KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
RZ 200B, STREET NO. 3, RAM CHOWK,
SADH NAGAR PART I, PALAM COLONY,
NEW DELHI – 110045
TELEPHONE: 08860332404
EMAIL:KULDEEP.KOHLI55@GMAIL.COM
In the court of CIVIL JUDGE SOHNA.
Ansal Retreat Residents Welfare Association.
…Plaintiff.
Versus
Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited.
…Defendants.
Suit for Permanent
Injunction.
Application
under order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for impleading the applicant as
co- Plaintiff in the present suit.
Sir,
The applicant most respectfully submits his application as under:
1.
That the
above noted suit is fixed for 22.04.2016 in this Hon’ble Court.
2.
That Shri
Kuldeep Kumar Kohli, S/o Late Shri Prem Nath Kohli, Shri Arvinder S. Bara S/o
Brig. Narinder S. Bara, Col Ram Pal Suhag S/o Shri Karan Singh, Capt. Vijay
Malik S/o Dr. D.S Malik and Shri Sudhir Agarwal S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad are the
farm plot owners of plot numbers A-2, CL-8, G-5B, C-30,A-33B respectively,
situated within the Ansal Retreat Scheme at Village Raisina, Tehsil Sohna, Distt.
Gurgaon, hereinafter referred to as the Said Project, of the Respondent in the
above titled matter.
3.
That
Applicants have devolved the title to their plots and to the common areas along
with club in the Said Project in the following manner:
a.
Shri Kuldeep Kumar Kohli S/o Late Shri Prem Nath Kohli aged 62 years r/o RZ 200B,
Street No. 3, Ram Chowk, Sadh Nagar Part -1, Palam Colony, New Delhi – 110045 purchased plot number A-2 vide sale deed No.
1568 dated 09.06.2005 from Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.
registered office 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
b.
Shri Arvinder S. Bara S/o Brig. Narinder S. Bara aged 72 years r/o D-1000, New Friends
Colony, New Delhi – 110065 purchased
plot number CL-8 vide sale deed No. 486 dated 19.09.1996 from Ansal Properties
& Infrastructure Ltd. registered office 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba
Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
c.
Col Ram Pal Suhag S/o Late Shri Karan
Singh aged 65 years r/o L-194,
Third Floor, Road No.-7D, Mahipalpur Extn., New Delhi – 110037, purchased plot number G-5B vide sale deed No.
1569 dated 09.06.2005 from Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.
registered office 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
d.
Capt. Vijay Malik S/o Dr. D.S Malik aged 59 years r/o P-8/14, DLF City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana, purchased plot number C-30 vide sale deed No.
1724 dated 10.12.2003 from Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. registered
office 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
e.
Shri Sudhir Agarwal S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal aged 51 years r/o 59 ESPACE, Nirvana
Country, Sector-50, Gurgaon, Haryana, purchased plot number A-33B, vide sale
deed No. 48 dated 06.04.2009 from Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. registered
office 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
4.
That the
Applicants are owners of plots in the Said Project, The Applicants maintain
that the Plaintiff does not represent in any manner majority or substantial
interest of the owners of plots on the Said Project by way of membership. The
Applicants along with other owners of plots in the Said Project are co-owners
of the common area along with the club house in the Said Project, and any
maintenance carried out or right assigned are in trust of such common
ownership. Such common ownership is devolved as is apparent form the
builder-buyer agreement entered to between the Respondent and every allotee
and/or subsequent owner in each plot of the Said Project. The original sale
deed between the Applicants and various parties are attached herewith for
reference.
5.
That from the
above said submissions it is clear that the applicants are the co-owners of the
common areas along with club house in the Said Project. The Plaintiff knowing
well about the aforesaid sale deeds and rights of the applicants being
co-owners, without informing the applicants and without keeping them in
confidence and also without taking the consent of the applicants filed the
instant suit for permanent injunction in April, 2015. The said proceedings were
kept concealed from the applicants with ulterior motive to get the possession
of the common areas and club house exclusively to exploit for revenue after
injunction on the rights of the Respondent and then to enjoy the possession to
the detriment of the common rights of the applicants and to take the plea later
that the applicants cannot take the possession due to the Plaintiff's control
as s Resident Welfare Society with an ulterior
motive to keep the applicants away from possession for a long time. Whereas the
applicants also want to place restrictions/ move for permanent injunction upon
the Respondent by pressing the grounds of illegal appropriation and alienation
of the common areas along with the club house in the Said Project by the
Respondent along with non-maintenance of common areas and club house to the
detriment of such properties causing irreparable harm. The Applicants have the
intention to take the possession of the common areas and club house in the Said
Project for the benefit of the owners of plots in the Said Project, as is
apparent from their membership in a Residential Welfare Society, with
objectives of maintaining the common areas along with club house in the Said
Project representing by way of membership majority strength of co-owners of the
Said Project.
6.
That, despite
the fact that the applicants are owners
in the above said property, the present suit has been filed on
16.04.2015 by the Plaintiff without disclosing this fact in the suit for
permanent injunction and also without taking consent of the Applicants. It is
pertinent to mention here that Applicants are the co-owner of the common areas
in the Said Project and their rights are at par with the rights of Plaintiff as
the Plaintiff is claiming rights derived from its Members who are co-owners of
the common areas in the Said Project. Therefore the Applicants are a necessary
party.
7.
That the
Applicants were informed by the members of the Plaintiff society a few months
earlier, who told the Applicants that they are going to get the possession of
the common areas and club house in the Said Project from the Respondents by
getting a suit for injunction passed from the Hon’ble Court of Civil Judge
Senior Division at Sohna with in a short span of time and on this the applicant
came to know about the pendency of the suit and also of the Agreement dated
08.04.2015 giving possession of the common areas along with the club house in
the Said Project to the Plaintiff in contravention to the rights of the
Applicants.
8.
That
immediately the Applicants requested the present counsel to inquire as to the
proceedings and also to transpire the actual and true facts and on the request
of the applicants, the present counsel came to know about the pendency of the
present suit and also of the Agreement dated 08.04.2015, in the court of Sh.
Mahendra Singh, Civil Judge at Sohna. It is pertinent to mention here that the
proceedings pending before the court of Shri Mahendra Singh, Civil Judge Sohna was
proceedings for filing of the replication and framing of issues if any as per
order dated 19.02.2016.
9.
That the
Applicants, being co-owners of the common areas along with club house in the
Said Project, are interested as well as necessary parties to the suit for
permanent injunction against the Petitioner with subject matter being common
areas in the Said Project and the decision of the case in their absence shall
not advance the cause of justice.
10.
That the
Applicants have reasonable doubts as to the intention of the Plaintiff in being
granted exclusive possession of the common areas as well as the club house in
the Said Project, pursuant to the Agreement dated 08.04.2015 with the
Respondent. Furthermore the Applicants have facts at hand that show such
possession being already detrimental to the common interest of co-owners and
causing irreparable harm to the property. Applicants reiterate that the
Plaintiff does not carry sufficient weight by of membership of co-owners in the
Said Project to be in capacity to represent interest of co-owners of the common
areas along with club house in the Said Project.
11.
That in case
the applicants are not allowed to be impleaded as parties to the present suit,
irreparable loss will be caused to the applicants, because the applicants are
also entitled to possession of property in dispute and in case they are not
impleaded as parties, the Plaintiff will get the possession of the property in
dispute and the rights of the applicants as stated above for imposition of
permanent injunction against the Respondent from alienating the title in any
manner of the common areas and club house in the Said Project will become
infructuous.
12.
That there
are sufficient grounds for the impleadment of applicants as party to the present
petition.
It is therefore
prayed, that the application may be allowed and the applicants may be ordered
to be impleaded as party to the present suit.
Submitted by:
Shri Kuldeep Kumar Kohli
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete