Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Meena Kumari – Appellant
Versus
EDMC – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court allowed exemption applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner aggrieved by delay in stay application. (Para 3) |
| 3. stay applications require expeditious handling. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court directs timely resolution of stay application. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. demolition action stayed until decision on application. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. petition disposed of as directed. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
CM APPL. 28070/2022 (exemption) and CM APPL. 28071/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CM(M) 584/2022 & CM APPL. 28069/2022 (stay)
3. The petitioner, in this petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASCJ") has adjourned an application, filed by the petitioner with Civil Suit 252/2022 (Meena Kumari v. EDMC) seeking stay of the proposed demolition of the petitioner's premises on as many as seven occasions, without taking up the application for decision. In fact, on one occasion, i.e. 28th February, 2022, the earlier learned ASCJ passed the following order:
"28.02.2022
In terms of Hon'ble High Court Order, all the cases listed
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
