do retrieved.asp(4)

M No. 13/13

31.03.2015

Present:- Counsel for plaintiff in original disposed of suit.

None for respondent/applicant- Suraj Verma

Heard.

Ld. Counsel for Original plaintiff submits that one

contempt petition of plaintiff and one contempt petition of respondent

were already disposed of and one contempt petition of plaintiff pending

in this case relates to removal of Jhula, Cooler and demolition of

bathroom.

It is further submitted that the application under Section

340 Cr. PC filed by respondent relates to the alleged misleading the

court by alleging that there were about 203 students registered in the

school from Pre-nursury to Class-2 in one room. It is further alleged

that plaintiff was not the member of the society and therefore there was

no question of having applied and got the society registered alongwith

others. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff/non applicant submits that it was not

that 203 students were accommodated in one class at one point of time.

The classes for the students used to be taken in different periods and the

classes were also taken in the open Varanda and also at the terrace of the

room, if required. It is stated in the reply that accommodation let out to

the plaintiff was consisting of the two rooms with open space. It is

further submitted that there was no question of violation of mandatory

Delhi School Manual for space of 5 Sq. feet per student as the school

was not recognized and not governed by the norms of Delhi School

Manual.

Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the suit was filed in

the year 2002. Plaintiff claims to have been running the school w.e.f.

December, 2001. On inquiry, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that it

was made clear at the time of withdrawal of the suit that plaintiff was

not the member of the society. He further submits that he was the part

of discussions in the said society which had applied for the registration.

On being inquired as to what the school had to do with the said society

and what the plaintiff had to do with application for registration when

plaintiff was not the member of the said society and why there was

reference to this effect in para 35 and 36 of the plaint, Ld. Counsel for

plaintiff seeks sometime to seek necessary instructions. Copy of the

application under Section 340 Cr. PC with reply and rejoinder thereto

has already been placed on record on the last date of hearing after

signature of counsel for both the parties.

Let clarifications and details of the order in the disposed of

contempt petition of plaintiff as well as that of of the defendant be

provided.

Let the orders which are alleged to have been violated be

also pointed out.

To come up on 07.05.2015 for further hearing Ld. counsel

for both the parties on application under Section 340 Cr. PC as well as

on contempt petition of the plaintiff.

(Vipin Kumar Rai) JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge,

Dwarka Courts : Delhi/ 31.03.2015

C.S. No. 98/14

31.03.2015

Present:- None for plaintiff

Sh. Amit Gautam, Advocate for

Sh. Vivek Dagar, Advocate for defendant no. 1

Adjournment sought on behalf of defendant as main

counsel is not available today. Even, counsel for plaintiff is also not

available and prayed for adjournment.

Put up on 14.05.2015.



C.S. No. 115/12

31.03.2015

Present:- Proxy Counsel for plaintiff.

None for defendant

In terms of the order dated 20.02.2015, defendant is served

by affixation after refusal by the defendant to accept the summons.

Defendant was served in this case by way of affixation on 13.03.2015.

No appearance has been filed by the defendant within a statutory period

of 10 days. This is a suit under 37 CPC based on two cheques bearing

no. 919760 dated 10.1.2011 & 919759 dated 10.12.2010 of Rs. 9040/-

each. Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 18,080/-. Suit is

therefore decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant for an amount of Rs. 18,080/- with pendentilite interest

only @ 8% per annum under Order 37 CPC with costs of the suit

as per rules. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Decree may

be executed forthwith.

File be consigned to Record Room.

C.S. No. 48/14

31.03.2015


None for defendant



Defendant was served in this case by way of affixation on 13.03.2015.

No appearance has been filed by the defendant within a statutory period

of 10 days. This is a suit under 37 CPC based on two cheques bearing

no. 919757 dated 10.03.2011 & 919756 dated 10.04.2011 of Rs. 9040/-

each. Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 18,080/-. Suit is

therefore decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant for an amount of Rs. 18,080/- with pendentilite interest

only @ 8% per annum under Order 37 CPC with costs of the suit

as per rules. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Decree may

be executed forthwith.


C.S. No. 19/14

31.03.2015


None for defendant



Defendant was served by way of affixation on 13.03.2015. No

appearance has been filed by the defendant within a statutory period of

10 days. This is a suit under 37 CPC based on a cheque bearing no.

919758 dated 10.02.2011 of Rs. 9040/-. Plaintiff is entitled for recovery

of amount of Rs. 9040/-. Suit is therefore decreed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 9040/- with

pendentilite interest only @ 8% per annum under Order 37 CPC

with costs of the suit as per rules. Decree sheet be prepared

accordingly. Decree may be executed forthwith.




C.S. No. 323/12

31.03.2015

Present:- Counsel for plaintiff.

An application for change of Newspaper for publication

from Dainik Bhaskar to Rastriya Sahara, the same is having better

circulation is filed. Perused the application. The same is allowed.

Necessary steps be taken by the plaintiff and depositing necessary

publication charges for serving defendant.

Put up on 13.05.2015.



C.S. No. 354/12

31.03.2015


Defendant is served by publication in the Newspaper The

Stateman dated 03.03.2015. Copy of the Newspaper alongwith a letter

from The Statesman confirming sending of the notice to the defendant

is on record. Defendant was served for today i.e 31.03.2015. None has

appeared for the defendant despite service. Defendant is proceeded ex-

parte.

To come up on 18.05.2015 for ex-parte eivdence.



C.S. No. 88/13

31.03.2015


Summons was not issued on deficiency of postal stamps.

Be issued after making it good of the deficiency on registered envelope

and given to the counsel for plaintiff for making good of the deficiency

and filing the same with the Ahlmad.

Put up on 14.05.2015.



C.S. No. 89/13

31.03.2015


Report on summons sent to defendant no. 1 has not been

received. Summons sent through Process Server to defendant no. 2 has

returned unserved with that APO 56 is security agency of the

Government and no one is directed to go inside the agency and the

summons be sent by post. Summons to defendant no. 2 alongwith copy

of the plaint alongwith documents be issued on the earlier filed RC itself

for 12.05.2015.



C.S. No. 226/1

31.03.2015

Present:- Counsel for plaintiff with plaintiffNone for defendant

Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he would not be

filing any replication as there is no such requirement. Following issues

are framed from the pleadings of the parties.

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of 10 gold items referred

in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff had given up his right in gold ornaments in

October 2008 as contended in the written statement? OPP

3. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and

against the defendant? OPP

4. Whether suit is barred by Limitation ? OPP

5. Whether suit is barred by Section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act?

OPD

6. Relief.

No other issue arises or is pressed for.

List of witnesses be filed by both the parties within two

weeks. Advance copies of the affidavits of the plaintiff witnesses be

supplied to the opposite counsel at least ten days prior to the next date of

hearing.

Put up for PE on 13.05.2015 and for payment of costs.



C.S. No. 79/13

31.03.2015

Present:- Plaintiff No. 1 & 4 in person.

Sh. K.R. Thakur, Defendant no. 24 in person

Vide separate judgment, suit is disposed of by holding the

election for five posts by Secret ballot as valid but filling up of 20 posts

by nomination by 5 elected persons as null and void ab initio and

consequential induction in the JCM on the basis of such nomination

being void ab initio.

Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record

Room.



C.S. No. 211/14

31.03.2015

Present:- None for the plaintiff.

Ld counsel for defendant no. 1.

Sh. Rahul Dabas advocate for MCD with JLO Ms. Neetu

Singh.

Sh. S.K. Varshney, Assistant Engineer-CPWD.

Be awaited for appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.

Put up at 1 p.m.

(Vipin Kumar Rai)JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge,


At 1:10 p.m.

Present : As above.

None has appeared for the plaintiff since morning today. It

is the third consecutive date when no one has turned up for the plaintiff.

Plaintiff appears to be not interested in prosecution of this matter. Suit is

dismissed-in-default as well as for non prosecution.

File be consigned to record room.



C.S. No. 209/14

31.03.2015



Sh. Rahul Dabas advocate for MCD with JLO Ms. Neetu

Singh.



Put up at 1 p.m.


Dwarka Courts : Delhi/ 31.03.2015At 1:10 p.m.

Present : As above.








C.S. No. 212/14

31.03.2015



Sh. Anil Gahlot advocate for MCD with JLO Ms. Neetu

Singh.



Put up at 1 p.m.



At 1:10 p.m.

Present : As above.








C.S. No. 210/14

31.03.2015



Sh. Anil Gahlot advocate for MCD.



Put up at 1 p.m.


Dwarka Courts : Delhi/ 31.03.2015At 1:10 p.m.

Present : As above.








C.S. No. 69/12

31.03.2015

Present:- Counsel for the plaintiff.

Counsel for the defendant.

Reply to the application u/o 9 rule 7 CPC filed. Copy

given.

Notwithstanding the exparte order dated 4.7.2014 not being

set aside defendant has right to participate in the proceedings. The legal

issue arises in this case as to continuation of the suit by the LR's of

plaintiff against the defendant who is also one of the LR being son of the

deceased/plaintiff. This suit is for possession, mesne profit/damages

with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

To come up for hearing Ld counsel for the parties on the

said aspect and order.

Put up on 7.5.2015.



C.S. No. 51/15

31.03.2015

Present:- Counsel for the plaintiff.

Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and 2.

Sh. Rahul Dabas advocate for MCD.

None for the defendant no. 4 Gram Sabha.

Written statement filed alongwith reply to the application

u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC with list of documents alongwith photocopies

of the documents with coloured photographs. Copy given.

To come up for filing of replication, if any and arguments

on the interim application.

Short adjournment is sought on behalf of the MCD for

filing status report. Same is granted with the direction to file it

positively on the next date of hearing.

Defendant no. 4 Gram Sabha is also directed to file the

status report in this case.

Now to come up on 24.4.2015 at 2 p.m.



C.S. No. 286/13

31.03.2015

File is taken up on an application for summoning of the

witnesses filed alongwith list of witnesses.

Perused the application. Same is allowed as per rules.

Diet money be paid on the spot.

Put up on the date fixed i.e 27.4.2015.



C.S. No. 163/14

31.03.2015

Present:- Plaintiff in person.

Defendant no. 2 in person.

Counsel for MCD.

Status report filed on behalf of MCD. Demolition order

has already been passed in this case on 19.3.2015. Copy of the order to

this effect is bearing signatures of AE Harjinder Singh with date

19.3.2015 on the top of this order. The year 2014 is mentioned which is

stated to be typographical error and appears to be so. The necessary

rectification be done in this regard.

Report in respect of service of defendant no. 3 is awaited.

In view of the demolition order having being passed by

MCD, to come up for hearing of ld counsel for the plaintiff and disposal

of the suit on 8.5.2015.



C.S. No. 72/12

31.03.2015


Sh. S.P. Chugh advocate for MCD.

MCD is not willing to refund the amount in view of the

pendency of the SLP in another case before Supreme Court and is

willing to contest this case. A letter dated 9.3.2015 by Sh. Naveen

Toppo, Deputy Assessor & Collector (SZ) SDMC is placed on record.

The earlier order reveals the stand being taken was towards the refund of

the amount reserving its right to proceed in accordance with law subject

to the outcome of this SLP.

In view of the same, to come up for FP on 14.5.2015.



C.S. No. 155/14

31.03.2015

Present:- Plaintiff in person.

None for the defendant.

Perused earlier ordersheet.

In the interest of justice, case is adjourned for further

proceedings.

Let the court notice be issued to the counsel Sh. Jagdish

Kumar.

Put up on 5.5.2015.



Ram Kala Yadav Vs

Deepak Goel

31.03.2015

Fresh suit received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and

registered.

Present:- Counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff.

Heard. Perused.

Let the others in the chain of documents be impleaded

including Sheela Devi w/o Ram Kishan.

To come up for F.P on 20.4.2015.



M/s Mukesh StoreVs

Assistant Commissioner

31.03.2015

Fresh suit received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and

registered.

Present:- Counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff.

Perused. Heard.

Notice be issued to the defendant on PF/RC for 13.4.2015.



do retrieved.asp(4)

Documents