S B Gupta ( Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors v. DDA

O R D E R %

14.11.2017 CM No.41183/2017 in CM(M) 1287/2017 & CM No.41180/2017 in CM(M) 1286/2017 (both for exemption)

¶1Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶2The applications are disposed of. CM(M) 1287/2017 & CMs No.41182/2017 (for stay) & 41184/2017 (for condonation of 257 days delay) & CM(M) 1286/2017 & CMs No.41179/2017 (for stay) & 41181/2017 (for condonation of 257 days delay)

¶3These petitions, both under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugn the common order [dated 28th November, 2016 in CS No.589/2014

(9157/2016) & CS No.703/2014 (12694/2016) of the Court of Civil Judge-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] closing the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶4The petitioners/plaintiff had thereafter filed applications in the suits for re-opening of their evidence and which applications were dismissed vide orders dated 1st June, 2017.

¶5The petitioners/plaintiffs had earlier preferred CM(M) 821/2017 & CM(M) 822/2017 impugning the orders dated 1st June, 2017 and which petitions were dismissed vide order dated 12th October, 2017.

¶6I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, as to why this second round of litigation.

¶7The counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs states that in CM(M) 821/2017 & CM(M) 822/2017, challenge was made to the order dated 1st June, 2017 of dismissal of applications for re-opening of evidence and which challenge in order dated 12th October, 2017 was held to be not maintainable in view of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ravi Santosh Reddy (2016) 14 SCC 238 and these petitions have been filed impugning the original order dated 28th November, 2016 closing the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶8Undoubtedly, so. However, in para 8 of the order dated 12th October, 2017, it was observed that though CM(M) 821/2017 & CM(M) 822/2017 were liable to be dismissed as not maintainable but even otherwise, no merit was found therein and thereafter in paras 9 to 12 of the order dated 12th October, 2017, reasons were given as to why even on merits, the

petitioners/plaintiffs had no case to challenge the order of closing of their evidence.

¶9The counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, though not disputing the aforesaid, contends that though the suits were filed in the years 1993 & 1997 but in the suit of 1993, the respondent/defendant filed written statement only on 20th January, 2011.

¶10More than six years have elapsed therefrom also.

¶11The counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has next contended that the affidavits by way of examination-in-chief of one of the plaintiffs was got attested on 22nd March, 2016 but the then advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs did not place the same on record.

¶12Having already dismissed the challenge on merits on 12th October, 2017, it is not open to me to re-hear and re-decide the matters.

¶13Dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2017 bs..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1286/2017 S.B. GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Adv. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. AND CM(M) 1287/2017 S.B. GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Adv. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW