Babita vs.omwati & Anr

Babita vs Omwati & Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 14, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1220596

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1220596
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 14, 2019
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babita

Respondent

Omwati & Anr

Excerpt

babita $~1 * % + in the high court of delhi at new delhi date of order:14. 01.2019 c.r.p. 259/2018 ........ petitioner through: mr. medanshu tripathi & mr. satish rana, advocates. versus omwati & anr ........ respondents through: mr. nikhil bahri, advocate for r-1. ms. prabjot kaur, advocate for r-2. coram: hon'ble mr. justice vinod goel % order1401.2019 c.m. no.51002/2018 (for exemption) allowed, subject to all just exceptions. the application is disposed of. c.r.p. no.259/2018 & c.m. no.51003/2018 (for stay) 1. the impugned order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the court of learned civil judge-i, new delhi, dismissing the application of the... petitioner under order vii rule 11 cpc is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision petition. c.r.p. 259/2018 page 1 of 2 2. the ld. counsel for the... petitioner contends that prior to the filing of the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction by the respondent no.1/plaintiff against the petitioner and respondent no.2, no pre-requisite notice u/s 80 cpc was given to respondent no.2 and as such, plaint should have been rejected by the learned civil judge.3. during the course of the arguments, this court brought to the notice of ld. counsel for the petitioner the sub-section (3) of section 478 of the delhi municipal corporation act, 1957, which provides that the requisite notice as mentioned in sub section (1) need not be given to the corporation in suits where the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit.4. in light of the said provision, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the revision petition.5. accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. the application, being c.m. no.51003/2018, stands disposed of. january14 2019 “sandeep” c.r.p. 259/2018 (vinod goel) judge page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

BABITA $~1 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order:

14. 01.2019 C.R.P. 259/2018 ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Medanshu Tripathi & Mr. Satish Rana, Advocates. Versus OMWATI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. Nikhil Bahri, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Prabjot Kaur, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ORDER

1401.2019 C.M. No.51002/2018 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. C.R.P. No.259/2018 & C.M. No.51003/2018 (for stay) 1. The impugned order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge-I, New Delhi, dismissing the application of the... Petitioner

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is the subject-matter of challenge in this Revision Petition. C.R.P. 259/2018 Page 1 of 2 2. The Ld. counsel for the... Petitioner

contends that prior to the filing of the suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff against the petitioner and Respondent No.2, no pre-requisite notice u/s 80 CPC was given to Respondent No.2 and as such, plaint should have been rejected by the learned Civil Judge.

3. During the course of the arguments, this court brought to the notice of Ld. counsel for the petitioner the sub-Section (3) of Section 478 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which provides that the requisite notice as mentioned in sub section (1) need not be given to the Corporation in suits where the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit.

4. In light of the said provision, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the revision petition.

5. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The application, being C.M. No.51003/2018, stands disposed of. JANUARY14 2019 “sandeep” C.R.P. 259/2018 (VINOD GOEL) JUDGE Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2019 Same Parties Babita vs Omwati & Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition