JASWANT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS AND ORS vs SANTOSH KUMARI SHARMA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24.07.2025 Judgment delivered on: 07.08.2025 + CM(M) 601/2025 & CM APPL. 18943/2025 & CM APPL. 18944/2025 & CM APPL. 18945/2025 JASWANT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS AND ORS .....Petitioners versus SANTOSH KUMARI SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Memo of Appearance For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha and Ms. Tamanna Swami, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Anuj Aggarwala and Mr. Manav Mitra, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN JUDGMENT MANOJ JAIN, J 1. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2025 whereby learned First Appellate Court has dismissed their application moved under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. 2. The suit in question was filed way back in the year 1985. 3. Plaintiff Ms. Santosh Kumar Sharma was, merely, seeking a sum of Rs. 720/- from the concerned tenants which was towards the arrears of rent for the previous three years, the rate of rent being Rs. 20/- per month only. 4. According to her specific case, she had let out the suit premises to defendant No.1-Dhani Ram and Moti Ram (since deceased). Since Mr. Moti Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 601/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:07.08.2025 18:20:37 Ram had died prior to the institution of suit, her legal heirs were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 8 in the suit. 5. During the pendency of the abovesaid suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC had been moved. 6. Such application was allowed and, resultantly, defendant Nos. 9 to 11 were also arrayed as defendants. 7. These defendants are petitioners herein. 8. As already noticed above, the suit was merely seeking recovery of rent but according to such subsequently impleaded defendants, the plaintiff had no right or title or interest in the suit premises and that