Karam Singh v. Raj Kumar

$~8.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.606/2017 & CM No.20446/2017 (for stay). KARAM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ankit Jain with Mr. Sarvesh, Adv.

versus RAJ KUMAR ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare and Mr.

Ratish Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

% 24.07.2017 1.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 8th March, 2017 in CS No.2207/2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge (Shahdara), Karkardooma, Delhi directing evidence to be led on the application filed by the son of the petitioner / defendant for his appointment as guardian, for the purpose of the suit, of the petitioner / defendant averring that the petitioner / defendant owing to his mental health is unable to look after his own interest. 2.

Notice of the petition was issued and the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff appears.

3.

Though the respondent / plaintiff has instituted the suit from which this petition arises, for recovery of possession of immoveable property from the petitioner / defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages / mesne profits and should be in a hurry to have the same decided, but the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff insists on evidence on the issue framed being led.

CM(M) No.606/2017

4.

It has been informed to the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff that recording of evidence on application aforesaid of the son of the petitioner / defendant to be appointed as guardian of the petitioner / defendant will delay the own case of the respondent / plaintiff and the application can be allowed on the basis of affidavit of the son of the petitioner / defendant which is stated to be accompanied with copies of medical records of the petitioner / defendant. However the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff insists. 5.

No prejudice is found to be caused to the petitioner / defendant by the impugned order; rather it is felt that it is the respondent / plaintiff who is prejudiced by the impugned order as the same would delay proceedings in suit of the respondent / plaintiff.

6.

Dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 24, 2017 'pp'..

CM(M) No.606/2017