Allowed

Vishal Gautam v. Mona Sharma

Delhi HC22 May 2024FAO(OS)/61/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of an application to implead the DDA as defendant in a suit disputing a conveyance deed executed in favour of the appellant's mother. Holding DDA to be a proper party to the amended dispute, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and directed DDA's impleadment, leaving all rights and contentions open.

What did the court decide?

DDA directed to be impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the underlying suit CS(OS) 413/2019; exemption application also allowed.

Vishal Gautam Vs Mona Sharma — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 61/2024

¶4

VISHAL GAUTAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Mr. B. L. Wall and Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

MONA SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S. C. Singhal and Mr. Saideep Kaushik, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R

¶8

% 22.05.2024 CM APPL. 26482/2024 (for exemption)

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶11

FAO(OS) 61/2024

¶12

Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned interim order dated 13^th March, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. 14445/2019 in CS(OS) 413/2019, whereby the application filed by the Appellant/plaintiff seeking impleadment of DDA as a party to the suit (i.e. defendant no. 2) was rejected.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Ld. Single Judge grossly erred in rejecting the Appellant’s application seeking impleadment of DDA as a party even though the Appellant had pleaded that the Conveyance Deed dated 29^th February, 2018 executed by the DDA in favour of the Appellant’s mother had been fraudulently executed at DDA’s office.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/05/2024 at 12:50:04

¶16

He states that the impleadment application ought to have been allowed as the Appellant was questioning the transfer of the suit property by the DDA in favour of the Appellant’ mother, which is vital for the proper and effective adjudication of the two suits.

¶17

He states that the Ld. Single Judge failed to appreciate that both the suits were directed to be consolidated (i.e. the suit bearing CS(OS) 413/2019 filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff, and the suit bearing CS(OS) 142/2019 filed by the Respondent/ Defendant No. 1) however subsequently, they have been segregated without any plausible reason.

¶18

Mr. S.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the allegations against the officials of DDA are vague and general. In support of his contention, he relies upon the Order VI Rule 4 CPC.

¶19

Since the dispute which has been raised by the Appellant/plaintiff in respect of the documents executed by his mother in favour of the Respondent/defendant No. 1 has been incorporated by way of amendment, this Court is of the view that the DDA is a proper party to the dispute. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and DDA is directed to be impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the underlying suit. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶20

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶22

MAY 22, 2024/ rhc

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/05/2024 at 12:50:04

Vishal Gautam v. Mona Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Gautam v. Mona Sharma

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

Chetan Puri and Anr. Vs Sunita Rekhi and Ors.

Birender Chaudhary Vs Kanwal Chaudhary & Ors.

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs Raj Vidya Kender Rvk & Ors.

Mrs Rajni Kapur and Anr. Vs Mr Devinder Kumar Diwan and Ors.

Pankaj Sawhney Vs Suman Sawhney & Ors.

Balvinder Kaur Brar Vs Baldev Singh Gill and Others

Urmila Vohra (Since Deceased) through Lr. Shri Rajesh Vohra and Anr. Vs Janak Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Ajay Kumar HUF & Ors. Vs Vinay Kumar HUF & Ors.

Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs Rajan Babu Institute of Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis and Others

Balbir Singh Saini and Ors. Vs Ganga Dutt Saini and Ors.

Haryana Multi-Purpose Cooop Marketing Society Ltd. Anr. Vs District Magistrate South East and Ro of Nafed and Ors.

Paresh Dandona Vs Sukruti Dugal & Ors.

Jagriti Jain Vs Principal District and Session Judge - North & Ors.

Sh Usman & Ors. Vs Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.