BHOOP SINGH GOLA (DECEASED) THROUGH SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRADEEP vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Judgment text excerpt

$~52 & 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27th March, 2025 + CM(M) 569/2025 & CM APPL. 17846-17847/2025 BHOOP SINGH GOLA (DECEASED) THROUGH SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRADEEP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Sonkiya with Mr. Gaurav Maver, Advocates. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate + CM(M) 570/2025 & CM APPL. 17957-17958/2025 BHOOP SINGH GOLA (DECEASED) THROUGH SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRADEEP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Sonkiya with Mr. Gaurav Maver, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arti Bansal with Ms. Shruti Goel, Advocates for respondent No.1/MCD. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent No.2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner had filed two different suits. 2. The first suit was filed in June 1994 whereby they had sought permanent injunction against MCD. Such suit is, presently, having registration number as CS SCJ 12543-16. CM(M) 569/2025 & 1 Signature Not Verified CM(M) 570/2025 Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:28.03.2025 12:21:33 3. The other suit by the same petitioner was filed in the year 2006 and by virtue of the abovesaid second suit, plaintiff seeks damages from DDA on the premise that his property has been demolished, without any prior notice and intimation. 4. Issues were framed in both the suits and evidences were also led. It is apprised that the matters were consolidated for the purposes of recording evidence. 5. When the cases were at the stage of final arguments, initially, plaintiff had moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal in CM(M) 569/2025 corresponding Suit No.CS SCJ 6654