FAO 477 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. FAO 477 of 2009 Admit. CMP No. 916 of 2009 Heard. This application is allowed subject to the appellant depositing the entire awarded amount alongwith costs and interest in this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that in case the amount is not deposited, the award shall become executable forthwith. This application is disposed of accordingly. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. OMP 656 of 2008 in Exe. Petition No. 47 of 1995 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate vice Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the Decree Hpolder. Shri G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri B.C. Verma, Advocate, for the applicant/JD Chet Ram. Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for JD No.1. List on 9th November, 2009 alongwith the record of Execution Petition No. 47 of 1995. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. CS 19 of 2006 4.11.2009 Present: Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the defendants. Defendant Renu Baljees present in person. OMP No. 570 of 2009 Heard. The order of the Karnataka High Court dated 9th September, 2009 in the testamentary proceedings between the parties has been placed on record of the case. The order complies with the terms of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties in this suit. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that a cheque in the sum of Rs. 80 lacs has been deposited in this Court by the plaintiff Shri C. Baljee. He prays that since six months time has elapsed, the cheque may be revalidated. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that cheque may be returned to him and he would be depositing a fresh revalidated cheque within a period of three weeks from today. Let the cheque be handed over to learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff during the course of the day today under proper receipt. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff undertakes that a fresh revalidated cheque for Rs.80 lacs will be handed over to the defendant Smt. Renu Baljees/deposited in this Court within a period of three weeks from today. Prayer granted. Proper receipt acknowledging the payment shall be placed on record of the case. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. CS 35 of 2007 4.11.2009 Present: Shri M.L. Brakta, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for defendants No. 1 to 14. Ms.Sumeet Advocate vice Shri Balwant Kukreja, Advocate, for defendant No.15. Written statement on behalf of newly added defendant No. 15 has already been filed on record of the case. List for further proceedings in accordance with law. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge Arb. Case 43 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission granted. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn. OMP No. 272 of 2009 Infructuous. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge FAO 52 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri B.M. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate vice Shri Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No1. Shri Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CMP(M) No. 82 of 2009 Heard. No reasonable cause has been pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The usual excuse of tossing the file from table to table has been urged as a ground which according to the learned counsel is reasonable for condonation of delay. This prayer is rejected. However, considering the fact that public money is involved, I allow this application subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 3,300/- as costs to be deposited with the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that in case costs are not paid and the proof of payment of costs is not placed on record of the case, this application shall be deemed to be dismissed and the appeal shall also be deemed to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. This application is disposed of. FAO 52 of 2009 Admit. CMP No. 87 of 2009 Heard. This application is allowed. The execution of award is stayed subject to the appellant depositing the entire awarded amount alongwith costs and interest in this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that in case the amount is not deposited, the award shall become executable forthwith. This application is disposed of accordingly. Dasti copy on usual terms. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge CS 59 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Dev Raj Dev, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for defendant No.1. CMP No. 578 of 2009 Allowed. Let written statement filed by defendant No.1 be taken on record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file replication. CS No. 59 of 2009 At the request of learned counsel appearing for the defendant, which is not opposed, list on 5th November, 2009. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge CS 94 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for defendant No.1. OMP No. 541 of 2009 Allowed. Let documents filed by the plaintiff, which are in vernacular, be translated at his cost by the official translator of this Court. Application stands disposed of. CS 94 of 2009 Ms. Ruma Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service on behalf of defendant No.1. Let notices to other defendants No. 2 to 9 be issued returnable within four weeks from today. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge FAO 179 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri B.R. Kashyap, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Ms. Monika Shukla, Advocate vice Shri A.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CMP(M) No. 261 of 2009 Heard. For the reasons stated in this application, I am satisfied that delay in filing the appeal is bonafide. This application is accordingly allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. Application stands disposed of. RFA No. 179 of 2009 Admit. CMP No. 262 of 2009 Heard. This application is allowed subject to the appellant depositing the entire awarded amount alongwith costs and interest in this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that in case the amount is not deposited, the award shall become executable forthwith. This application is disposed of accordingly. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge CR 51 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the pettiioner. Shri B.R. Verma and Shri Nalvesh Verma, Advocates for respondents No. 1 to 3. CR 51 of 2009 Admit. CMP No. 227 of 2009 The order dated 10th April, 2009 is confirmed during the pendency of this appeal. Application stands disposed of. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge FAO 703 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Anup Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CMP(M) No. 1269 of 2008 Heard. For the reasons stated in this application, I am satisfied that delay in filing the appeal is bonafide. This application is accordingly allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. Applciation stands disposed of. FAO No. 703 of 2008 Admit. CMP No. 1134 of 2008 Heard. This application is allowed subject to the appellant depositing the entire awarded amount alongwith costs and interest in this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that in case the amount is not deposited, the award shall become executable forthwith. This application is disposed of accordingly. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge CS 123 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri V.D. Khidtta, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Shri J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tanushree Kalia, Advocate for the defendant. Heard in part. List for on 9th November, 2009 for further hearing. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge RFA 92 of 1999 4.11.2009 Present: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. for the appellant. Shri Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. List next week alongwith RFA No. 126 of 1999. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge CS 74 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the plaintiffs. Shri B.N. Sharma, Advocate, for defendant No.1. Shri B.S. Attri, Advocate, for defendant No.2. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues are framed:- 1. Whether defendant No. 1 has executed an agreement of sale dated 3rd July, 2009 in favour of plaintiffs for selling the suit land, as alleged? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 3rd July, 2009? OPP 3. Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is fictitious, fraudulent, malafide, illegal, null and void having been executed during the subsistence of agreement of sale dated 3rd July, 2009, if so, its effect? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction? ….OPP 5. Whether defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No. 2 on 31.12.2007, as alleged? OPD-2 6. If issue No. 5 is proved in affirmative, whether the agreement of sale dated 3rd July, 2009 is result of connivance between plaintiffs and Shri Girdhari Lal, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1 7. Whether defendant No. 2 is bonafide purchaser for consideration, as alleged, if so, its effect? ….OPD-2 8. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and have concealed material facts, if so, its effect? OPD-2 9. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No. 2, if so, its effect? OPD-2 10. Whether defendant No. 1 was forced to sign the alleged agreement dated 3.7.2008 in view of earlier alleged agreement dated 31.12.2007, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1 11. Relief. Issues are read over and explained to learned counsel appearing for the parties. No other issue arises or is claimed. Additional documents, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks from today. In case such documents are filed, they will be admitted or denied before the Registrar (Inspection). List the case for recording evidence on behalf of the plaintiff on a date to be fixed by the Registrar (Inspection). November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge RFA 2 of 1999 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Anand Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. for the respondent. Appellant No. 5 who was a practising counsel in this Court has since died, the record has become defective. List after an appropriate application has been filed. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge FAO 271 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: None for the appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 & 5. CMP No. 82 of 2009 Infructuous. Power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 4 Sita Ram and on behalf of respondent No. 5 Master Sunny through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Cherring Lamo has already been filed. Application stands disposed of. FAO No. 271 of 2008 Service is complete. List for further hearing in accordance with law. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. CMPMO 257 of 2001 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri K.D. Sood, Adocate, for respondents No. 1 to 6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court rejecting their application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While dismissing such application, the learned tiral Court noticed that an earlier application dated 13th June, 2006 praying for amendment had been withdrawn by the petitioners herein and a pending application for amendment dated 21.8.2002 was urged and the grounds therein were submitted for consideration of the learned Court. The Court noticed that the application for amendment, which is the subject matter of this petition, is nothing but a repetition of the application which has already been withdrawn and this constitutes repeated attempts by the petitioner herein to manipulate the process of law. Without entering into the merits of submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is dismissed. I hold that there is no error of jurisdiction by the trial Court in dismissing the application. There shall be no order as to costs. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. COPC 121 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Vijay Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Atul Jhingan, Advocate, for the respondent. The petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for disobedience of the order of this Court passed on 10.09.2008 directing payment of cost of Rs. 11,000/- to the petitioner herein. Notice of this petition was issued to the opposite side. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. One fact which may be noticed at the threshold is that contempt is a matter between the Court and the Contemnor. If cost has not been paid, that does not constitute contempt of the order of this Court but may entail other consequences. By its order dated 10.9.2008, this Court had directed:- OMP No. 425 of 2008 This application has been moved by plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and defence of the defendants be closed. On the prayer of the learned counsel appearing for defendants who submits that written statement has been filed. This application is disposed of with a direction that defendants shall pay Rs. 11,000/- as costs to the plaintiff. The proof of pament shall be placed on record of the case. It is clarified that in case cost is not paid within a period of four weeks from today, the written statement shall not be taken on record of the case. This application is disposed of accordingly.” Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that on 19.9.2008 a sum of Rs. 11,000/- was infact deposited with the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association as costs. This was an act of inadvertence on the part of counsel who subsequently having realized his mistake, requested that the amount be paid back to him. The case was transferred to the court of learned District Judge at Dharamshala after increase of pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. There are two documents on the record namely the application and the receipt for refund of the amount which has been made by the counsel for the respondent. I find that the mistake is bonafide and not such which would invite proceedings for contempt. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. Arb. Case 47 of 2004 Alongwith Arb. Case No. 51 of 2004 Arbitration Case No. 47 of 2004 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Ankush Sood, Addl. Advocate General for the petitioner. Shri J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tanushree Kalia, Advocate, for the respondent. Arbitration Case No. 51 of 2004 Shri J. S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ankush Sood, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent. Heard in part. List on 27th October, 2009 for further hearing. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. Arb. Case 51 of 2004 4.11.2009 Present: Shri J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tanushree Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. for the respondent. List alongwith Arbitration Case No. 47 of 2004. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. RFA 128 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Raman Sethi, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Heard in part. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the respondents, which is not opposed, list on 13th October, 2009 for further hearing. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. CS 21 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the defendants. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the defendants, which is not opposed, list after three weeks. November 4, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge. FAO 303 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate vice Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the respondent, which is not opposed, list after two weeks. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. Arb. Case 5 of 2004 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Ankush Sood, Addl.A.G. for the petitioner. Shri J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. Heard in part. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the respondent, which is not opposed, list on 13th October, 2009 for further hearing. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. FAO 472 of 2009 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate, for the appellant. CMP(M) No. 1067 of 2009 Notice be issued to the respondents through ordinary process as well as registered AD post. Reply, if any, be filed before the next date. Process fee for the service of respondents be filed in accordance with the rules. The case shall not be listed in Court for non-filing of process fee.The Registry is directed that in case no process fee is filed in accordance with rules and within the time granted by the Deputy Registrar or Registrar (Inspection), this application shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. Arb.Case 28 of 2007 4.11.2009 Present: Shri N.K.Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. Heard in part. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is not opposed, list in the second week of November, 2009 for further hearing. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. Arb. Case 25 of 2007 4.11.2009 Present: Shri N.K. Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. List alongwith Arbitration Case No. 28 of 2007. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. COPC(T) 79 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri D.R. Sood, Advocate vice Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is not opposed, list after four weeks. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. CWP 294 of 2007 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. My attention has been invited to the order passed by the Supreme Court of India in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 19659/2007. The order was passed by that Court on 23rd March, 2009 directing this Court to dispose of this writ petition within a period of three months from production of the order. The case was taken up by this Court on 16th May, 2008. On 23rd May, 2008 a statement was made before this Court that the matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court without inviting my attention to the order of the Supreme Court. Again on 13th July, 2009, an order was passed by the Chief Justice to be listed for admission/order after two weeks. The case was again listed on 4th September, 2009 and at the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, adjourned for 7th September, 2009 for hearing. List on 10th September, 2009 for final hearing. It is clarified that no adjournment shall be granted. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. CR 214 of 2004 4.11.2009 Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the respondents, which is not opposed, list after three weeks. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. FAO 303 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri N.K.Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. Heard in part. List on 8th September, 2009 for further hearing. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. RSA 373 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri V.D. Khidtta, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. CMP No. 660 of 2008 Heard. The parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land. Application stands disposed of. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. CS 131 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Shri Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for the defendant. Shri Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant. OMP 168 of 2008 This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Shri Navin Vahi for being impleaded as party in the suit on the allegations that he has purchased the land from Puran Chand Sood and is therefore necessary party as any decree passed by this Court would adversely affect his interest. Reply has been filed to this application and a number of grounds have been taken by the plaintiff-non- applicant for resisting his impleadment. The plaintiff also pleads in paragraph 8 of the plaint that when the defendant was approached by the respective husbands of the plaintiffs for getting the sale deed registered on or about 3.1.2006 they were told by the husband of the defendant that there was an injunction order which has been passed with respect to the property in dispute and as such sale deed could not be executed. The plaintiffs continued that this was the first point of time when they came to know that some litigation is pending in the trial Court i.e. the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. At that stage, the plaintiff could have impleaded the applicant as defendant-respondent in the suit. However, when the applicant himself is interested to join the proceedings, there is no impediment in case he is impleaded as defendant in the suit subject to all exceptions. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. This order has been passed -2- keeping in view the fact that the impleadment of the applicant is absolutely necessary for the adjudication of the suit. This application is accordingly disposed of. CS 131 of 2008 Let written statement on behalf of newly added defendant be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Replication, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. CR 28 of 2005 4.11.2009 Present: Shri D.R. Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel. This revision petition is disposed of with a direction as given in order dated 18.5.2009. Parties shall maintain status quo till the suit is disposed of. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. RSA 275 of 2006 4.11.2009 Present: Shri J.R. Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the respondents. The record of the case shows that repeated adjournments have been granted to the appellant. This appeal was filed on 26th June, 2006 and till date there are no effective proceedings save and except issuance of notice to the respondent. List the matter on 25th May, 2009. It is clarified that no other or further adjournment shall be granted and appeal shall be disposed of on its merits. November 4, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J. RSA 72 of 2007 4.11.2009 Present: Shri Ajay Sharma,