Partly allowed

Arya Anathalaya v. Sharad Gupta & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2012TR.P.(C.)/53/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of multiple transfer petitions. Various civil suits filed by Arya Anathalaya were withdrawn from the Trial Court and transferred to be tried together with pending suits in this Court regarding the Patuadi House, to ensure consistent disposal and avoid conflicting orders on common issues of ownership. Trial Court directed to pronounce reserved orders on interim applications before re

What did the court decide?

Suits listed in para 4 were withdrawn from the Additional District Judge, Central District, Delhi, transferred to this Court, and ordered to be tried together with suits pending before this Court. Tri

Arya Anathalaya Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr. — Partition | Delhi HC (2012)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

1 '

IT/

TR.P.(C.) 52/2011

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶7

Versus

¶8

PA WAN TANEJA and ANR .... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶9

TR.P.(C.) 53/2011

¶10

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶11

Versus

¶12

SHARAD GUPTA and ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶13

TR.P.(C.) 55/2011

¶14

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner

¶15

Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs. Versus PHULAN DEVI Respondent

¶16

A w

¶17

Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶18

TR.P.(C.) 56/2011

¶19

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner

¶20

Through : Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs. versus

¶21

VIMAL BOHRA and ANR Respondents

¶22

Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶23

TR.P.(C.) 57/2011

¶24

¶25

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner

¶26

Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶27

Versus

¶28

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶29

TR.P.(C.) 58/2011

¶30

¶31

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶32

versus

¶33

HAKIM AJMAL KHAN and ANR Respondents

¶34

Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶35

TR.P.(C.) 59/2011

¶36

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶37

versus

¶38

DHARNIDHAR AND ANR Respondents

¶39

Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶40

¶41

TR.P.(C.) 60/2011

¶42

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶43

versus

¶44

SANJAY WALLA AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶45

TR.P.(C.) 61/2011

¶46

¶47

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶48

Versus SURENDRA CHAND BORAR AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶49

TR.P.(C.) 62/2011

¶50

ARYA ANATHALAYA Petitioner Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advs.

¶51

versus

¶52

¶53

IK SABHARWAL AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶54

CORAM:

¶55

•■4

¶56

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

¶57

ORDER % 06.01.2012

¶58

Petitioners in all the above transfer petitions are same, however, respondents are different.

¶59

Petitioner has filed following four suits before this Court for

¶60

possession, damages, mesne profit and permanent injunction :-

¶61

SI.No.	CauseTitle 1	CS(OS) NO.
1.	AryaAnathalayavs.ShriNandLai PatelandAnother	520/2011
2.	AryaAnathalayavs.ShriSanjay BohraandAnother	521/2011
3.	Arya Anathalaya vs. Shri DayanandBablaniandOthers	522/2011
4.	AryaAnathalayavs.ShriDevendra andAnother	523/2011

¶62

The above suits are pending for trial.

¶63

Arya Anathalaya has also filed following suits for possession,

¶64

damages, mesne profit and permanent injunction before the Trial

¶65

Court:-

¶66

•r^

¶67

SI.No.	CauseTitle	CS(OS) No.
1.	AryaAnathalayavs.VimalJain& Ors.	42/2011
2.	AryaAnathalayavs.AmitMiglani & Ors.	43/2011
3.	AryaAnathalayavs.H.M.Linga andOthers	44/2011
4.	AryaAnathalayavs.PawanTaneja & Anr.	45/2011
5.	AryaAnathalayavs.SharadGupta & Anr.	46/2011
6.	AryaAnathalayavs.PhulanDevi	47/2011
7.	AryaAnathalayavs.VimalBohra & Anr.	48/2011
8.	AryaAnathalayavs.HakimAjmal Khan& Anr.	49/2011
9.	AryaAnathalayavs.Surendra ChandBorar& Anr.	50/2011
10.	AryaAnathalayavs.SanjayWalia & Anr.	51/2011
11.	AryaAnathalayavs.DhamiDhar & Anr.	52/2011
12.	Arya Anathalaya vs. I.K. Sabharwal& Anr.	53/2011
13.	AryaAnathalayavs.ArunKumar Sharma& Anr.	54/2011
14.	AryaAnathalayavs.BinodKumar Dugar& Anr.	55/2011

¶68

I t_ ...... ellf"

¶69

jl'i

¶70

Subject matter involved in all the above cases, pending in the Trial Court, is different portions of the property known as 'Patuadi House', bearing no. 1488 in Ward No. 11, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The total area of this property is 15,500 sq. yds. It is alleged that respondents had been illegally and unauthorized occupying the different portions of the aforesaid property. Primarily on these allegations the above suits have been filed for possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction.

¶71

Property involved in the four cases pending before this Court is same though it is in respect of different portions, which are in possession of the defendants in the said cases.

¶72

It is contended that in the suits pending before Trial Court, the defence taken by the defendants (respondents) are more or less similar, inasmuch as, all of them are claiming ownership in respect of the portions in their occupation; whereas plaintiff (petitioner) is ascertaining itself to be the owner of the suit property. Thus, it is contended that evidence to be lead by the petitioner(s)/plaintiff(s) with regard to ownership, will be common. It is further contended that before the Trial Court defendants (respondents) have filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC wherein they have admitted that grievance of all the defendants (respondents) are same against the plaintiff (petitioner). Respondents,

¶73

I'"' ! ,. dz-f

¶74

thus, have admitted that the subject matter involved in the suit as well as the pleas taken by the parties in all the suits are similar. Copy of the aforementioned application filed by the respondents has been annexed with the rejoinder and has been perused.

¶75

Petitioner has filed above mentioned suits for posseSSIOn against the respondents in respect of different portions of the suit property, that is,· Pataudi House' of which it is claiming itself to be the owner. Respondents are resisting the above suits by claiming themselves to be the owner. inv.Qlyed in-IDlJhe cases are more or less similar in nature. As regards petitioner's evidence with regard to ownership, the same will be common in all the suits as petitioner is claiming itself to be the owner of the whole property. Accordingly, in my view, since the issues involved in all the cases would be more or less same, in order to avoid conflicting orders, it would be just and proper, if all suits are tried together by one Court. , In District Collector, Kozhikode and others vs. Kerala Varma Kovil Thampuran and Others AIR 1960 KERALA 199, even though plaintiffs were different but since the common question of law and facts were involved therein, all the four suits were ordered to be tried together.

¶76

F or the foregoing reasons, suits, as mentioned in para 4 hereinabove, are withdrawn from the Court of Shri Sunil Kumar

I I

Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Central Distriet, Delhi and transferred to this Court and be tried together with the Suits pending in this Court, as detailed in para 2 hereinabove.

¶81

Counsel for the parties submit that the Trial Court has reserved order on the applieation under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondents. Aeeordingly, it is ordered that before remitting the file to this Court, Trial Court shall pronounce the order on the said application.

¶82

All the above petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶83

PATHAK,J.

¶84

JANUARY 06, 2012 ga

¶85

^ k e/i^ |)1q (M ^ \ ^

¶86

¶87

Arya Anathalaya v. Sharad Gupta & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arya Anathalaya v. Sharad Gupta & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Bajaj Vs Rakhee

Suyasha Vohra & Anr. Vs DDA & Ors.

Suyasha Vohra & Anr. Vs Rajib Ssengupta & Ors.

Suyasha Vohra Vs DDA & Ors.

Bal Kishan Saini Vs Sukhbir Singh & Anr.

Anwar Khan & Ors. Vs Zahiruddin & Ors.

Vineet Chaudhri Vs Kamal Arora

Jai Kishan Gupta & Anr. Vs Mahavir Prasad & Ors.

Krbl Ltd. Vs Pk Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

Yashpal Singh Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Prasar Bharati Vs L.B.Narula

Centrla Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Central Provident Fund Employe

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shiela Avinashi & Ors.

Travel Care Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.