Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Govind Swarup – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the pendency of the application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 pending before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter as "ATMCD") at Tis Hazari Courts, whereunder the petitioners, who are the appellants before the ATMCD, sought directions to the respondents to file on record documents pertaining to Shop No. 635, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter as "Shop No. 635") in respect of which, according to the petitioners, sealing order dated 05.11.2020 was passed and demolition order also was passed.
2. Ms. Neena Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in respect of the aforesaid shop there was a sealing and demolition order passed by the respondent, learned counsel submits that in respect of the said shop an appeal was filed by the owner of the said shop and while the appeal was pending, the said owner withdrew the appeal before the ATMCD. She further submits that after having withdrawn the said appeal, subsequently the appellant in that case had opened the said sho
The court's decision was based on the application of Section 151 of CPC and the need to address discrimination and inaction by the respondent.
The court affirmed the necessity of a personal hearing before administrative decisions regarding de-sealing are made, emphasizing the importance of due process.
Balancing the interests of the petitioner and the actions taken by the respondents in cases of unauthorized construction.
Subsequent purchasers have rights to challenge unlawful administrative actions, and temporary relief can be granted to allow further appeals.
The court has the discretion to decline certain prayers while allowing alternative reliefs, taking into account the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.
Sub-rule(3) of Rule 1A of Order 8 of CPC, provides a second opportunity to defendant to produce documents in Court along with written statement, with leave of court.
Sealing orders related to building renovations cannot stand if there is insufficient evidence of load-bearing walls, and if the work conforms to building bye-laws.
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
