Full Judgment Text
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1710/2014 and IAs No.13191/2014 & 21714/2014
ARVIND SINGHAL & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Raman Duggal, Advocate
versus
PLAYFUL MINDS ENRICHMENT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Pravin K. Jain, Advocate for D-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
O R D E R
% 17.04.2015
I.A. No.7362/2015 (by the plaintiffs u/O XXIII R-1 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiffs praying
inter alia for leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to initiate
appropriate legal proceedings against the defendants, on a fresh cause
of action, in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that at the time of
instituting the present suit on 27.5.2014, the plaintiffs had prayed for
the relief of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against
the defendants and after the written statement came to be filed by the
defendant No.1, it had transpired that the defendant No.3/SDMC had
registered the said defendant on 28.5.2014 and by virtue of the said
CS(OS) 1710/2014 Page No.1 of 2
registration, defendant No.1 is entitled to run a play school in the
subject premises, under MPD 2021. He states that in view of the said
facts coming to the knowledge of the plaintiffs along with the
subsequent events, as mentioned in the present application, a fresh
cause of action has arisen and as the suit is at the nascent stage of
completion of pleadings, the plaintiffs seek leave to withdraw the
same, while reserving their right to file a substantive legal proceeding
against the defendants, in accordance with law.
3. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that he does not have any
objection to the present application being allowed.
4. Despite service of advance copies of the application on the
counsel for the remaining defendants, none is present on their behalf.
It is therefore assumed that they do not wish to oppose the present
application.
5. The application is accordingly allowed and the suit is dismissed
as withdrawn, along with the pending applications, with liberty granted
to the plaintiffs to initiate fresh legal proceedings against the
defendants on a fresh cause of action, as noted above.
6. File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
APRIL 17, 2015
sk
CS(OS) 1710/2014 Page No.2 of 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1710/2014 and IAs No.13191/2014 & 21714/2014
ARVIND SINGHAL & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Raman Duggal, Advocate
versus
PLAYFUL MINDS ENRICHMENT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Pravin K. Jain, Advocate for D-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
O R D E R
% 17.04.2015
I.A. No.7362/2015 (by the plaintiffs u/O XXIII R-1 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiffs praying
inter alia for leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to initiate
appropriate legal proceedings against the defendants, on a fresh cause
of action, in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that at the time of
instituting the present suit on 27.5.2014, the plaintiffs had prayed for
the relief of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against
the defendants and after the written statement came to be filed by the
defendant No.1, it had transpired that the defendant No.3/SDMC had
registered the said defendant on 28.5.2014 and by virtue of the said
CS(OS) 1710/2014 Page No.1 of 2
registration, defendant No.1 is entitled to run a play school in the
subject premises, under MPD 2021. He states that in view of the said
facts coming to the knowledge of the plaintiffs along with the
subsequent events, as mentioned in the present application, a fresh
cause of action has arisen and as the suit is at the nascent stage of
completion of pleadings, the plaintiffs seek leave to withdraw the
same, while reserving their right to file a substantive legal proceeding
against the defendants, in accordance with law.
3. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that he does not have any
objection to the present application being allowed.
4. Despite service of advance copies of the application on the
counsel for the remaining defendants, none is present on their behalf.
It is therefore assumed that they do not wish to oppose the present
application.
5. The application is accordingly allowed and the suit is dismissed
as withdrawn, along with the pending applications, with liberty granted
to the plaintiffs to initiate fresh legal proceedings against the
defendants on a fresh cause of action, as noted above.
6. File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
APRIL 17, 2015
sk
CS(OS) 1710/2014 Page No.2 of 2