Partly allowed

Babita v. Omwati & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Jan 2019C.R.P./259/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition against an order dismissing a suit for permanent injunction due to lack of notice under Section 80 CPC after permission to withdraw was sought. The court noted Section 478(3) of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, allows exemption from notice.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The compliance measure application stands disposed of.

Babita Vs Omwati & Anr. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Order: 14.01.2019

¶4

C.R.P. 259/2018

¶5

BABITA

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Medanshu Tripathi & Mr. Satish Rana, Advocates.

¶8

Versus

¶9

OMWATI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Nikhil Bahri, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Prabjot Kaur, Advocate for R-2.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 14.01.2019

¶14

C.M. No.51002/2018 (for exemption)

¶15

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

The application is disposed of.

¶17

C.R.P. No.259/2018 & C.M. No.51003/2018 (for stay)

¶18

The impugned order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge-I, New Delhi, dismissing the application of the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is the subject-matter of challenge in this Revision Petition.

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

C.R.P. 259/2018

¶21

The Ld. counsel for the Petitioner contends that prior to the filing of the suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction by the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff against the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, no pre-requisite notice u/s 80 CPC was given to Respondent No. 2 and as such, plaint should have been rejected by the learned Civil Judge.

¶22

During the course of the arguments, this court brought to the notice of Ld. counsel for the petitioner the sub-Section (3) of Section 478 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which provides that the requisite notice as mentioned in sub section (1) need not be given to the Corporation in suits where the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit.

¶23

In light of the said provision, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the revision petition. 5. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The application, being C.M. No.51003/2018, stands disposed of.

¶24

JANUARY 14, 2019 “sandeep”

¶25

Page 2 of 2

¶26

C.R.P. 259/2018

Babita v. Omwati & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita v. Omwati & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonia Kumari Vs Sandeep Kumar

Balbir Singh Vs Rajiv Gauba and Ors.

Devi Shankar Sharma Vs Uma Shankar Sharma & Ors.

Ashok Sinha & Anr. Vs M/S Vardhman Estates & Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Inspiration Engineer Pvt. Ltd. Vs Suresh Meena & Ors.

Virender Sharma Vs M/S Sagar Ratna Restautant Pvt. Ltd.