Bvhjg

That the deponent has filed the accompanied civil suit which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. The grounds of the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application as well. 2. That the deponent had good prima facie case in this favour. 3. That there is a provision of giving advance notice to the municipal corporation/defendant before filing any suit/litigation against the Municipal Corporation/defendant.
4. That deponent is enable to serve advance notice to the defendant due to lack of sufficient time as defendant had done munadi against the deponent on dated 02. 2. 2010 for demolishing the encroachment within three days otherwise defendant will be at liberty to demolishing encroachment as they have also issued notice dated 10. 09. 2010 given by the defendant, in reply to that deponent has filed objections to the aforesaid notice vide applications dated 21. 09.
2010 & 29. 09. 2010. Copies are attached alongwith. Chandigarh Dated:03. 12. 2010Deponent Verification:- Verified that the contents of my affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge.

No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein.Verified at Chandigarh on 03. 12. 2010 Deponent IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SR. DIVISION, CHANDIGARH CIVIL SUIT NO. _____ OF 2010 IN RE:- ASHOK BHARDWAJ …Plaintiff VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS…Defendant Application for exemption from giving advance notice to the Municipal Corporation/defendant. RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:- 1.
That the plaintiff has filed the accompanied civil suit which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. The grounds of the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application as well. 2.That the plaintiff had good prima facie case in this favour. 3. That there is a provision of giving advance notice to the municipal corporation/defendant before filing any suit/litigation against the Municipal Corporation/defendant. 4.
That plaintiff is enable to serve advance notice to the defendant due to lack of sufficient time as defendant had done munadi against the plaintiff on dated 02. 12. 2010 for demolishing the encroachment within three days otherwise defendant will be at liberty to demolishing encroachment as they have also issued notice dated 10. 9. 2010 given by the defendant, in reply to that plaintiff has filed objections to the aforesaid notice vide applications dated 21. 09. 2010 & 29.
09. 2010. Copies are attached alongwith. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice. Chandigarh Dated:03. 12. 2010Applicant Through Counsel (Pardeep Kumar & Siddharth Gulati) Advocates IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SR.
DIVISION, CHANDIGARH CIVIL SUIT NO. _____ OF 2010 IN RE:- ASHOK BHARDWAJ …Plaintiff VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS…DefendantApplication U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC for restraining the defendants in interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property or demolishing any portion of the suit property during the pendency of the present suit. Respectfully Showeth: 1. That the plaintiff has filed the accompanied civil suit which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. The grounds of the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application as well. 2. That the plaintiff had good prima facie case in this favour.
3. That balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. 4.That the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever, if the defendants are not restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property or demolishing any portion of the suit property. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the defendants may kindly be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property or demolishing any portion of the suit property. Place: Chandigarh Dated:03. 12.
2010 Applicant Through Counsel (Pardeep Kumar & Siddharth Gulati)Advocate Counsel for the plaintiff IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SR. DIVISION, CHANDIGARH CIVIL SUIT NO. _____ OF 2010 IN RE:- ASHOK BHARDWAJ …Plaintiff VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS…Defendant Affidavit of Ashok Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Dass, R/o H. No. 601, VPO Hallo Majra, U. T.
Chandigarh. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the deponent has filed the accompanied civil suit which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. The grounds of the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application as well. . That the deponent had good prima facie case in this favour. 3.
That balance of convenience is also in favour of the deponent. 4. That the deponent will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever, if the defendants are not restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property or demolishing any portion of the suit property. Chandigarh Dated:03. 12. 2010Deponent Verification:- Verified that the contents of my affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein.
Verified at Chandigarh on 03. 12. 2010 Deponent IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, CHANDIGARH CIVIL SUIT NO. __________OF 2010 Ashok Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Dass resident of Village Hallo Majra, UT. Chandigarh. …Plaintiff Versus 1.
Municipal Corporation, UT, Chandigarh through its Commissioner, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 2. Chandigarh Administration through its Home Secretary, U. T. , Secretariat, Sector 7, Chandigarh. 3. Shiv Pal s/o Sh.
Ram Asra R/o Friends Bakery, Near Kabari Market, Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh. …Defendants Suit for mandatory injunction for setting aside notice dated 10. . 2010 (Annexure P-7) issued by the defendant No. 1.
AND Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1&2 from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the House No. 26, Village Hallo Majra, UT, Chandigarh comprising Khasra No. 198(0-19), Khewat No. 172, Khatauni No. 144 in the revenue estate of Village Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh, bounded as under:- East House of S.
Baldev Singh West House of Surinder Singh North Property late S. Jagir Singh SouthPublic Street.AND Suit for permanent injunction directing the defendants No. & 2 not to demolish any part of the House No. 26 of the plaintiff, since the same is exclusively comprised in Khasra No. 198 of village Hallo Majra, U. T.
, Chandigarh, without demarcation of the suit property in presence of the plaintiff. AND In the alternative, suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 3 to make good the suit property of the plaintiff purchased from the defendant no. 3, in case, the suit property is found to be beyond the Khasra No. 198 in the revenue estate of Village Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh.
Respectfully Showeth:- 1. That the House No. 26 is situated in Khasra No. 98 of village Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh, belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased the suit property vide sale agreement dated 19.
1. 2006 from the defendant no. 3 and paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 7. 00 lacs to defendant no. 3. The defendant no.
3 also executed an affidavit acknowledging the sale of suit property measuring 20’ X 22’ and receipt of full 7 final consideration price. The copy of the sale agreement and an affidavit are attached as Annexure P-1 & P-2 respectively. 2. That the suit property is situated in Khasra No. 198 of the revenue estate of Village Hallo Majra, U.T. , Chandigarh which is adjacent to the Lal Dora of the Village.
The map of village Hallo Majra showing the location of Khasra No. 198 is attached as Annexure P-3. The site plan of the suit property with its boundaries is attached as Annexure P-4 3. That the plaintiff purchased suit property which was build up to two rooms area measuring 22’ x 22’. After the purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff constructed first floor of 2nd Floor in the suit property. The plaintiff obtained electrical connection from the authorized contractor and water connection from the Chandigarh Administration.The copy of the electricity bills & water bills are attached as Annexure P-5 & P-6 respectively.
4. That since 19. 1. 2006, the plaintiff is enjoying the suit property without any interruption from anybody. Unfortunately, the defendant no. 1 issued notice on 10. 9.
2010 claiming therein that the suit property has encroached upon the Government land. The copy of the notice dated 10. 9. 2010 is attached is Annexure P-7. 5. That pursuant to the notice sent by the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff filed objections on 21.
9. 2010 and also on 29. 9. 2010. The copy of the objections is attached as Annexure P-8.Even the plaintiff made an application dated 29. 9.
2010 to the Tehsildar, U. T. , Chandigarh for demarcation of Khasra No. 198 of Village Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh in the presence of the plaintiff. The copy of the application dated 29.
9. 2010 is attached as Annexure P-9. 6. That the village Hallo Majra was merged with Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh vide U. T. , Administration notification dated 19. 9.
2006. The U. T. , Administration vide notification dated 25. 5. 2009 (Annexure P-10) has decided that only the abadi Deh of village Hallo Majra, U. T.
, Chandigarh has been merged in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh.It means that Municipal Corporation has no jurisdiction to issue notice dated 10. 9. 2010 (Annexure P-7), regarding the suit property which is comprised in Khasra No. 198. 7. That the suit property is exclusively comprised inn Khasra No.
198 in the revenue estate of village Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh. No part of the suit property is on the Government Land. 8. That despite the application made by the plaintiff, the defendants No. 1 & 2 have not demarcated the land of the plaintiff, in his presence.
9. That defendant no. 1 issued another notice by way of munadi on dated 02. 12. 010 vide which final reminder for demolishing the encroachment within three days, whereas in respect to the notice dated 10. 09. 2010 plaintiff has already filed objections and application for demarcation of Khasra No.
198 vide different applications dated 21. 9. 2010 & 29. 09. 2010 respectively. In respect to those application no action has been taken by the defendants no. 1 & 2 till date.
10. That defendant no. 1 has not given a single chance to prove the bonafide of the plaintiff and they have taken the action for demolishing the suit property rather than making the demarcation done of Khasra No. 98 situated in Village Hallo Majra.11. That the act of the defendant no. 1 & 2 is highly arbitrary and illegal therefore the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court is highly called for protecting the fundamental right of the plaintiff i.
e. right to live and shelter. 12. That in case the demarcation of the suit property including entire Khasra No. 198, is done in the presence of the plaintiff and if it is found that any part of the suit property is outside the Khasra No. 198, then it is the defendant No. 3 who is liable to make good the property sold by him to the plaintiff.
3. That the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, hence, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the suit. 14. That the cause of action to the plaintiffs on 10. 9. 2010, when the defendant No. 1 served notice to the plaintiff.
15. That the appropriate court fee has been affixed on the plaint. It is, therefore respectfully prayed that:- a)Suit for mandatory injunction for setting aside notice dated 10. 9. 2010 (Annexure P-7) issued by the defendant No. 1, may kindly be decreed. ) Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1&2 from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the House No.
26, Village Hallo Majra, UT, Chandigarh comprising Khasra No. 198(0-19), Khewat No. 172, Khatauni No. 144 in the revenue estate of Village Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh, bounded as under:- East House of S. Baldev Singh West House of Surinder Singh NorthProperty late S.
Jagir Singh SouthPublic Street. May kindly be decreed. c) Suit for permanent injunction directing the defendants No. 1 & 2 not to demolish any part of the House No. 6 of the plaintiff, since the same is exclusively comprised in Khasra No. 198 of village Hallo Majra, U. T.
, Chandigarh, without demarcation of the suit property in presence of the plaintiff, may kindly be decreed. d) In the alternative, suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 3 to make good the suit property of the plaintiff purchased from the defendant no. 3, in case, the suit property is found to be beyond the Khasra No. 198 in the revenue estate of Village Hallo Majra, U. T. , Chandigarh, may kindly be decreed.
Chandigarh Dated:Plaintiff Through Counsel Pardeep Kumar & Siddharth Gulati) Advocates Counsel for the plaintiff Verification:- Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 12 of my plaint are true and correct to my knowledge and contents of para no. 13-15 are based on legal advice. No part of it is wrong and nothing has been concealed therein. Chandigarh Dated:Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SR. DIVISION, CHANDIGARH CIVIL SUIT NO. _____ OF 2010 IN RE:- ASHOK BHARDWAJ …Plaintiff VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS…Defendant Affidavit of Ashok Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh.
Rameshwar Dass, R/o H. No. 601, VPO Hallo Majra, U. T. Chandigarh.I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the deponent has filed the accompanied civil suit and the same has been drafted on my instructions.
The deponent is well conversant with the facts of the case. 2. That the contents of para no. 1 to 12 of my plaint are true and correct to my knowledge and contents of para no. 13-15 are based on legal advice. No part of it is wrong and nothing has been concealed therein. 3.
That the plaintiff has not filed any such or similar earlier in any court of law. Chandigarh Dated:03. 12. 2010Deponent Verification:-Verified that the contents of my affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein. Verified at Chandigarh on 03. 12.
2010 Deponent IN THE COURT OF SH. RANJEEV KUMAR, RENT CONTROLLER, UT, CHANDIGARH IN RE:- SATPAL GUPTA VS. JAIPAL & ANR Application U/s 151 CPC for issuance of directions to the respondents to supply the copy of annexure mentioned in their written statement as well as application for dismissal the rent petition, filed by the respondents Respectfully Showeth:- 1. That the above noted rent petition is pending before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for today i. . 03. 12.
2010 for filing of reply to the application for dismissal of the rent petition and replication. 2. That on last date of hearing i. e. 16. 10. 2010, the respondent filed the written statement, an application for dismissal the rent petition and annexures.
The undersigned counsel for the respondents supplied the copy of written statement and application for dismissal of rent petition to the undersigned counsel for the petitioner. However the counsel for the respondents did not supply the copies of annexures mentioned in written statement as well as application to counsel for the petitioner.The counsel for the respondent assured the counsel for the petitioner he will supply the copy of the annexures mentioned in the written statement and application within 2-3 days but a number of times the counsel for the petitioner demanded the copies of annexures but he has failed to do so, hence the present application and the undersigned counsel for the petitioner is unable to file replication as well as reply to the application for dismissal of the rent petition without annexures. 3. That the Hon’ble Court mentioned his zemine order dated 16. 0. 2010 in the present case.
The copies supplied to the petitioner. It is, therefore respectfully prayed that the directions may kindly be given to the respondents to supply the copies of annexures mentioned in the written statement and application for dismissal and also be granted some time to file the replication and reply to the application, to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. Chandigarh Dated:03. 12. 2010Applicant/ Petitioner Through Counsel (Sandeep Sharma, Reetu Sharma & Raj Kumar Saroj) Advocates