O R D E R

% 26.02.2015

1. The suit has been placed before the Court by the Joint Registrar, who has recorded in the order dated 10.02.2015 that the plaintiffs have not taken steps to effectively prosecute the present suit.

2. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that the defendants have not been served with the summons in the suit and the plaintiffs were granted repeated opportunities to file an application for substituted service on the defendants, but to no avail. Pertinently, the plaintiffs had not appeared before the Joint Registrar on the last date of hearing. Same is the position today.

3. It appears that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the present suit, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

rkb $~18.

+ CS(OS) 1821/2012 NEXUS DESIGN PROJECT PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sacchin Puri, Advocate with Mr. Khowaja Siddiqui, Mr. Mayank Wadhwa and Mr. Abhinav Dang, Advocates versus TRAVEL FOOD SERVICES(DELHI TERMINAL 3) PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Sureskha Raman, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocate for D-1. Mr. S.S. Sastry, Advocate for D-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

O R D E R

% 26.02.2015

1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsels for the parties had been asked if they were ready and willing to submit themselves to arbitration.

2. Counsel for the plaintiff was agreeable. However, counsels for the defendants No.1 and 2 had sought time to obtain instructions.

3. Today, learned counsel for the defendant No.2 states on instructions from his client that they are agreeable to arbitration. However, counsel for the defendant No.1 states that as per her

CS(OS) 1821/2012 Page 1 of 2

instructions, her clients are not inclined to submit themselves to arbitration for the reason that there is no arbitration clause governing the plaintiff and the defendant No.1.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, list for arguments in I.A. 19195/2013, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule

17 CPC, on 5th August, 2015.

HIMA KOHLI, J rkb

CS(OS) 1821/2012 Page 2 of 2

$~13.

+ CS(OS) 1849/2011 M/S ASHISH SERVICES ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate versus SANJEEV GUPTA ..... Defendant Through: Ms. Lakshi Gupta, wife of defendant in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

O R D E R

% 26.02.2015 I.A. 20487/2014 (by the defendant u/O XVIII R 17 CPC for recalling PW-1 for cross-examination)

1. On the last date of hearing, the defendant had appeared in person and sought an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel was not available. Subject to payment of costs of ‘15,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff, the application was adjourned for arguments for today.

2. Today, Ms. Lakshmi Gupta, wife of the defendant appears and states that her husband has met with an accident and has been hospitalised. She states that the counsel engaged by her husband is

CS(OS) 1849/2011 Page 1 of 2

not appearing as her husband has not cleared his fee. As for the costs imposed vide order dated 17.10.2014 and 11.12.2014, she is ignorant of the said orders but assures the Court that if granted some reasonable time, compliances shall be made.

3. Further period of four weeks’ is granted to the defendant to deposit the costs of ‘2,000/- in terms of the order dated 17.10.2014 and pay the costs of ‘15,000/- to the plaintiff through counsel in terms of the order dated 11.12.2014 against proof of deposit/payment.

4. List on 8th May, 2015.

HIMA KOHLI, J rkb

CS(OS) 1849/2011 Page 2 of 2

$~24.

+ CS(OS) 1657/2014 and CC 14/2015 SANJAY SETHI & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Advocate versus VIJAY SETHI ..... Defendant Through: Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

O R D E R

% 26.02.2015

1. Neither side has filed the original documents. As a result, vide order dated 23.02.2015, the learned Joint Registrar had concluded the admission and denial of documents. Counsels for the parties state that they may be granted further time to file their respective orig