IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELIII c.R.P. I40l20tI QUTAB APARTMENTS PzuVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M. Qamar Ali, Advocate. vefsus ..... Respondents Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma & Mr. Amit Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-l. Dr. Saif Mahmood, Advocate for R-2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BI,E MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN if ORDER 22.09.2011 CM No.17768/2011 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of accordingly. c.R.P. 140/2011 Notice. Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.l and Dr. Saif Mahmood, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3. Respondent No.4 Mr. S.S. Jolly is stated to be a perfonna respondent having no interest in the litigation nor any relief was claimed against him in his capacity as Director of the <$. purchaser company i.e. petitioner herein, of half undivided interest in the premises in question fi'om two of the four co-owners. So no notice is being issued to him. Learned counsel for the parties have made some submissions. During the course of hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner undisputedly having become a co-o\\mer of the property in question by virrue of sale of half of the undivided interest therein to itby two out of four co-owners, cannot be made 13 {< SANTOSH KUMAR SURI & ORS Through: o/t c.R.P. t4012011 paqe I of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified \ ')-' to suffer a decree of possession as well as a decree of arrears of rent and decree of injunction, as have been claimed by the plaintiffs in the amended plaint dated 21st March, 2009 in suit filed against the tenants, respondents no. 1 and 2 herein. It was submitted that on this ground, however, the rejection of the plaint was not sought by the petitioner by filing an application under Qrder VII Rule 11 CPC but on other grounds an application under this provision of CPC was filed which is pending disposal before the trial Court. It is also submitted that this petition was filed to challenge the order by the trial Court whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC moved by the other co- defendants, tenants in the premises in question, was rejected and whose revision petition has been dismissed today by this Courl. Mr. Sapra, fuither submitted that in case liberty is given to the petitioner to urge the aforesaid submissions before the trial Court at the time of hearing of its pending application under Order VII Rule I 1 CPC then this petition can be dismissed as withdrawn Learned senior counsel for respondent no. 1 and learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 have no objection if this much liberty is given to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn and the liberty prayed for on behalf of the petitioner is given but making it is also clear that if the aforesaid points which were sought to be argued before this Court on behalf of the petitioner are raised before the trial Court at the time of hearing of its pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the learned trial Court shall deal with the same also in accordance with law and respondent no.l-plaintiff would also be at liberly to meet that point and then appropriate decision shall be taken uninfluenced by the filing of the present revision petition and its withdrawal today. A copy ofthis order be given dastito counsel for all the parties, as requested. SEPTEMBER22,2OII nk c.R.P. l40t20tl P.K. BHASIN, J oase? of 2