In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, the case of Ranbir Singh vs Pervesh Gaur & Ors. has brought attention to the issues of obstruction and interference with right of way. This judgement, from CS SCJ No. 82503/16, sheds light on the rights of individuals in civil suits. Stay tuned to understand the implications of this ruling in the legal realm.
Facts
- The plaintiff, Ranbir Singh, filed a civil suit against 7 defendants including SDMC.
- The suit was for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, and damages.
- The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were interfering with his right of way and causing obstruction.
- During the proceedings, the SDMC submitted that they were not obstructing the plaintiff’s right of way.
- The Senior Civil Judge noted that the SDMC had not caused any obstruction and dismissed the suit against SDMC.
- The judgment was delivered in CS SCJ No. 82503/16 titled ‘Ranbir Singh vs Pervesh Gaur & Ors.’
- SDMC was listed as defendant no. 5 in the civil suit.
Analysis
- The delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Learned ADJ was explained due to the death of the respondent’s mother and the subsequent holidays.
- The appeal was found to be within the period of limitation by the Learned ADJ after considering the record.
- Application seeking condonation of XLI Rule 5 was filed and the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 were added as parties, which was allowed by the court.
- The appeal cannot be disposed of without considering the application seeking condonation of delay
- The issue of delay and whether it should be condoned or not must be deliberated upon by the court
- The first appellate court failed to consider the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before it
Decision
- Petition allowed, pending application disposed of
- Case remanded back to First Appellate Court
- First Appellate Court to hear arguments of both parties
- Consider application seeking condonation of delay
- Dispose of the appeal within 2 months
Case Title: RANBIR SINGH Vs. PERVESH GAUR @ TINKU & ORS (2024:DHC:4322)
Case Number: CM(M)-1341/2018
