1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11819 OF 2016) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH Lrs. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27487 OF 2017) J U D G M E N T A.K.SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant entered into an agreement to sell dated 09.09.1994 with the respondent in respect of Second Floor with Terrace forming part of property No. A/11, N.D.S.E Part-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 27 lakhs. The respondent paid Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant as earnest money and took the possession of the suit property. The balance sale consideration i.e. Rs. 26 lakhs was payable at the time of registration of sale deed which
2 was to be executed within four months. The appellant after taking all necessary permissions requested the respondent to perform his part of the contract. However, the respondent did not turn to perform the contractual obligations. The appellant filed a suit for possession being CS(OS) No. 1143 of 1996 of the suit property and as also for mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of the possession. The respondent filed written statement wherein he claimed that his possession was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was further alleged that the appellant was liable to execute sale deed after taking necessary permission from the concerned authorities but they failed to do so and violated the contractual obligations. It was also alleged that the respondent was not liable to pay any damages since he was occupying the suit property pursuant to the agreement to sell. 3. It is worth mentioning that after filing of suit by the appellant in the year 1996, the respondent herein also filed a suit for specific performance being CS (OS No. 1874/1997 against the appellant. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2005. 4. Issues were framed on 04.03.2003 in the suit filed by the appellant. However, the appellant filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC being I.A. No. 1462 of 2011 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.02.2011. The learned Single Judge
3 returned to the finding that the respondent had failed to abide by the terms of the agreement to sell since he did not pay balance sale consideration inasmuch as continued to occupy the suit property for a long period of about 17 years against the earnest money i.e. Rs. 1 lakhs only and directed the respondent to handover the peaceful possession to the appellant. Further, the appellant and respondent were directed to led evidence in respect of damages/mesne profit and other remaining issues. 5. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion vide order dated 10.01.2014 that the suit property was in illegal occupation and as per the market rate of the rent in the area where the property in question is situated, the appellant is entitled for mesne profit and damages. 6. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent filed RFA No. 119 of 2015 before the Division Bench of the High Court after a lapse of 623 days. The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2015, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, held as under: “7. Vide impugned judgment dated January 10, 2014 the learned Single Judge noted that plaintiffs have proved on record another lease deed dated April 28, 2009 in respect of property being No.A-12, Ring Road, NDSE, Part-I which was adjacent to the suit property, however, the said lease related to the entire property and
4 the property in question was second floor of the building. Thus determining the rate of rent of the second floor at Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. on the date of filing of the suit and the area of the suit property being 2000 sq. ft. the learned Single Judge calculated mesne profit at Rs. 1.20 lakh per month with further stipulation of 20% increase after every three years from the date of filing of the suit. While returning this finding the learned Single Judge committed serious flaw. The property in question in the present case was a terrace above the first floor and not a built up second floor. No evidence was led by the plaintiffs to show that even a terrace which was not built up would fetch rent and thus the defendant was liable to pay mesne profit. No doubt, Vikram Sandhu led no evidence, however, even on the basis of the evidence led by the plaintiffs there is no material to show that an unbuilt terrace can fetch some rent. Since the learned Single Judge confused the terrace to the second floor of the building as a built up area and granted the mesne profit on the same basis, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 8. No evidence was led by the plaintiffs for issue No. 6 & 7 as noted by the learned Single Judge. Hence, except that a decree of possession has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs they are not entitled to any other relief as prayed for. Thus the suit is liable to be dismissed with regard to issues Nos. 3,6&7.” 7. Hence this appeal. The grievance of the appellant is limited to grant of mesne profits and, therefore, that is the only focus of the present appeal. 8. We have heard the appellant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the respondent at length and perused the material placed on record. 9. From the facts noted above, two pertinent aspects become manifest, which are as under: (i) The suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of agreement stood dismissed way back in the year 2005 and the said
5 decree has attained finality. (ii) On the contrary, suit filed by the appellant for possession was decreed by the trial court, by allowing application of the appellant filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that not only the respondent was held not entitled to specific performance of the agreement, the possession of the premises with him was held to be wrongful which led to passing of the decree of possession in favour of the appellant. As a consequence, it follows that for a period in question when the respondent remain in possession of the premises, such possession was not lawful. It is on this basis that the appellant had also claimed mesne profits in the suit filed by him. These mesne profits were even granted by the trial court i.e. learned Single Judge of the High Court. This part of the decree has been set aside by the Division Bench in appeal on the ground that no evidence was led by the appellant. 11. It is correct that the appellant had not led any evidence on the issue of mesne profits though such an issue was specifically framed. However, in the interest of justice, the appellant could have been granted some reasonable compensation for the wrongful possession of the premises from the respondent herein. 12. Accordingly, we put it to the learned counsel for the respondent if the
6 respondent could pay some compensation. At our instance, the respondent has agreed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 11819 of 2016. Since the appellant who appeared in person is not satisfied with the amount so awarded and refused to accept the same, the respondent shall deposit the amount in the High Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It would be open to the appellant to withdraw this amount. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 13. Insofar as cross appeal of the respondent is concerned, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. .............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) .............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 23, 2018.
ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 27487/2017 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.) Date : 19-02-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Parties: Petitioner-in-person Mr. Bijender Chahar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Ms. Risha Mittal, Adv. Mbhrigu Dhami, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 23.02.2018. (ASHWANI THAKUR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 27487/2017 (XIV) Date : 19-01-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Parties Petitioner-in-person Mr. Bijender Chachar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Risha Mittal, Adv. Mr. Bhrigu Dhami, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the petitioner-in-person and the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Though one of the contentions of the petitioner appearing in person is that the High Court condoned the delay of 632 days in preferring the appeal by the respondent herein without even hearing the petitioner, we find that when the order was passed, the petitioner was present and with the consent of the parties, the appeal was taken up for final hearing and decision. Having regard to the above, the petitioner who appears in person submits that since the appeal has already been decided by the High Court on merits, he would confine his arguments to the correctness of the said order on merits. List the matter for hearing on 19.02.2018. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MADHU NARULA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 27487/2017 (XIV) Date : 11-01-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Parties Petitioner-in-person Mr. Bhrigu Dhami, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R An adjournment is sought for on the ground that Mr.Sandeep Sharma, the arguing counsel for the respondent, is indisposed. List the matter on 19 th January, 2018. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 27487/2017 (XIV) Date : 04-12-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Parties Petitioner-in-person Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhrigu Dhami, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the petitioner-in-person and the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 11.01.2018. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 27487/2017 (XIV) Date : 13-11-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Parties Petitioner-in-person Ms. Risha Mittal, Adv. Mr. Bhrigu Dhami, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We are informed that Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, has fallen sick and is not able to come to the Court. List the matters on 04.12.2017. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.50+62 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) WITH SLP (C)No. 27487/2017 Date : 30-10-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Burigu Dhami, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the petitioner-in-person and the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 13.11.2017. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27487/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-05-2017 in FAOOS No. 183/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) VIKRAM SANDHU Petitioner(s) VERSUS SARDAR BHAG SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LR K.S. GAHUNIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.) Date : 27-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhrigu Dhami, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 30.10.2017 along with SLP(C) NO. 11819/2016. (ASHWANI KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) Date : 23-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR Mr. Bhrigu Dhami, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The petitioner who appears in-person submits that he would like to argue the case himself and does not need legal assistance. The Amicus appointed by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee stands discharged. List on 30.10.2017. (ASHWANI THAKUR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.23 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SANJAY PARIHAR Diary No(s). 23121/2017 VIKRAM SANDHU Petitioner(s) VERSUS SARDAR BHAG SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LR K.S. GAHUNIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.93371/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Date : 06-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Aman Dhyani,Adv. Mr.Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in refiling the petition is condoned. Registry to proceed further. SANJAY PARIHAR Registrar SB
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) Date : 11-09-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditya Vashisth, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the petitioner-in-person and the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let a copy of the counter affidavit be supplied to the petitioner. List the matter on 23 rd October, 2017. The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall provide a counsel to prosecute the case of the petitioner. (NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) Date : 28-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Ms. Risha Mittal, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the respondent wants to file counter affidavit and seeks one week time for this purpose. List on 11.09.2017. (ASHWANI KUMAR) (MADHU NARULA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.114 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SANJAY PARIHAR Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) Date : 13-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR Mr. Sarthak Mannan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Petitioner-in-person is present. Ld. Counsel for the sole respondent concedes that he has been provided with a copy of the pleadings. He seeks and is given four weeks time to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of four weeks, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court with an appropriate office report. (SANJAY PARIHAR) Registrar PS
ITEM NO.32 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and substituted service and interim relief and office report) Date : 12/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Bhrigu Dhami,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R One week's time as last chance is given to the Ld.counsel for the petitioner to serve the copy of the pleadings on the sole respondent and the said respondent shall file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks thereafter. List the matter on 13.07.2017. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB
LISTED ON: 12.04.2017 BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT NO: 2 ITEM NO: 32 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 27.02.2017, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “The sole respondent has been served by publication. However, Mr.Ambar Qamaruddin, Ld.counsel undertakes to appear for the sole respondent. He seeks and is given four week's time to file the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. Ld.counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve the copy of pleading to the said respondent within one week after filing the vakalatnama. List the matter again on 12.04.2017. ” It is submitted that as directed above, Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, Advocate has on 08.04.2017 filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole respondent, but he has not filed counter-affidavit so far. Service is complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 11 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR P-1/RAVI
\224ITEM NO.32 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUSVIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and substituted service and interim relief and office report)Date : 12/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Bhrigu Dhami,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E ROne week's time as last chance is given to the Ld.counsel forthe petitioner to serve the copy of the pleadings on the solerespondent and the said respondent shall file the counter affidavitwithin a period of four weeks thereafter.List the matter on 13.07.2017. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB
ITEM NO.36 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and substituted service and interim relief and office report) Date : 27/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Ambar Qamaruddin,Adv. Ms.Risha Mittal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The sole respondent has been served by publication. However, Mr.Ambar Qamaruddin , Ld.counsel undertakes to appear for the sole respondent. He seeks and is given four week's time to file the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. Ld.counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve the copy of pleading to the said respondent within one week after filing the vakalatnama. List the matter again on 12.04.2017. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB
LISTED ON: 27.02.2017 BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT NO: 2 ITEM NO: 36 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 18.01.2017, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for substituted service in respect of the sole respondent and the same is allowed. Registry shall process the same as per rules/guidelines. List again on 27.02.2017. ” It is submitted that as directed above, show-cause notice for publication in respect of sole respondent was handed ovedr to the counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 20.1.2017 of Ld. Registrar (Misc.) on 24.01.2017. Counsel for the petitioner has on 20.02.2017 filed affidavit with proof of publication but no one has entered appearance so far. Service is complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR P-1 RAVI/01
þITEM NO.36 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUSVIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and substituted service and interim relief and office report)Date : 27/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Ambar Qamaruddin,Adv. Ms.Risha Mittal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RThe sole respondent has been served by publication. However, Mr.Ambar Qamaruddin , Ld.counsel undertakes to appearfor the sole respondent. He seeks and is given four week's time tofile the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. Ld.counsel for thepetitioner is directed to serve the copy of pleading to the saidrespondent within one week after filing the vakalatnama.List the matter again on 12.04.2017. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB
ITEM NO.52 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and substituted service and interim relief and office report) Date : 18/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for substituted service in respect of the sole respondent and the same is allowed. Registry shall process the same as per rules/guidelines. List the matter again on 27.02.2017. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB
LISTED ON: 18.01.2017 BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT NO: 2 ITEM NO: 52 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for permission to serve respondent by way of publication) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 02.12.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “The office report indicates that the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an application for paper publication in respect of the sole respondent which is defective. The learned counsel shall within a period of four weeks rectify the defects whatever have been found in the said application. List again on 18.1.2017. ” It is submitted that as directed above, counsel for the petitioner has cured the defects in the on 22.11.2016 filed an application for permission to serve the sole respondent by publication and the same has been registered as I. A. No. 3. Service is not complete. The matter alongwith application above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 17 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR P-1/NK
,ITEM NO.52 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUSVIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and substituted service and interim relief and office report)Date : 18/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLd.counsel for the petitioner has filed an application forsubstituted service in respect of the sole respondent and the sameis allowed. Registry shall process the same as perrules/guidelines.List the matter again on 27.02.2017. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB
ITEM NO.43 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 02/12/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Reena Pandey,Adv. Ms. Reena Yadav,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an application for paper publication in respect of the sole respondent which is defective. The learned counsel shall within a period of four weeks rectify the defects whatever have been found in the said application. List again on 18.1.2017 . (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG
LISTED ON: 02.12.2016 BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT NO: 2 ITEM NO: 43 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 09.11.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “As per tracking report notice issued to the sole respondent has been received back with the postal remarks “ Addressee has gone out of Delhi” Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed proof of dasti service which shows that the sole respondent has refused to accept the same. This refusal is not a valid mode of service. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners shall within a period of four weeks take appropriate steps to serve the sole respondent. List again on 2.12.2016. ” It is submitted that as directed above, counsel for the petitioner has on 22.11.2016 filed an application for permission to serve the sole respondent by publication, which is defective as vernacular language newspaper name has not been given in the application. Service is not complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 1 st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR P-1/NK
PITEM NO.43 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUSVIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report)Date : 02/12/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Reena Pandey,Adv. Ms. Reena Yadav,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RThe office report indicates that the learned counsel for thepetitioners has filed an application for paper publication inrespect of the sole respondent which is defective. The learnedcounsel shall within a period of four weeks rectify the defectswhatever have been found in the said application.List again on 18.1.2017 . (M V RAMESH) RegistrarMG
ITEM NO.70 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 09/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As per tracking report notice issued to the sole respondent has been received back with the postal remarks “ Addressee has gone out of Delhi” Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed proof of dasti service which shows that the sole respondent has refused to accept the same. This refusal is not a valid mode of service. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners shall within a period of four weeks take appropriate steps to serve the sole respondent. List again on 2.12. 2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG
LISTED ON:09.11.2016 BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT NO: 2 ITEM NO: 70 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 27.09.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Ld.counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit in proof of dasti service stating therein that the guard of the sole respondent has refused to accept the dasti notice and notice has been affixed at front door. This is not a proper mode of service. As per tracking report in respect of the sole respondent, the postal remarks shows that “door locked”. Hence, fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the said respondent shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the concerned Trial Court, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within the period provided above. List the matter again on 09.11.2016. ” It is submitted that as directed above, fresh show cause notice to sole respondent was issued on 08.10.2016 by registered AD as well as dasti through Trial Court. Unserved cover containing notice from sole respondent has been received with postal remark’s “Addressee has gone out of Delhi”. Counsel for the petitioner has on 07.11.2016 filed affidavit of dasti service stating therein that sole respondent refused to accept the notice. Service may be treated as complete.
The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 08 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, AdvocatE Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p-1
zITEM NO.70 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUSVIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report)Date : 09/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RAs per tracking report notice issued to the sole respondenthas been received back with the postal remarks ⬠S Addressee has goneout of Delhi⬠\235 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed proofof dasti service which shows that the sole respondent has refusedto accept the same. This refusal is not a valid mode of service.Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners shall within a period offour weeks take appropriate steps to serve the sole respondent.List again on 2.12. 2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarMG
ITEM NO.73 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 27/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit in proof of dasti service stating therein that the guard of the sole respondent has refused to accept the dasti notice and notice has been affixed at front door. This is not a proper mode of service. As per tracking report in respect of the sole respondent, the postal remarks shows that “door locked”. Hence, fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the said respondent shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the concerned Trial Court, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within the period provided above. List the matter again on 09.11.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB
LISTED ON: 27.09.2016 BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT NO: 2 ITEM NO: 73 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 12.08.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Ld.counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file the fresh particulars of the sole respondent and he shall also take fresh steps for the service of notice to him within the same period. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the Trial Court, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within the period provided above. List the matter again on 27.09.2016. ” It is submitted that as directed above, show cause notice to sole respondent was issued on 16.09.2016 by registered AD. as well as dasti. Notice has not been served on sole respondent as per India Post tracking system (Door locked). Counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit with proof of service stating therein that the guard of the sole respondent has refused to accept the dasti notice and notice has been affixed at front door of the residence. Service may be treated as complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, AdvocatE Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p-1
ÈITEM NO.73 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUSVIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report)Date : 27/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLd.counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit in proofof dasti service stating therein that the guard of the solerespondent has refused to accept the dasti notice and notice hasbeen affixed at front door. This is not a proper mode of service.As per tracking report in respect of the sole respondent, thepostal remarks shows that ⬠Sdoor locked⬠\235.Hence, fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode tothe said respondent shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for thepetitioner within a period of three weeks. Dasti in addition ispermitted to be served through the concerned Trial Court, theparticulars of which shall be furnished by the Ld.counsel for thepetitioner within the period provided above.List the matter again on 09.11.2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB
ITEM NO.123 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 12/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks file the fresh particulars of the sole respondent and he shall also take fresh steps for the service of notice to him within the same period. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the Trial Court, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within the period provided above. List the matter again on 27.09.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB
LISTED ON: 12.08.2016 BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT NO: 2 ITEM NO: 123 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon’ble Court on 02.05.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that in the appeal which was filed by the respondent against the order of the learned Single Judge there was a delay of 625 days and the petitioner(s) was not even given an opportunity to contest the said application and without hearing the petitioner(s) on this count, delay was condoned. Issue notice.” It is submitted that as directed above show cause notice to sole respondent was issued on 13.05.2016 by registered AD. Unserved cover containing notice in respect of sole respondent has been received with postal remark’s “Gourd told that addressee is out of Station for a long period”. Service is not complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 11 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p-1
ITEM NO.123 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUSVIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report)Date : 12/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Reena Pandey,Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLd.counsel for the petitioner shall within a period of fourweeks file the fresh particulars of the sole respondent and heshall also take fresh steps for the service of notice to him withinthe same period. Dasti in addition is permitted to be servedthrough the Trial Court, the particulars of which shall befurnished by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within the periodprovided above. List the matter again on 27.09.2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/12/2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 02/05/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parmod Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that in the appeal which was filed by the respondent against the order of the learned Single Judge there was a delay of 625 days and the petitioner(s) was not even given an opportunity to contest the said application and without hearing the petitioner(s) on this count, delay was condoned. Issue notice. (Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
LISTED ON: 02.05.2016 BEFORE COURT NO: ITEM NO: SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) No. 11819/2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA (OS) No. 119 of 2015 alongwith application for condonation of delay in refiling of SLP (barred by time by 2 days) and the same has been condoned vide Additional Registrar (1B) order dated 23.04.2016 and SLP has been registered accordingly. He has also filed an a pplication for permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates (regd. as I.A. No. 2) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that counsel for the petitioner was required to file copy of letter dated 15.01.2005. In this regard, he has given a letter dated 18.04.2016 and the same is placed at page No. 207 of SLP paper books. The matter alongwith application above-mentioned is listed before the Hon’ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF APRIL, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate Ch. No. 4, Lawyers Chamber, SCI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p-1
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11819/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/12/2015 in RFAOS No. 119/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) SARDAR BHAG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM SANDHU Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 02/05/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parmod Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey,Adv. Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that in the appeal which was filed by the respondent against the order of the learned Single Judge there was a delay of 625 days and the petitioner(s) was not even given an opportunity to contest the said application and without hearing the petitioner(s) on this count, delay was condoned.Signature Not Verified Issue notice.Digitally signed byASHWANI KUMARDate: 2016.05.0316:11:36 ISTReason: (Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER