout

permissionofthecourtinadditiontoall therequisitepermissions/

clearancesasperElectricityActandRulesandotherrelevantlaws.

According to the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 has

already carried out the entire work pertaining to laying down of

undergroundcablesinGalino.3aspertherelevantspecifications/

norms.Defendantno.1hasfurtherannexedthecopyofapproval

CivilSuitNo:23/15


dated07.04.2015fromtheElectricalInspectorundertheprovisionsof

CentralElectricalAuthority(measuresrelatingtosafetyandelectrical

supply)Regulation2010 wherebytheElectricalInspectorhasgiven

no objection for energization of aforesaid underground line. The

applicationseekingpermissionisalsoaccompaniedbyanapplication

forurgenthearinginthematter. Ithasbeensubmittedonbehalfof

defendantno.1thatdefendantno.1cannotwaitforenergizationof

theaforesaidlinesincetheaforesaidundergroundlinehasbeenlaid

downbydefendantno. 1at therequestof DMRCandforwantof

energizationoftheaforesaidline,theoverheadwirescomeintheway

ofDwarkaNajafgarhCorridorofDMRCcouldnotberemovedandas

such theentire workof DMRCofDwarkaNajafgarhCorridor has

beenhamperedandstopped. Inviewoftheaforesaidsubmission,in

myconsideredopinion,theapplicationseekingenergizationofthe66

KVundergroundlinelaiddownbydefendantno.1requiresanurgent

hearingandassuchtheapplicationseekingpermissionfor

CivilSuitNo:23/15


energizationoftheaforesaidlineistakenupfordisposaltodayitself.

As has already been observed, Assistant Vice President of

defendantno.1hasalreadygivenanaffidavitbeforethecourtthatthe

entireworkisbeingcarriedoutbydefendantno.1strictlyasperthe

safetyrulesandundervariouslawsapplicabletothemincludingthe

ElectricityAct,1948. Theapplicationisdulyaccompaniedwiththe

approvaldated07.04.2015issuedbytheElectricalInspectorunderthe

provisionsofCentralElectricityAuthority(measuresrelatingtosafety

andelectricsupply)Regulation2010whohasconductedasurveyon

06.04.2015 andhad given his no objection for energization of the

undergroundline.Noreplytotheaforesaidapplicationhasbeenfiled

onbehalfoftheplaintiffsdespiterepeatedopportunities.Assuchthe

defendantno.1isherebypermittedtoremovetheoverheadelectric

wireswhichare in dispute in thepresent caseandtoenergize the

undergroundlinelaiddownbydefendantno.1subjecttoitsobtaining

allnecessarypermissions/clearancesasperElectricityActandRules

CivilSuitNo:23/15


andotherrelevantlaws.CompetentAuthoritieswhileconsideringthe

requestofdefendantno.1forgrantofpermission/clearancesunder

theaforesaidActandrulesandotherrelevantlawsshallbefreetogive

the requisite permission/ clearances or to refuse the same as per

applicable laws and rules without being influenced by any

observationsmadebythiscourt.

Boththeapplicationsofdefendantno.1underSection151CPC

areaccordinglydisposedoff. Putupforfurtherproceedingsonthe

datealreadyfixedi.e.18.05.2015.CopyofthisorderbegivenDastito

boththeparties.



CivilSuitNo:72/15NehaAroraVs.Mora@HarminderKaur

11.05.2015

Present: PlaintiffinpersonwithLd.Counsel.

DefendantinpersonwithLd.Counsel.

Writtenstatement to thesuit of the plaintiff alongwith

replytotheapplicationunderOrder39Rules1&2readwithSection

151 CPC has already been filed on behalf of the defendant on

07.05.2015. Advancecopyofthesamehasalreadybeensuppliedto

counsel forplaintiff on08.05.2015. It is submittedbycounsel for

defendantthatthepresentsuitoftheplaintiffisliabletobedismissed

sincetheplaintiffhasnotcomewithcleanhandsinasmuchasunder

thegarbofpresent suit, theplaintiff is tryingtocontinuewiththe

illegal activities which are being carried out by her in the suit

property.Itisfurthersubmittedbycounselfordefendantthattheex

parteinterimorderpassedbythiscourtisliabletobevacatedinas

muchastheplaintiffhasfailedtocomplywiththerequirementsof

Order39Rule3CPC,1908.Accordingtohim,thedefendanthas

CivilSuitNo:72/15

NehaAroraVs.Mora@HarminderKaur Pageno.02of05

cometoknowabouttheexparteinjunctionorderagainstherthrough

the Local Commissioner on 10.04.2015 whereas it was incumbent

upon the plaintiff to serve the copy of order within 24 hours of

passingofthesamebythiscourt.Itisfurthersubmittedonbehalfof

thedefendantthattheplaintiffhasfailedtopaytherentinrespectof

thesuitpropertywitheffectfromFebruary2015whereaselectricity

billshavenotbeenpaidbytheplaintifftotheBSESsinceDecember

2014.

Ontheotherhand,itissubmittedbythecounselforplaintiff

thathehasalreadycompliedwiththerequirementsofOrder39Rule3

CPC in as much as a notice alongwith copy of order, plaint and

documents was duly dispatched by the plaintiff to the defendant

throughspeedpostwithin24hoursofthepassingoftheaforesaid

order by this court. Evenotherwise, according to the counsel for

plaintiff,thedefendanthasalreadycometoknowaboutpassingofthe

aforesaid order since the copy of the aforesaid order was duly

deliveredbytheLocalCommissionertothedefendantonthesame

CivilSuitNo:72/15


dayi.e. on10.04.2015. It isfurthersubmittedbytheplaintiff that

plaintiffhasregularlypaidtherentinrespectofthesuitpropertyto

thedefendanttillApril2015andonlyrentforthemonthofMay2015

isoutstandingandthattoobecausethedefendanthasrefusedtoaccept

thesame.

Ihaveheardthesubmissionsmadeonbehalfofthepartiesand

havealsoperusedtherecord. Inmyconsideredopinion,noground

hasbeenmadeoutatthisstageforvacationofthestayorderinterms

ofOrder39Rule3CPC.However,inviewofthefactthatadmittedly

therentforthemonthofMay2015hasnotbeenpaidbytheplaintiff

tothedefendanttilltoday,plaintiffisdirectedtopaythesametothe

defendant today itself. At the request of the plaintiff, put up for

paymentoftherentforthemonthofMay2015at02:00pm.



CivilSuitNo:72/15


Calledagain

Present: Counselforplaintiff.

Defendantinpersonwithcounsel.

Counselforplaintiffseekspassover.Athisrequest,put

upagainat03:15pm.



Calledagain

Present: Noneforplaintiffdespiterepeatedcalls.

Defendantinpersonwithcounsel.

Inthemorning,plaintiffwasdirectedtopaytherentfor

the month of May 2015 to the defendant till 02:00 pm, however,

thereafter,thematterhasbeencalledseveraltimesbuttheplaintiffhas

failedtoappearandtopaytherent. Itissubmittedbycounselfor

defendant that the BSES has already disconnected the electricity

connectionoftheplaintifftodayitselfonaccountofnonpaymentof

electricitychargesbytheplaintifftotheBSESsinceDecember2014.

Intheinterestofjusticenoadverseorderarebeingpassedtoday

CivilSuitNo:72/15


against the plaintiff and the matter is adjourned for appearance of

plaintiff and for payment of rent for the month of May 2015 to

14.05.2015,subjecttoadjournmentcostofRs.2000/tobepaidbythe

plaintifftothedefendant.



list new2.asp

Documents