← Library
High Court of DelhiCM(M)/993/2017

Baljit Kaur v. Kanwarjit Singh & ANR

2017-11-20Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw2 pages

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 993/2017 BALJIT KAUR ..... Petitioner Through:

None.

Versus

KANWARJIT SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Manoj Sharma & Mr. Kapil Kaushik, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

% 19.01.2018 Review Petition No.40/2018 (of the respondent no.2) & CM No.2332/2018 (for condonation of 25 days delay in re-filing thereof) 1.

The respondent no.2 / review petitioner seeks review of the orders dated 12th September, 2017 and 20th November, 2017 allowing the CM(M) No.993/2017.

2.

The counsel for the respondent no.2 / review petitioner draws attention to para no.6 of the order dated 20th November, 2017, contending that this Court had therein enquired whether there is any other document / pleading, in which the respondent no.2 / review petitioner had objected to the petitioners seeking eviction of the respondent no.1. The counsel for the respondent no.2 / review petitioner further contends that the application of the respondent no.2 / review petitioner for impleadment in the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 was at page 43 of the CM(M) No.993/2017 and in paras no.3 to 7, thereof the respondent no.2 had objected to the eviction of the respondent no.1. CM(M) 993/2017

3.

I have enquired from the counsel for the respondent no.2 / review petitioner, whether not the registered lease deed dated 26th June, 2002 is between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 only, as noted in para no.4 of the order dated 12th September, 2017.

4.

The counsel for the respondent no.2 / review petitioner though earlier replied in the affirmative but at the time of dictation states that the petitioner had executed a registered lease deed on behalf of all the owners of the property. It is however not disputed that the registered lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 only. 5.

For the aforesaid reason and for the reasons stated in the orders of which review is sought, particularly in paras no.11 and 12 of the order dated 20th November, 2017, no ground for review is made out. Dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JANUARY 19, 2018 'gsr'..

CM(M) 993/2017