The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court verdict in a case related to possession of property on the grounds that issues of a case cannot be dealt with at the preliminary stage in a suit.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the dispute of the petitioners with regard to the reliefs sought in the alternative could very well be decided during the trial and not deciding the same in an application for rejection of the complaint did not make the impugned order illegal.

Dismissing the plea filed by one Monika Singh under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court noted that the merits of the case itself need not be entered into at the stage of rejection of the plaintiff. Besides, issues such as appropriate relief and evidence annexed with the complaint could not be dealt at a preliminary stage in a suit, it added.

It further noted that there was no error of jurisdiction or other error, which could invite the intervention of this Court while exercising its revisional powers in the order passed by Additional District Judge Rajesh Kumar of Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on September 20, 2022. 

Justice Singh said that the Trial Court has neither acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction nor has there been any material irregularity in the verdict. Therefore, the petition challenging the trial court verdict stands dismissed, he added.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocates Kunal Khanna and Sonia Dhariwal contended that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages bearing suit no. 2674/2016 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on June 18, 2008 before the ADJ03, East Karkardooma Court, Delhi, pertaining to the plot/property measuring 1200 square yards forming part of khasra no. 389/26311/2 situated in village Chilla Saronda Banger, Delhi bearing no. B-1179 (new), old no. B-335, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi- 110096.

As per the plea, the respondent was seeking reliefs which were barred by law. On one hand, the respondent was seeking relief for recovery of possession of a property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, wherein, the reliefs sought were limited to the question whether the plaintiff who was formerly in possession, was dispossessed subsequently without his consent. 

On the other hand, a similar relief was being sought on the basis of title of the Suit Property as well. The same was in complete contravention with the ingredients of Section 6 of the Act. Hence, in such a Suit, the Court cannot try the question of title and similarly, a claim for damages also cannot be clubbed or combined with a relief under Section 6 of the Act, added the petition. 

It alleged that the Trial Court wrongly adjudicated on the application filed by the petitioners as it failed to consider that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to primarily look into the complaint only and by a plain and simple reading of the complaint filed by the respondent, it is evident that the respondent is seeking two alternate reliefs in a single Suit.

Advocate Gagan Gandhi, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the present petition has been filed with the sole purpose of harassing the respondent. The present petition was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

He alleged that the petitioners, since the advent of the trial, have been trying to delay the proceedings as it was the third application for rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioners and consequently, all of such applications were dismissed.

As per Gandhi, the Trial Court has delved into the merits of the application filed by the petitioners and conclusively held that the grounds raised by the petitioners for the dismissal of the Suit cannot be dealt with, in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as the same go into the merits of the Suit and require adducing of evidence. In addition, the Suit is at the stage of evidence and raising such grounds is frivolous in nature, hence, violating the process of law.

He submitted that the Trial Court has correctly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners and this revision petition does not fall within the ambit of Section 115 of the CPC. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality by irregular exercise or non-exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and the same is not erroneous in law.

Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, the Counsel for the respondent sought dismissal of the revision petition and upholding of the impugned order.

Advocates Akshay Malik and Sonakshi Chaturvedi also appeared for the respondent. 

(Case title: Monika Singh and Anr vs Sudha Prasad)

A local court in Delhi has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of the sealing order and the showcause notice issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation on the grounds that the petitioner was allotted a plot for industrial use, but he used it for commercial purpose, therefore, misusing the same.

The order was passed recently by Additional and Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer at Appellate Tribunal, MCD Delhi, Pitamber Dutt.

The Judge ruled that as per Clause II (13) of the said perpetual lease deed, the permissible use of the said plot was industrial. However, the appellant used the plot in question for commercial purpose.

As per the trial court, the Quasi Judicial Authority had considered all aspects and passed the sealing order on March 15, 2022, holding that industrial unit/plots can be put to commercial use within the existing development control norms subject to payment of conversion charges and all other requisite charges (as applicable) computed as per MPD-2021 and as per the government notifications.
It noted that the formula for calculating the conversion charges was mentioned in the sealing order, which had been passed in accordance with law.

The Judge dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the sealing order as well as the showcause notice of December 22, 2021 on the grounds that there was no legal infirmity in the same.  

However, the trial court granted the petitioner 10 days time to deposit the requisite conversion charges and other requisite charges in terms of sealing order, so as to continue using the plot for commercial purpose. 

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Gagan Gandhi contended that the petitioner has been running a furniture store in the name and style of M/s Polo Singh & Co at Plot no 87 in Furniture Block of Kirti Nagar. 

He said the furniture market was developed and designed by the Delhi Development Authority after the relocation scheme of DDA as per the Master Plan 1962, pursuant to which plots were allotted to traders involved in the business of wooden furniture and perpetual lease deed was executed by DDA in this regard.

Advocate Gandhi said the NDMC issued a showcause notice under Sections 345A and 347 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 to the petitioner on December 22, 2021 and directed him to stop the misuse and bring the premises within the permitted use as per Master Plan-2021 within 48 hours. He was further directed to showcause as to why the premises should not be sealed for misuse.

The Counsel said the petitioner filed a reply on December 24, 2021, however, the Quasi Judicial Authority passed a sealing order on January 20, 2022 and sealed the petitioner’s premises on January 20, 2022. 

As per Advocate Gandhi, the Furniture Block Market Association filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the showcause notice of December 22, 2021 and sealing order of January 20, 2022.

On January 25 last year, the High Court directed the respondent to deseal the property in question and give fresh hearing to the petitioner, noted the Counsel.

He said the petitioner filed a representation with DDA seeking clarification qua the permitted land use of the property in question, but the same was neither replied by the DDA nor by the respondent.

The petitioner further said that on March 17, 2022, they received an order dated March 15, 2022, directing them to pay the conversion and parking charges within three days of the receipt of the said order, failing which the premises would be sealed again. 

Advocate Gandhi contended that the sealing order of March 15, 2022 and the showcause notice dated January 22, 2021 were untenable in law as the premises was being used in accordance with the perpetual lease deed executed between the appellant and the DDA. 

He further averred that the sealing order and the showcause notice were non-speaking and vague qua the misuse of the property and the amount of misuse charges, therefore, the same was liable to be quashed. 

On January 13, 2012, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was trifurcated into North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the East Delhi Municipal Corporation for better delivery and governance. However, the civic body was reunified on May 22 last year.

(Case title: Polo Singh & Co vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation)

The Delhi High Court has directed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to file a status report on a protection petition by an inter-caste couple, apprehending threat to life by family members of the girl. 

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna on Friday directed the SHO of Khyala police station to personally meet the petitioners and take action in accordance with law regarding the threat perception. 

It further directed the Khyala Police to provide the mobile phone numbers of the Division Officer or Head Constables to the petitioners to contact in case of emergency. 

Taking in view the arguments put forward by the Counsel for the Delhi government, stating that petitioner no 1 (Akanksha Sharma) was less than 18 years of age, the High Court directed her to be produced before the Child Welfare Committee for an appropriate enquiry about her age and also for requisite orders qua her custody.

The Single-Judge Bench further issued notice to the Respondents no 3 (step-father of the girl) and Respondent no 4 (mother of the girl) regarding the age of petitioner no 1.

It directed the Delhi government to file the status report before the next date of hearing, which was fixed at March 20 and further ordered that an advance copy of the same be provided to the Counsel representing the petitioners. 

An inter-caste couple had filed a writ petition seeking protection from the family of the girl. 

The plea contended that one Akanksha Sharma (22), belonging to upper caste, had married Ravi Kumar (26), belonging to the Scheduled Caste on January 17, 2023 at Firozabad in Uttar Pradesh. 

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Gagan Gandhi of NitiNyaya Law Offices contended that the step-father and mother of the girl, after coming to know about her affair with boy of another caste, subjected her to physical, mental and sexual atrocities.

The petitioner no 1 later ran away from her house with petitioner no 2 and married him in a temple.    

The couple was currently living in Delhi and were constantly under threat of either being killed or implicated in a false criminal case, added the petition.

ASC for the State Anand V. Khatri, along with SI Inderjeet, Police Station Khyala, appeared for the Respondents – the State of NCT of Delhi and Others.

The petitioners were represented by Advocates Gagan Gandhi, Rituraj Gandhi and Akash Bassi. 

(Case title: Akanksha Sharma & Anr vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors)

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to newspaper ‘The Times of India’ and other Respondents over an article published in the leading English daily on October 19, 2010, allegedly defaming a BJP leader.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta issued notice to the respondents on Tuesday and fixed January 24 as the next date of hearing.

Earlier on November 15, 2011, the High Court had issued notice to The Times of India and other respondents.

Mittal was represented by Advocate Gagan Gandhi before the High Court.

On December 9, 2010, BJP leader and businessman Sudhanshu Mittal had filed a defamation complaint against Bennett, Coleman and Company Ltd for the report carried on The Times of India’s website on October 19, 2010, titled ‘CWG scam: CBI raids BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal’s house’.

He had alleged that the ‘irresponsible’ publication was working with a pre-determined agenda to defame him.   

Mittal said that CBI had never raided his premises and thus, the heading/ title of the news article was factually incorrect.

The complaint further challenged the veracity of the contents of the article and stated that the article caused damage to both Mittal’s business interests and social repute.

As per the plea filed by Mittal, “A news article was published on the Internet Portal of Times of India on October 19, 2010 about a raid/search conducted by the Income Tax Department at the premises of the petitioner in relation to alleged tax evasion in works related to
Commonwealth Games.”

“However, in the heading/title of the said news article, CBI was published instead of the Income Tax Department. It is relevant to note that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) never raided the premises of the petitioner, however, the Respondents mentioned the same in its article,” it added.

The petitioner said the respondents had issued an apology, after which the case was dismissed at the Trial Court.

However, the Times Group, including the website and the newspaper, again published defamatory articles against him on October 16, 2022 and November 16, 2021, despite the Trial Court order of November 17, 2011, which barred them from doing so, noted Mittal.

He said on October 16, 2022, www.timesofindia.com published an article on its website with the title “ED attached Rs. 1,300 crore assets ties to real estate firm Ireo, its MD,” wherein intentionally and malafidely with a view to attract larger number of viewers, it has been mentioned that “Goyal is a close relative of BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal, who has denied connection any with Ireo, except that it is owned and managed by his relatives”.

The same story was also published by Respondents/Contemnors in the Times of India print edition, whereby it was printed in bold letters in the description to the article that “Ireo MD Lalit Goyal is a close relative of BJP neta Sudhanshu Mittal, who has denied having any connection with Ireo, except that it is owned & managed by his relatives”.

The petitioner alleged that the Respondents undermined the authority of the court by bluntly violating and disregarding the order passed by the
Trial Court in the case.