Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
C.M.(M) No.820/2014 and C.M.No.14802/2014 (stay)
th
% 08 September, 2014
RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATIOIN (RWA) ......Petitioner
Through: None
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms.Yootika Pallavi, Advocate for R-
1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. On the first call, a passover was requested on behalf of the petitioner.
On the second call, no one appeared for the petitioner.
2. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 22.3.2014 which has
allowed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by a contra resident welfare association.
3. The disputes in the suit pertain to the rights to use and access the
community hall in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, and with respect to which there
CM(M) No.820/2014 Page 1 of 2
are contesting associations of different residents of the area, and therefore by
the impugned order the applicant/association has been allowed to be
impleaded as a party.
4. I may note that the respondent no.1 herein, and which was the
defendant no.1 in the suit, did not oppose the application. It is the
respondent no.1/defendant no.1 which had provided the community hall.
Since the issue is with respect to a right to possess the community hall for
and on behalf of the residents, if there are disputes as to the representation of
the residents, I do not see any illegality that a different association of the
residents is allowed to be impleaded as a party in the suit.
5. Dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
KA
CM(M) No.820/2014 Page 2 of 2
+
C.M.(M) No.820/2014 and C.M.No.14802/2014 (stay)
th
% 08 September, 2014
RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATIOIN (RWA) ......Petitioner
Through: None
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms.Yootika Pallavi, Advocate for R-
1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. On the first call, a passover was requested on behalf of the petitioner.
On the second call, no one appeared for the petitioner.
2. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 22.3.2014 which has
allowed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by a contra resident welfare association.
3. The disputes in the suit pertain to the rights to use and access the
community hall in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, and with respect to which there
CM(M) No.820/2014 Page 1 of 2
are contesting associations of different residents of the area, and therefore by
the impugned order the applicant/association has been allowed to be
impleaded as a party.
4. I may note that the respondent no.1 herein, and which was the
defendant no.1 in the suit, did not oppose the application. It is the
respondent no.1/defendant no.1 which had provided the community hall.
Since the issue is with respect to a right to possess the community hall for
and on behalf of the residents, if there are disputes as to the representation of
the residents, I do not see any illegality that a different association of the
residents is allowed to be impleaded as a party in the suit.
5. Dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
KA
CM(M) No.820/2014 Page 2 of 2