Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Khalifa Chain Sukh – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 1st October, 2021 by which the applications of the Respondent/Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter as `DDA') under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (hereinafter " LIMITATION ACT ") for condonation of delay, have been allowed by the Trial Court in CS No.152/20 titled Sh. Khalifa Chain Sukh v. DDA, thereby setting aside the ex-parte judgment/decree of the Trial Court, dated 16th November, 2019, and restoring the suit.
3. The brief facts are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") against the DDA seeking a restraint order in respect of demolition of shops. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of 12 shops bearing Pvt. Nos. 1 to 12, situated over Plot No. 3A/112, Mpl. No. 11957, W.E.A, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (hereinafter "suit property"). The reliefs sought in the plaint are as under:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree
Government agencies must meet the same standards as private parties when seeking to condone delays; the safeguarding of public land is paramount in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that established decrees must be honored and that non-compliance with prior court orders can invalidate claims to retain possession of property.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of payments made by occupants, coupled with evidence of regularization or lawful occupation, determines their status as authoriz....
Once land is acquired by the government and physical possession is taken over, any right of a private person stands extinguished. Additionally, any purchase of public land is non-est in the eyes of t....
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard t....
The judiciary's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring the authority of subordinate courts, not correcting factual errors.
The specific mode of service required by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Rules must be complied with, and the delay in filing an appeal must be satisfactori....
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
