Vinay Goel v. Mcd & Ors

ORDER %

31.10.2011 CM No. 19831/2011 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO 460/2011 and CM No. 19832/2011

(stay) The order impugned before this court is the order dated 07.09.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed. Record shows that the present suit has been filed for declaration, permanent and Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. mandatoryinjunctionagainsttheMCD; plaintiffis a contractorworkingunderthe MCD; work ordershadbeenissuedin respectof 12works to thepetitioner;the petitionercould not commence his work because of certain encroachments on the site; the physical handingover of the sited has not been granted;the defencetaken by the defendantwas that extension of time had provisionally granted to the petitioner right up to 31.12.2010 but the petitioner did not adhere to this schedule; the petitioner is himself at fault. Learnedcounselfor the petitionerhas drawn attentionof the courtto two circularsof the Departmentdated02.06.2003and 7.05.2010to substantiatehis submissionthat if workis not startedwithinthe stipulatedperiod,the work shallbe deemedas closed;contentionis that in his case the work has not been deemed to be closed; he is apprehending coercive actionat the hands of the respondent;his contentionis that a show causenoticehad been issued to him and there is every possibility that he shall be removed from the list of contractors; further penalty can also be imposed on him. Contentionsurged by the petitionerhave been examinedby the Trial Court. The clauses on the basis of which work order had to be executed by the defendant had also been tested. The court has examined the documentary evidence produced by the respectivepartiesand had notedthat although,certainencroachmentshad been noted in the photographsand it was the responsibilityof the MCD probablyto remove the said encroachments but action has also not been taken by the petitioner informing the respondentaboutthe said encroachments;the petitionerhimselfwas also atfault. Inthese circumstances,the plaintiff not having made out any prima facie case in his favour; balance of convenience was also not his favour; equitable relief of grant of a temporary injunctionhad rightly been declined. Needless to state that this applicationis only an interim order; the suit on the merits of the controversybetween the parties and rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. Impugnedordersuffersfrom no infirmity:petitionis dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J OCTOBER 31, 2011/rb

<. $-25 & 26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAQ 460/2011 ANIL GOEL Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi and Mr. Avinash K. Trivedi, Advocates. versus MCD & ORS Respondents Through: Nemo. + FAQ 461/2011 VINAY GOEL Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi and Mr. Avinash K. Trivedi, Advocates. versus MCD & ORS Respondents Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR