List New2.ASP

1 CS No.94/14

16.04.2015

Present: None.

According to the allegations of the plaintiff, his firm supplied machinery

worth Rs. 7,49,700/- to the defendant who is the proprietor of M/s Vedovas

Herbal Care vide three bills dated 15.11.2011, 17.01.2012 and 03.02.2012.

Against these bills defendant issued two cheques worth Rs. 3 lacs which were

encashed and the balance was left amounting to Rs. 4,49,700/-. Plaintiff also

alleged that even defendant issued sale tax form 'C' acknowledging the receipt

of the goods vide three bills referred above. However, he did not make the

payment of the balance amount despite various demands and legal notice

dated 16.09.2014. Thus plaintiff has filed the present suit u/o 37 CPC for

recovery of Rs. 4,49,700/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. It is important

to mention here that on the bills the jurisdiction of Delhi court is described as

well as payment of interest @ 24% in case of non payment on presentation.

Defendant filed leave to defend application and alleged that he is only an

attorney appointed by one of the partner Ms. Bhavya Mahajan of the

partnership firm M/s Vedovas Herbal Care and without impleading the firm and

the partners the suit is not maintainable against him in individual capacity.

Defendant though has not disputed the receipt of the machinery worth

Rs.7,49,700/- but alleged that a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- was also given in

advance on 15.10.2011. It is also alleged that further sums of Rs. 5,560/- was

paid on 15.11.2011, Rs. 5,560/- on 13.1.2012 and Rs. 6,000/- on 03.02.2012

towards fright charges. It is also stated that sum of Rs. 57,610/- was further

paid on 04.02.2012 to the representative of the plaintiff namely Satyaveer and

thus now there exists no liability because all the payments have been made.

The jurisdiction of this court is also challenged to try the suit and accordingly

the defendant claimed the unconditional leave to defend.

2Defendant has filed copy of partnership deed dated 06.10.2011 of M/s

Vedova Herbal Care executed between Ms. Vriti Mahajan and Ms. Bhavya

Mahajan. These two alleged partners are none else but the real daughters of

the defendant. There is nothing on the record to show that at the time of

entering into the transaction with the plaintiff, it was informed by the defendant

to the plaintiff that goods were being received on behalf of the partnership firm.

No proof is placed on record by the defendant to show that the cheques of Rs.

3 lacs earlier given were from the account of the partnership firm and not from

the individual account of the defendant. No statement of account of the alleged

partnership firm is filed to show that plaintiff had entered into transaction with a

firm which was maintaining a proper accounts and showing the debit and credit

entries in respect of the transaction in question. The certificate of registration

with the excise and taxation department dated 17.12.2011 and 19.12.2011 no

where reveals that M/s Vedovas Herbal Care was a partnership firm. Even the

sale tax form 'C' nowhere mentioned about the existence of any partnership

firm and not a proprietorship firm.

Defendant placed on record GPA dated 24.08.2013 executed in his

favour by alleged partner Ms. Bhavya Mahajan his own daughter but this GPA

cannot be relied upon as it was executed much after the date of the receipt of

the goods from the plaintiff. On the other hand the affidavit of the defendant

dated 12.12.2011 for getting some electricity connection shows that he was

authorized signatory on behalf of the Vedovas Herbal care much prior to the

execution of the GPA dated 24.08.2013. In this affidavit nowhere it is

mentioned that he is representing the partnership firm. Since it was not brought

into the knowledge of the plaintiff by the defendant that the goods were being

supplied to a partnership firm so the defendant is exclusively liable to pay the

suit amount and impleadment of the firm is not necessary because whatever

documents were filed by the defendant on record leads to the inference that he

alone in individual capacity was dealing with the customers and other

3authorities.

Defendant has placed on record photocopies of certain receipts

regarding making of alleged payment to the defendant. The payment receipt

dated 15.10.11 of Rs.3,75,000/- cannot be relied upon because it does not

bear signature of any person receiving this amount nor it is mentioned in it to

whom this payment was being made. Accordingly, the version of the defendant

regarding payment of Rs. 3,75,000/- as an advance against the goods to be

supplied is liable to be rejected straightway.

The other four receipts though are bearing signatures of some recipients

but according to the plaintiff no person in the name of such alleged recipients is

working either in his concern or has any connection with him. It is not explained

by the defendant why he had made the payments in cash against these

receipts dated 15.11.2011, 13.01.2012, 03.02.2012 and 04.02.2012 when the

earlier payments were made through cheques. Moreover the first three receipts

shows the payment to driver of some vehicles against the fright charges and

not in respect of the amount of the goods received from the plaintiff.

Accordingly, defendant cannot be given any benefit of these first three receipts.

The receipt dated 04.02.2012 regarding payment of Rs. 57,610/- made to

Satyaveer also cannot be relied upon when defendant is unable to tell whether

he was representative of the plaintiff or not because plaintiff is specifically

denying the knowledge or having any concern with such person Satyaveer.

Defendant is unable to tell how and in which manner he had ascertained that

Satyaveer was the authorized representative of the plaintiff and was competent

to collect the money on his behalf. Accordingly, the alleged payments made to

the plaintiff through these receipts is liable to be rejected.

In such circumstances I have to hold that the defence raised by the

defendant in leave to defend application is baseless and without any

substance. There exists no prima facie defence even to grant leave to defend

conditionally. Defendant is raising such defences which cannot be relied upon

4at all so the leave to defend application is rejected and there is no ground to

convert this summary suit into a regular suit.

As the goods were dispatched from Delhi where office of the plaintiff is

situated and even on the bills it was agreed upon by the parties that Delhi court

will have jurisdiction so the last defence raised by the defendant about lack of

territorial jurisdiction of this court is also rejected. Hence the suit of the plaintiff

is hereby decreed for sum of Rs.4,49,700/- with costs. No interest is paid in

cases u/o 37 CPC during pendency of the suit or future interest so the suit

amount does not attract any interest. In respect of the interest prior to filing of

the suit, even plaintiff has not calculated any interest nor has claimed nor has

mentioned anywhere from which date the interest is to be calculated so the

request of payment of the interest prior to the date of filing of the suit is

declined. Plaintiff is entitled to sum of Rs. 4,49,700/- with costs only. Decree

sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room.

(ASHWANI KUMAR SARPAL) Addl.Distt Judge(NE)-01

16.04.2015

5CS No.375/12

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiff in person. None for defendant no. 1. Defendant no 2 is already deleted.

Written statement not filed by defendant no. 1. Even none has appeared

on behalf of defendant no. 1 today and even on the last date of hearing.

If W.S of defendant no. 1 is not received by today evening then he shall

be treated as exparte and his right to file W.S shall deem to be closed.

List the matter on 25.04.2015 for exparte evidence if need arises.


16.04.2015

6M No.16/15

16.04.2015

Present: None.

Steps not taken for the service of the defendant/ respondent. Plaintiff is

burdened with the cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited with DLSA.

Receipt of deposition of cost and PF be filed within seven days from

today.

Let fresh notice of the application under order 9 Rule 9 r/w section 151

CPC for restoration of the suit be issued to the defendant for 30.04.2015. It is

clarified that in case no steps are taken as per the above order then the

application u/o 9 Rule 9 CPC shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.


16.04.2015

7CS No. 40/13

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiff in person with Sh. Kumar Nikhil, Advocate. Sh. Neeraj Dwivedi, Proxy counsel for the defendant.

Examination in chief of PW-1 recorded. His cross examination deferred

at the request of proxy counsel as main counsel is not available today being

busy in Hon'ble High Court. Counsel for plaintiff has no objection for

adjournment.

Counsel for plaintiff submits that no other witness is to be examined.

List the matter on 21.05.2015 for cross examination of PW-1 and DE.

Copy of affidavit of the evidence of the witnesses of the defendant be supplied

to the opposite party at least 15 days prior to next date of hearing. Date is

given as per choice of counsel for plaintiff.


16.04.2015

8CS No. 31/15

16.04.2015

Present: Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff. None for the defendant.

No one appeared on behalf of defendant nor any written statement filed.

Written statement is awaited for 29.04.2015 as last opportunity.

(ASHWANI KUMAR SARPAL) Addl.Distt Judge(NE)-01 16.04.2015

At this stage Sh. I. B. Jha, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant

and filed application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. Let the copy of the same be supplied

to the counsel for the plaintiff in his chamber. He is informed about the order

passed today and next date of hearing.


16.04.2015

9CS no. 60/14

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiffs in person with Sh. Satender Kumar, Advocate. Sh Sudhir Kumar, Proxy counsel for the defendant.

The matter could not be settled in the mediation cell.

At the request of the proxy counsel for the defendant the case was

passed over to 11.30 am but neither the main counsel nor defendant appeared.

Counsel for the plaintiff has stated that he has no objection if the cross

examination of PW-1 and PW-2 is conducted in his absence as he has to

attend the other cases.

However, main counsel for defendant has not turned up so put up this

matter on 15.05.2015 for cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 and remaining

evidence.


16.04.2015

At 12.15 pm

At this stage counsel for defendant Sh. P. P. Singh, Advocate appeared.

Both PW-1 and PW-2 had also come and they stated that their statement can

be recorded. Counsel for the defendant cross examined both PW-1 and PW-2.

The counsel for the plaintiff is not available but I myself got their statements

recorded.

Defendant has not turned up to pay the admitted rent which is

approximately of six months including arrears of four months.

Counsel for defendant submits that the defendant would pay rent of six

months at the residence of plaintiff by cash/draft by tomorrow. Plaintiff is

directed to give the receipt if payment is received.

10

Put up this matter on 14.05.2015 as the date of 15.05.2015 already fixed

is not suitable to the counsel for defendant. Accordingly, the previous fixed date

is hereby cancelled.


16.04.2015

11

RCA No. 14/15

16.04.2015

Present: Sh. Sanjiv Soni, Advocate for the appellant.

Fresh appeal received by way of assignment. It be checked and

registered.

The impugned order is passed by the Civil Judge, West District, Tis

Hazari Court, Delhi and counsel for appellant stated that the jurisdiction of

North East District is made out as the property is situated in this area. I have to

see the relevant notification/circular of the High Court to find out whether the

appeal lie in this district or before the District Judge, West District.

However, I am leaving this question open for the time being and will

decide it after going through the relevant notification/circular. Let the counsel to

produce the same. Meanwhile issue notice of the appeal to the respondent on

filing of PF and RC for 28.04.2015. TCR be called for the next date.


16.04.2015

12

CS.No.60/14

16.04.2015

PW-1 Firdaus Begum (recalled for cross examination).

On SA

XXX by Sh. P.P. Singh, Advocate for the defendant.

Defendant was let out the suit property about six years back. Initially

three shops were let out at the rate of Rs.7000/- per shop rent. No rent

agreement was executed between us. The rent was never increased in

between. (Vol: defendant paid rent for sometime but later on he converted all

the three shops into one shop by changing the same from inside). I do not

remember when this changes were done by the defendant in converting three

shops to one. I have raised objections to this change. No complaint was made

to any authority in this regard because of certain family problems. The dispute

had arisen between me and my husband due to which no complaint could be

lodged to any authority.

The property bearing no. JB6/121 was purchased in 2007 from Nazbul

Hassan. PW-2 is my husband. It is wrong to suggest that he had cancelled the

power of attorney in my favour and also published in the news paper. (Vol:

some confrontations/ disputed had taken place with him). It is wrong to suggest

that he had given divorce to me. However we remained separated for about 4-

5 months. It is correct that my husband had given a notice to the defendant

mentioning there in that he is the owner of the property and the rent should be

paid to him. No draft of Rs. 21000/- was received by me or my husband as the

same was returned which was sent by post. At present I have no dispute with

my husband. The statement of my husband that the suit property belongs to

him is not correct. Defendant is not paying rent for the last 3-4 years to me as

per my estimate. No notice was given to the defendant to pay the rent prior to

13

the suit filed by him against me.

I do not remember whether the defendant had filed a suit no. 179/13 in

which my statement was recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I had given only

one shop initially to the defendant on rent of Rs 2000/-per month. It is wrong to

suggest that thereafter I let out another shop @ Rs. 2300/-per month and the

third shop was let out @ Rs. 2700/- per month. It is wrong to suggest that the

last paid rent was Rs.7000/- in total in respect of all the three shops. It is wrong

to suggest that the defendant has paid upto date rent till October 2013. It is

wrong to suggest that the market rate of rent of all the three shops is only Rs.

7000/- and not Rs. 21,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that we had quarreled with

the defendant but it is correct that he had lodged police complaints against me.

It is wrong to suggest that I had quarreled with the defendant in order to get the

suit shops vacated forcibly. (Vol: I had only asked him peacefully to pay the

rent of Rs. 21000/- or to vacate the shops). It is wrong to suggest that

defendant had filed suit for permanent injunction against me when I tried to get

the suit property vacated by quarreling with him and by using force. It is correct

that I have taken action against the defendant after filing of the suit by him. It is

wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

RO & AC (ASHWANI KUMAR SARPAL) Addl.Distt Judge(NE)-01

16.04.2015

14

CS.No.60/14

16.04.2015

PW-2 Saibuddin (recalled for cross examination).

On SA

XXX by Sh. P.P. Singh, Advocate for the defendant.

The property bearing no. JB6/121 was purchased by plaintiff and myself

but I do not know the name of seller. It is wrong to suggest that this property

was purchased by me firstly and then transferred to the plaintiff. (vol: it was

purchased by the plaintiff who transferred the same to me and thereafter I

again transferred it to her). It is correct that I had given notice to the plaintiff

and even got published in the newspaper that I was cancelling power of

attorney in her name and she will not be the owner of the property in future. It

is wrong to suggest that I had given a notice to the defendant to pay rent to me

only as I am the owner of the property. It is correct that some disputes have

taken place between me and the plaintiff after which I had cancelled power of

attorney in her favour and got this fact published in the newspaper. It is wrong

to suggest that I in connivance with the defendant got instituted a suit for

permanent injunction against the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that after the

settlement of the disputed between me and my wife I again gave a notice to the

defendant to pay the rent to the plaintiff. (vol: I had given this version in

response to the notice of the defendant in my reply).

Firstly one shop was given on rent to the defendant about 4-5 years back

@ of rent of Rs. 7000/- per month. Thereafter no further shop was given on

rent but the defendant himself removed the wall and occupied the second shop

illegally and in the same manner occupied the third shop. When I raised

objection then he stated that he would pay the rent of all the three shops which

was paid even amounting to Rs.21000/-. He continued to pay Rs. 21000/- for

15

three months about three years back. No police complaint was made against

the removal of walls of two shops and merging the same into one shop. It is

wrong to suggest that we had let out the first shop at Rs. 2000/- per month,

second shop at Rs. 2300/- and third shop at Rs. 2700/- per month. It is wrong

to suggest that defendant had paid Rs. 7000/-in all as a rent till October 2013.

It is wrong to suggest that the total rent of all the three shops is Rs.7000/- per

month and not Rs. 21000/-. It is wrong to suggest that defendant had filed a

suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff bearing no. 179/13 in which

her statement was also recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing

falsely.

RO & AC


16.04.2015

17

CS No.233/09

16.04.2015

DW-2 Smt. Nazma (recalled for further cross examination).

ON SA

XXX by Sh. Santosh Pratap, Advocate for the plaintiff.

The photocopy of the agreement which was retained could not be traced out.

I may identify the signatures of my husband Mohd Iqbal. He was present

at the time of the agreement Ex.PW-1/1. The signature at point Y appears to be

not of my husband. I do not remember whether my husband signed on the

agreement or not. I have seen the entire agreement Ex. PW-1/1 and at point Z

perhaps the signatures appears to be of my husband but I am not sure. There

is no signatures of my husband on the back side of first page of the agreement.

Myself, my sister Shehnaz, my husband and Mushtaq plaintiff were only

present at the time of execution of the agreement Ex. PW-1/1. It is wrong to

suggest that Mohd Khalid was also present at the time of execution of the

agreement. I cannot say whether at point A signatures of Mohd Khalid appears.

I do not know Urdu so I cannot say who had signed in Urdu language at point

X-1. I also do not know who had signed at point X-2 in English.

It is correct that the property bearing no. C1191/5/2, Chauhan banger,

Brahmpuri, Delhi (suit property) was mortgaged with Syndicate bank, Rani

Jhansi Road at the time of agreement Ex. PW-1/1. It is also correct that this

property was not redeem till the time of expiry of the agreement. It is correct

that this property is still mortgaged as on date with the bank. (Vol: this has

happened due to the conduct of the plaintiff who has shown inability to pay the

amount.) The settlement process with the bank is now going on.

18

Q. Before the expiration of agreement dated 31.03.2006 you made an

agreement to sell the suit property with Markaz-E-islahi-Khawateen?

Ans. Since the plaintiff has informed in the month of June 2006 that his own

property could not be sold so he cannot purchase now the suit property that is

why the agreement was entered into with Markaz-E-islahi-Khawateen but I do

not remember the exact date on which this agreement was entered into.

I cannot identify the agreement entered into with Markaj-E-islahi-

Khawateen which is mark A. I also cannot identify my signatures on mark A. I

do not remember whether we have filed any suit against the plaintiff when he

refused to make payment and to comply with the terms of agreement in June

2006. No complaint was made to the police in this regard. It is wrong to

suggest that the plaintiff and Mohd Khalid approached me several time for

getting the sale deed executed but we refused. I met the plaintiff first time on

the date of agreement. Plaintiff had informed me the name of his father as

Mohd Khalid. I do not know whether the name of father of the plaintiff is

Salimuddin who is still alive. The distance between my house and the house of

the plaintiff Mushtaq is about km. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff and

Mohd Khalid paid Rs. 2 lacs in different installment after making the initial

payment of Rs. 5 lacs. It is wrong to suggest that my husband Mohd Iqbal had

signed on the back side of the first page of the agreement after receipt of

further installments of Rs. 2 lacs. I do not remember whether any legal notice

was issued to the plaintiff for not complying with the terms of the agreement on

his part and not getting the sale deed executed.

I know Hindi language. It is correct that in Ex. PW-1/1 at point A-1 the

name of plaintiff and Mohd Khalid is written but according to me Mushtaq

Ahmad s/o Mohd Khalid is written. It is wrong to suggest that we had not

executed the sale documents in order to grab the money of the plaintiff. It is

wrong to suggest that in order to avoid the execution of the sale documents in

favour of the plaintiff we had entered into further agreement with Markaz-E-

19

islahi-Khawateen. There was no middleman involved for getting the agreement

Ex. PW-1/1 executed. It is wrong to suggest that the property dealer Nafees

was the middleman who got this agreement executed. It is wrong to suggest

that my husband had received Rs. 2 lacs further after receiving Rs.5 lacs as

earnest money. It is correct that a civil suit is pending in the High Court in

between me and Markaz-E-Islahi-Khawateen. I do not know the reason about

pendency of the case in the High Court. It is correct that Markaz-E-Islahi-

Khawateen filed a suit in respect an agreement for the sale of the suit property.

(Vol: that agreement was also got executed by plaintiff Mushtaq. It is wrong to

suggest that I am deposing falsely.


16.04.2015

Statement of Sh. Sumit Kumar Khatri, Advocate for the defendant.

Without oath

I close my DE.


16.04.2015

20

CS No.211/13

16.04.2015

PW-1 Manbhari w/o Late Munshi Ram r/o H-1/72, Ist Floor, New Seelampur,

Delhi-110053.

On SA

I tender my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A. I rely upon

the documents as mentioned in my affidavit. (At this stage the exhibit number

has been put on the documents on the file as per para no. 18 of the affidavit

but since the original of Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/8 are not brought so witness is

given an opportunity to produce the original on the next date otherwise the

same shall be de-exhibited).

XXX deferred as the copy of the affidavit is given today and the witness has yet

to produce the original documents.

RO & AC


16.04.2015

21

CS No. 40/13

PW-1 Hansraj s/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Bansal, aged about 55 years, r/o

Khasra no. 109, Gali no. 16, Wazirabad Gaon, Delhi-110084.

On SA

I tender my evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A which bears my signatures

at points A and B. I rely upon the certified copies of documents as mentioned in my

affidavit. Originals are lying in the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act pending in the court

of Sh. Sunil Gupta, MM, N-E, KKD, Delhi.

XXX deferred as counsel for defendant is not available today being busy in the

Hon'ble High Court.

RO&AC (ASHWANI KUMAR SARPAL) Addl.Distt Judge(NE)-01 16.04.2015

22

CS No.211/13

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiff in person.

Defendant with Mohd. Salib, Proxy Advocate.

Evidence by way of affidavit along with an application for filing of

additional list of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff has been filed. Copy given

to the defendant.

Examination in chief of PW-1 Manbhari has been recorded. Her

cross examination is deferred as the copy of the affidavit is given today and the

witness has yet to produce the original documents.

Put up for reply and arguments on the application as well as for

cross examination of PW-1 Manbhari on 18.05.2015.


16.04.2015

23

M-No.14/15

16.04.2015

Present: Respondent / plaintiff in person.

Ms. Richa, Proxy Counsel for the defendant / applicant.

Counsel for respondent is not available today due to sickness.

Reply to the application u/s 114 r/w Order 37 Rule 4 CPC is not

filed by the plaintiff.

Put up for reply and arguments on review application on

22.04.2015.


16.04.2015

24

CS No.21/15

16.04.2015

Statement of Smt. Shilu, plaintiff.ON SA.

I have settled the matter with the defendant in terms of settlement

dated 13.04.2015 entered into in Mediation Cell which is Ex.C1. I shall comply

with the terms and conditions of the settlement. I am withdrawing my suit.

R.O. & A.C.


16.04.2015

25

CS No.233/09

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiff in person with Shri Santosh Pratap, Advocate.

Shri Sumit Khatri and Shri Siddarth Chaudhary, Advocates for the

defendant.

Cross examination of DW-1 recorded. Counsel for the defendant

has closed the DE by giving separate statement.

Counsel for the plaintiff wants to move an application for additional

evidence. He can move the same but advance has to be given to the counsel

for the defendant.

Put up for final arguments on 14.05.2015. Date is being given as

per the choice of counsel for the defendant and counsel for plaintiff wants to

collect the certified copies and need long time.


16.04.2015

26

CS No.68/14

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiff in person with Shri Balvinder Singh, Advocate.

Defendant with Cl. Shri M.S. Siddique.

It has been submitted by both the parties that the matter is likely to

be settled and request is made that the matter be sent to Mediation Cell, KKD

Courts, Delhi, today itself.

At request, let matter be sent to Mediation Cell, KKD Courts, Delhi,

for today itself at 2.00 p.m. for exploring the possibility of settlement.

Put up for mediation report on 25.04.2015.


16.04.2015

27

CS No.21/15

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiff in person with Shri K.K. Maurya, Advocate.

Shri Keshav Chaudhary, Advocate for the defendant.

It has been submitted by the Counsel for the parties that matter

has been settled between the parties in the Mediation Cell, KKD Courts, Delhi,

vide settlement dated 13.04.2015. The plaintiff wants to withdraw the present

suit in view of the settlement.

Statement of plaintiff is recorded to this effect separately.

In view of the settlement (Ex.C1) arrived at before Mediation Cell

as well as statement of the plaintiff, the present suit is disposed of and is

allowed to be withdrawn. Both the parties shall remain abide by the terms and

conditions of the settlement. File be consigned to record room.


16.04.2015

28

CS No.110/13

16.04.2015

Present: None.

FSL result not received.

IO / SI Amit Kumar has not appeared, but he has sent the report

requesting that he is busy in investigation of some case and due to this reason,

he is unable to appear before the court today. He has further submitted that

the FSL result is still awaited.

Put up for further proceedings and awaiting FSL report on

12.05.2015.


16.04.2015

29

RCA No.55/14

16.04.2015

Present: Appellant in person with Shri Anis Ahmed, Advocate.

Respondent in person with Shri Alok Chaudhary, Advocate.

Counsel for respondent submits that he does not want to file reply

of the appeal but counsel for the appellant requests for a date on the ground

that he is not prepared.

List the matter for final arguments on 21.04.2015.


16.04.2015

30

CS No.271/09

16.04.2015

Present: Plaintiff in person.

Shri Dharminder Kumar, Proxy Counsel for defendant No.2 & 4.

None for defendant no.1.

It is 11.45 a.m. and no one appeared on behalf of defendant no.1.

Proxy Counsel for defendants No.2 and 4 stated that the main counsel is busy

in the High Court and cannot come today. The examination of PW1 / plaintiff

recorded on 29.01.2015 on which date his cross examination was deferred due

to absence of the main counsels for the defendants. Again on next date i.e.

09.03.2015, counsels for the defendants were not present and today again the

main counsels of the defendants have not come. It appears that defendants

are not interested to cross examine the PW1 and are delaying the case, so the

cross examination of PW1 is treated as 'Nil'.

An application under Order 16 Rule 1(3) r/w Section 151 CPC has

been filed by the plaintiff for producing the witnesses mentioned at serial no. I

to 9 in the application. List of witnesses was not filed earlier but since the

official witnesses are to be summoned, so this application is allowed and the

witnesses mentioned from serial No.1 to 9 are treated as the witness

mentioned in the list of witness. Let the plaintiff to summon four official

witnesses only for the next date on process fee and deposit of the diet money.

Put up for PE on 19.05.2015.


16.04.2015

31

CS No.34/14

16.04.2015

Present: None.

File is taken up on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w

Section 151 CPC for grant of ad-interim exparte injunction moved on behalf of

the plaintiff.

Let notice of the application be issued to defendant on filing of PF

for 27.04.2015.


16.04.2015

32

RCA No.09/15

16.04.2015

Present: Shri R.P. Madni, Advocate for appellant with appellant in person.

Ms. Afsana, Advocate for the respondent with respondent in

person.

Reply to the application of appellant has been filed by the

respondent. Copy given.

Main Counsel for appellant had appeared in the morning and he

requested for a date due to sickness.

Put up for arguments on the application of the appellant for leading

additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on 01.05.2015 at 2.15 p.m.

Date is given according to the choice and convenience of both the parties.


16.04.2015

List New2.ASP

Documents

Transcript of List New2.ASP