Kulan Rukhsana Amin vs Gaurang Kanth

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Kulan Rukhsana Amin – Appellant
Versus
Gaurang Kanth – Respondent

Table of Content
1. suit filed for declaration and possession (Para 5 , 6)
2. arguments for and against impleadment (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. doctrine of lis pendens and its implications (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. discussion on substitution rights (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final decision on applications (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

I.A. 9939/2021 (under Section 151 of CPC for delay in filing the reply to the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC)

1. For the grounds and reasons stated therein, the delay in filing the reply is condoned.

2. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 7770/2021 (under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the plaint)

3. Mr. S.S. Jauhar, counsel for the Applicant/Plaintiffs states that he has instructions not to press this application.

4. The application is dismissed as not pressed.

I.A. 7771/2021 (under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC for adding the new purchasers of the suit property as party Defendants), & I.A. 7769/2021 (under Order 22 Rule 10 r/w/ Section 151 of CPC for substitution of Defendants No. 1 and 2 and impleadment of Applicants

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTSANJEEV NARULAKulan Rukhsana Amin – AppellantVersusGaurang Kanth – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Kulan Rukhsana Amin – Appellant
Versus
Gaurang Kanth – Respondent