Disposed

Urmila Devi & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal

Delhi HC2 Nov 2018RFA/908/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a caveat allowing it despite no appearance. Exemption was allowed. A delay of 30 days was condoned. The recall application was disposed of. The main appeal was disposed of as not pressed but the appellants were granted one year to vacate the suit property upon filing undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Caveat discharged. Exemption allowed. Delay condoned. Appeal disposed as not pressed; time to vacate granted for one year subject to undertakings. Recall against stay disposed.

Urmila Devi & Anr. Vs Sunil Kumar Aggarwal — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~13

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

RFA 908/2018

¶4

URMILA DEVI & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Advocate with appellant no. 2 in person (Mobile No. 9810368562).

versus

SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

O R D E R

02.11.2018

CAVEAT No. 1013/2018

¶13

No one appears for the caveator, the caveat stands discharged.

¶14

C.M. Appl. No. 46096/2018 (for exemption)

¶15

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶16

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶17

C.M. Appl. No. 46095/2018 (for delay)

¶18

For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 30 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned, subject to just exceptions.

¶19

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶20

RFA 908/2018 and C.M. Appl. No. 46094/2018 (for stay)

¶21

After arguing the appeal counsel for the appellant has taken

¶22

RFA 908/2018

¶23

page 1 of 2

¶24

instructions from the appellant no. 2 who is present in person that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed but the appellants be granted one year’s time to vacate the suit property. A period of one year is claimed because it is not as if the appellants are trespassers or tenants but the respondent/plaintiff is the son of the real sister of the appellant no. 1 and the appellants have been living in the suit property since the year 1965.

¶25

Accordingly, while disposing of the appeal as not pressed appellants are granted time to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.11.2019 subject to the appellants filing undertakings in this Court within a period of two weeks to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.11.2019 and also to continue to pay in the meanwhile all charges towards electricity, water, etc as payable for the suit premises.

¶26

Subject to the appellants filing the aforesaid undertaking and complying with the terms of the same the appellants are granted time to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.11.2019. 7. Since this order of granting time is passed on the very first dated of hearing without notice to the respondent, respondent if aggrieved with respect to grant of time can approach this Court, but it is noted that in case notice would have been issued in this appeal and this appeal would have been heard in Regular Matters it would have taken 10 to 15 years to hear the appeal.

¶27

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶29

NOVEMBER 02, 2018/ AK

¶30

page 2 of 2

¶31

RFA 908/2018

Urmila Devi & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sai Constructions & Anr. Vs Pnc Infratech Ltd. & Anr.

Sanjay Arora and Anr. Vs Surender Singh and Ors.

M/S Icici Bank Limited Vs Vikas Kumar Thakur

Narinder Pal Singh Vs Parminder Singh & Anr.

M/S Unison Airconditioner & Anr. Vs M/S Creons Advertising Pvtl Ltd.

Shekhar Pillai Vs Ashok Khetrapal & Ors.