Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2261

CM(M) 1204/2022

Page 1 of 5

$~11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 23.03.2023

+

CM(M) 1204/2022 & CM APPL. 48271/2022

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL

..... Petitioner

versus

SMT REKHA GOEL & ANR

..... Respondent

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Mr.

Bharat

Bhushan

Dhingra,

Advocate alongwith petitioner.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, Advocate for

R-1.

CORAM:

JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in CS

SCJ No. 627/2016 titled ‘Rekha Goel vs. Dinesh Kumar Gupta’

whereby an application under order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to “CPC”) seeking impleadment by

the applicant was dismissed.

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

2.

The admitted fact of the matter is that the parties, i.e., the

petitioner and respondent no.1 are husband and wife. It appears that

there is an acrimonious relation between them for a long time.

3.

The petitioner submits that there are two properties, which the

petitioner asserts to be owner of. One property which is situated in the

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:29.03.2023

16:25:32

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2261

CM(M) 1204/2022

Page 2 of 5

Central District i.e. 4579, Gali Nathan Singh, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi –

110006, is a property which the petitioner claims to have received by

hierarchy by virtue of the legal heirs of his father relinquishing their

rights over the said suit property in favour of the petitioner.

4.

There is another property situated in the North District i.e. B-

6/237, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi – 110085. It is stated that in that

property, the petitioner is residing at the first floor and the

respondent/wife is residing at the ground floor.

5.

The dispute pertains to the rent accruing from the property at

Pahari Dhiraj, which was in occupation of a tenant.

6.

The respondent No. 1 claims to be owner of the said property at

Pahari Dhiraj on the basis of a purported sale deed executed by the

father-in-law of the respondent No.1 in her favour. It is also asserted

that the said sale deed was witnessed by the petitioner himself. This is

the property on which the respondent asserts her ownership and on that

basis also asserted that she is the landlady.

7.

The respondent No.1’s case, on that basis is, that from the period

05.04.2014 through till 05.01.2016, the rent payable by the tenant in

occupation of the property, which was payable to her, instead was

remitted to the petitioner.

8.

The respondent No.1 in the meantime filed a suit for injunction

against the petitioner. By way of the said Suit No. 333/2013, respondent

No.1 sought permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner

from interfering with the possession of the property as well as

prohibiting the petitioner from collecting rent from the tenant in the said

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:29.03.2023

16:25:32

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2261

CM(M) 1204/2022

Page 3 of 5

property as also simultaneously to get the property at Rohini vacated.

9.

In Suit No.333/2013 the tenant was got impleaded as

party/respondent while the suit was pending. It is in this suit, that the

learned Trial Court, in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC

passed the order whereby the rent @ Rs. 13,500/- each was determined

as payable from the co-tenants. Since the said amount was not

deposited consequent to the orders on the application under Order

XXXIX Rule 10 CPC, the defence of the defendant was struck off. The

said suit is stated to be pending adjudication before the learned Trial

Court at Rohini.

10.

The respondent had filed another suit bearing CS SCJ No.