← Library
High Court of DelhiRC.REV./537/2016

Subodh Singhal v. M/S Hemant Khandelwal (Huf)

2017-09-08Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw2 pages

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 537/2016 SUBODH SINGHAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Adv.

Versus

M/S HEMANT KHANDELWAL (HUF) ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

% 08.09.2017 CM No.42616/2016 (for exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

RC.REV. 537/2016 & CM No.42615/2016 (for stay) 3.

Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advocate seeks adjournment on behalf of the petitioners, pleading non-availability of Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Advocate.

4.

This petition has been listed on 18th November, 2016, 6th December, 2016, 13th January, 2017, 17th February, 2017 and 4th May, 2017 and on each of which dates adjournment was sought and notice even has not been issued though the counsel for the respondents has been appearing on caveat. 5.

On the aforesaid dates, Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Mr. Ajay Jain, Mr. Nikunj Saluja, Mr. Narender Pal Singh and Mr. Charanjeet Singh, Advocates appeared for the petitioner.

6.

It has as such been enquired from Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advocate appearing today as to where are all the other counsels who have been appearing in the past.

RC.REV. 537/2016

7.

The counsel states that all the aforesaid counsels and Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Advocate are partners but Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar is to argue the matter.

8.

It is not understandable that when so many partners are available, why anyone else who has been appearing in the past is unable to argue. 9.

The counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has already executed the order (dated 6th August, 2016 in Case No.E-202/2014 of the Court of Commercial Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of eviction impugned in this petition. 10.

Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advocate, on enquiry states that his vakalatnma is not there in this petition on behalf of the petitioner. Thus his appearance is no appearance in law.

Dismissed in default.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 „gsr‟..

RC.REV. 537/2016