Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2186 (DEL)

Hardeep Kaur v. Sadhu Singh

2015-11-18

HIMA KOHLI

body2015
ORDER : 1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 16.7.2015. On 16.7.2015, a final decree was passed in respect of the factory premises situated at Kishan Ganj, Delhi, thus leaving the residential premises bearing No.2113/164, Tri Nagar, Delhi. 2. As for the residential premises, it was noted that after passing of the preliminary decree on 16.07.2013, the Local Commissioner had submitted a report stating inter alia that the said premises comprising of three floors and a partly constructed terrace on the third floor, can be divided by metes and bounds in terms of a proposal made in the site plan enclosed with the said report and marked as Ex.-A. On the said date, the defendant No.1 was present along with one Mr. Jitender Pal Singh. It was noted that neither side had filed any objections to the report of the Local Commissioner. Counsel for the plaintiffs had stated that his clients did not have any objection to the suit premises being partitioned by metes and bounds, as suggested by the Local Commissioner in his report. However, the defendant No.1 had requested that orders may be deferred so that defendants No.2 & 3 could be present on the next date. At the request of the defendant No.1, the case was adjourned to 22.7.2015. 3. On 22.7.2015, lawyers were abstaining from appearing in Court and the case was adjourned to 12.8.2015. On 12.8.2015, the son of the defendant No.2 and nephew of the defendant No.3 were present on the first call and they had sought an adjournment. However, since the plaintiffs were not represented, the case was passed over. On the second call, the defendants’ relatives had absented themselves. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 22.9.2015, with directions issued to the counsel for the plaintiffs to give a written intimation of the next date of hearing to the other side, so as to ensure their presence. 4. On 22.9.2015, Mr. Mukhwinder Singh, son of the defendant No.1 and nephew of the defendant No.2 and Mr. Manmeet Singh, grandson of the defendant No.3 was present and they handed over the medical certificates of the defendants No.2 & 3 and sought an adjournment. The defendants were duly accommodated and last opportunity was granted to them to remain present on the next date of hearing either themselves or through a counsel. Manmeet Singh, grandson of the defendant No.3 was present and they handed over the medical certificates of the defendants No.2 & 3 and sought an adjournment. The defendants were duly accommodated and last opportunity was granted to them to remain present on the next date of hearing either themselves or through a counsel. It was made clear that if they remain absent, then the Court shall proceed to pass further orders, without awaiting their presence. 5. Today, Mr. Satyarthi, learned counsel enters appearance for the defendants No.1 to 3 and is accompanied by Shri Rajinder Singh, the elder son of the defendant No.1. He submits that he has been engaged in the case only yesterday and does not have any instructions from the defendants. 6. It is most unfortunate that the defendants have engaged a counsel at the eleventh hour and the counsel is appearing today without any instructions. Sufficient leeway has already been given to the defendants. The Court is not inclined to accommodate the defendants any further. The case has been lingering since 16.7.2015 and three adjournments have already been granted to the defendants only for them to convey their instructions directly or through counsel, but to no avail. It may be reiterated that till date, neither side has filed any objections to the report of the Local Commissioner in respect of the residential premises. 7. Counsel for the plaintiffs points out that all the parties are in occupation of the different portions of the suit premises and the Local Commissioner has proposed that all the parties can be accommodated in the suit premises that can be divided by metes and bounds in terms of the proposal made in the site plan and marked as Ex.-A, which is acceptable to her clients. 8. In view of the fact that none of the parties have filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner in respect of the suit premises, the same is accepted. The suit is decreed by holding that all the four parties to the present suit shall be entitled to 1/4th share each in premises bearing No.2113/164, Tri Nagar, Delhi, as reflected in the site plan marked as Ex.-A and enclosed with the Local Commissioner’s report filed under index dated 10.11.2014. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. 9. The suit is decreed by holding that all the four parties to the present suit shall be entitled to 1/4th share each in premises bearing No.2113/164, Tri Nagar, Delhi, as reflected in the site plan marked as Ex.-A and enclosed with the Local Commissioner’s report filed under index dated 10.11.2014. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. 9. At this stage, counsel for the plaintiffs draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 16.7.2013 and states that as per the said order, all the parties were required to bear the fee of the Local Commissioner to the extent of 1/4th share each. However, defendants No.1 to 3 had failed to pay their share of the Local Commissioner’s fee, which had to be entirely borne by the plaintiffs. She states that vide order 6.11.2013, it was made clear that the Local Commissioner’s fee borne by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendants shall be adjusted at the time of passing of a final decree. 10. Accordingly, the defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to the plaintiffs towards their share of the Local Commissioner’s fee within four weeks, failing which the said amount shall be recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendants along with interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. 16.7.2013, till realization. 11. The suit is disposed of, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. File be consigned to the record room.