Ajay Garg vs Delhi Development Authority

C. Hari Shankar, J

This petition has been taken up on mention, as listing was allowed in view of the urgency involved. With consent of parties the petition is being

disposed of, in view of the nature of the controversy.

It is not necessary to dwell in detail on the facts. Suffice it to state that Suit No. 82888/2016 had been preferred by the petitioner before the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Saket, challenging the proposal of the DDA to demolish the property of the petitioner located at D-66/3, Gautam Nagar, New

Delhi. Said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, vide order dated 8th April, 2021, under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

The petitioner moved an application for restoration of the suit. However, Mr. Dalal submits that, as the presiding officer of the court which was

dealing with the petitioner’s suit is not sitting, the application for restoration has not been listed. Given the present scenario, in which the trial courts

are functioning only on a virtual and restricted mode, he submits that despite his client’s best efforts, it has not been possible to have the

restoration application listed before the Court.

In the meanwhile, he submits that his client has been constrained to move the present petition before this Court as the respondents are taking action

to demolish the aforesaid property. As such, the petition seeks a restraint on the respondents demolishing the property till final decision in SCJ

82888/2016. Mr. Dalal states, fairly, that though, stricto sensu, SCJ 82888/2016 does not survive, he seeks status quo regarding the aforesaid property

till the decision on the restoration application filed by his client.

Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned Standing Counsel for the DDA, submits that the property of the petitioner has already been demolished, though the

said assertion is disputed by Mr. Sunil Dalal, on instructions.

In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be subjected to prejudice merely because of difficulty in having his application for restoration listed before the

court, given the present strained circumstances.

As such, without entering into the disputes between the parties on merits, I am inclined to dispose of this petition in the following terms:

(i) The learned District Judge (South), Saket is requested to assign a suitable court to consider the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of

SCJ 82888/2016 and have the matter listed before the said court on 7th July, 2021. Needless to say, learned Counsel for the parties would be intimated

the details of the court before which the matter is to be listed by e-mail at their respective e-mail IDs. The matter would be taken up by video-

conferencing on the said date.

(ii) The DDA shall maintain status quo as of now, as it exists at 05:30 p.m. on 28th June, 2021, till and subject to the decision of the appropriate court

on the petitioner’s application for restoration.

(iii) The learned trial court shall decide the petitioner’s application for restoration on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations contained in

this order. It is reiterated that this Court has not returned any observations on merits on the disputes between the parties.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Let a copy of this order be emailed to learned counsel for the parties within 24 hours.

Mr. Relan undertakes to convey the gist of the order passed today to the DDA.