Kk Lee v. Ram Prakash Kalra & Anr

judgment were that the action of the NDMC was neither illegal or arbitrary; defence of defendant no. 1 had been categorical that their action was as per due process of law.

¶11Substantial questions of law have been embodied on page 20 of the appeal.

¶12No substantial question of law has arisen.

¶13The appeals are dismissed in limini. (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE MAY 23, 2011 acm R.S.A.84 of 2009 and 87 of 2009 jJo

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI o/g Judgmentdeliveredon:23.05.2011 + RSA No.87/2009 M/S. K.K. LEE Appellant Through: Mr. Anoop Bagai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Joseph and Mr. Sunit Anand, Advocates Versus SHRI RAM PRAKASH KALRA & ANR. Respondent Through: Mr. G.D. Chotmurada, Counsel for R-1 CORAM: HON BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEETKAUR 1. V/hetherthe Reportersoflocal papersmay be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ttvufrmfET KAUR. T. (Oral) For orders see file of RSA no. 34 ol 2009. (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE MAY 23, 2011 acm R.S.A.87 of 2009 ^ ^ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI o/^ Judgmentdeliveredon;23.05.2011 + RSA No.84/2009 K.K. LEE . 4- Appellant Through: Mr. Anoop Bagai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Joseph and Mr. Sunit Anand, Advocates Versus NDMC & ORS. " ^ . Respondent Througli: Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate for NDMC Mr. G.D. Chotmurada, Counsel for R-2 + RSA No.87/2009 M/S. K.K. LEE ^ ^ Appellant Through: Mr. Anoop Bagai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Joseph and Mr. Sunit Anand, Advocates Versus SHRI RAM PRAKASH KALRA & ANR. Respondent Through: Mr. G.D. Chotmurada, Counsel for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEE l KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? R.S.A.84of2009 and 87of2009 Psg® 1 ® n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? TNnFRMEET KAUR. T. (Oral) These are two appeals which have impugned the common judgmentand decree dated 20.01.2009which had endorsed the findings of the trial judge dated 19.4.2006 wherebythe two suits filed by the plaintiffM/s. K.K. Lee (i.e. a suit for perpetual injunction and the second suit for mandatoryinjunctionand damages)had been dismissed. The impugnedjudgmentwhile endorsingthe findings of the trial judgehad, however,modifiedthe judgmentof the TrialJudge holding that Section 69 of the Indian PartnershipAct, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Partnership Act') is not apphcable;the suit filed by the plaintiffis maintainable. The suit had been dismissed for the reason that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) on the basis of which the suit was filed was not a pow-er cf attorney authorizing the attorney holderto depose on behalfof the plaintiff,the court had also noted that even on merits the claim of the plaintiff did not entitle him to a relief. 2. The plaintiffis stated to be a partnershipfirm. The suit has been filed through its partner Sh. L. Aches Khong. Contention was that defendant no. 2 had constructed a shop on the backside of shop no. 77, Khan Market, New Delhi in R.S.A,84 of 2009 and 87 of 2009 Page2of 6 the year 1983-84. No action was taken against him by municipalbody. Act of defendantno. 2stoodconfirmed. The plaintiffhad takenthe said shop on rentfrom defendantno. 2; intention of defendant no. 2 thereafter became dishonest; defendantno. 2 in connivancewith defendantno. 3 got the said shop demohshedfrom defendantno. 1 on 4.3.98. This demohtion was made by defendantno. 1 without service of mandatory notice. The plaintiff has been deprived of opportunityof representinghis case. Suit was filed seeking restoration of the shop as also a restraint against defendants from interfering in the suit property. 3. Defendant no. 1 (NDMC) contested the suit. It was stated that the action was taken after conforming to the procedure. 4. Defendant no. 2 admitted the construction of the shop; i.e. its letting out to the plaintiff; rest of the averments were denied. 5. Defendant no. 3 did not file any written statement. 6. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: (i) Whetherthe suit is not maintainable,part of shop includedroot under tenancy of plaintiff having been demolished? OPD, (ii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, similar suit being pending between the same R.S.A.84 of 2009 and 87 of 2009 3of6 ) parties? OPD, (m