Allowed

Ram Nath Chaudhary & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC5 Mar 2025CM(M)/440/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court heard a petition impugning a District Judge's order rejecting a civil suit. The Court noted the Trial Court failed to decide an interim application. It allowed the petition, directing the First Appellate Court to expedite the interim hearing for 06.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; First Appellate Court directed to postpone hearing and decide the interim application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC on 06.03.2025.

Ram Nath Chaudhary & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~55

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 440/2025

¶4

RAM NATH CHAUDHARY & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with V.P. Rana, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shobhana Takier, SC for DDA with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Mr. Prateek Dhir and Mr. Shivam Takier, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 05.03.2025 CM APPL. 13314/2025 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

This application stands disposed of.

¶13

CM(M) 440/2025 & CM APPL. 13313/2025 (interim relief)

¶14

This petition impugns the order dated 28.02.2025, passed by the learned District Judge in RCA/DJ/16/2025 on the ground that learned District Judge did not pass any orders on the interim application filed under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner except by due process of law.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. 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 07/03/2025 at 14:31:10

¶17

Vide impugned order dated 28.02.2025, the learned Trial Court rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC.

¶18

Against the said order, petitioners preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court along with application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC. 5. Learned counsel submits that since after filing of the suit, ad interim orders restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioners from the suit property were in operation till the rejection of the suit by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel also draws the attention of the Court to the written statement filed by the respondent before the trial Court, wherein respondent has categorically stated that it has no intention to illegally dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, while also stating that they are duty bound to protect the Government land from encroachment.

¶19

It is submitted that petitioners have a good case on merits and there is apprehension that petitioners may be dispossessed unless respondent is restrained.

¶20

Perusal of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 reveals that no order has been passed on the application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, despite the same having been filed.

¶21

Since matter requires urgent consideration, petition is disposed of with direction to the First Appellate Court to pre-pone the hearing and take up the application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC on 06.03.2025 for expeditious disposal.

¶22

Ms. Shobhana Takier, learned counsel appearing for the respondent is requested to inform the concerned panel counsel about the order so that the panel counsel may appear before the First Appellate Court and the disposal of the application is not delayed.

¶23

¶24

A copy of this order be given dasti to both the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶25

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶26

MARCH 5, 2025 /vd /f

¶27

Ram Nath Chaudhary & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath Chaudhary & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority

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

Joginder Pal Sharma & Anr. Vs Krishna Virmani

Kshitij Gupta Vs Jagdip Singh Bedi and Anr.

Preeti Arora Vs Rahul Arora

Vijay Kumar Sehdev Vs M/S Popular Jewellery Mart HUF Thr Karta Rohit Jain & Ors.

Avg Logistics Limited Vs Indo Money Securities Private Limited & Ors.

Nttesh Arora Vs Isha Arora

Anu Kapur Vs Durga Prasad Ray

State Bank of India Vs Late Yogendra Sharma & Ors.

Joginder Pal Sharma & Anr. Vs Krishna Virmani

Kshitij Gupta Vs Jagdip Singh Bedi and Anr.

Preeti Arora Vs Rahul Arora

Sh Rajesh Singh and Ors. Vs Sh Mool Chand and Ors.

Arjun Singh and Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar Gupta

Fulchandra Alias Phool Chandra Vs Labour Commissioner Cum Secretary & Ors. & Ors.