Case Details

asdqw MS Mohan Tech. Vs MS Mohan Rail Components CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP020001412018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv., counsel for the plaintiff. Suit received by way of entrustment. Report of Reader seen. It be registered. Alongwith the suit an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r.w.s. 151 CPC has also been filed. Heard. No ground is made to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. As such, notice of the suit as well as stay application be issued to the defendants for 09.03.2018. Dasti summons be given, if requested. Dated: 12.02.2018 (Jaskaran Singh) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date: 09.03.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt (UID:PB0561) Purpose:

asdqw MS Mohan Tech. Vs MS Mohan Rail Components CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP020001412018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv., counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv., counsel for the defendants. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv., has filed power of attorney on behalf of defendants. Written statement and reply to stay application also filed. Copies supplied. Now case is adjourned to 13.03.2018 for filing replication and argument on stay application. Dated:09.03.2018 (Pooja) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:13.03.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni M/s Mohan Tech Vs M/s Mohal Rail Component &ors.6 UID No. PB0561 In the Court of Ms. Poonam Kashyap, PCS, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 CS No. 76-2018 Date of decision: .2018 M/s Mohan Tech Vs M/s Mohan Rail components & ors. ……..Plaintiff …..Defendants. (Application u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 r.w.s 151 of the CPC) Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendants. ORDER 1. This order of mine shall dispose of an application u/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 r.w.s151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/applicant has a good prima-facie case in his favour and there is every hope that plaintiff will succeed in this case. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff/applicant. If the defendants succeed in their illegal designs, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which can not be compensated in terms of money. It is therefore respectfully prayed that ad-interim injunction may kindly be issued in favor of the applicant/plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff from property marked as ABCDEF and dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the property situated within the revenue estate of village Dhudiawal, Tehsil & Distt. Kapurthala as shown red in the site plan attached in the interest of Justice. Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. M/s Mohan Tech Vs M/s Mohal Rail Component &ors.6 UID No. PB0561 3. Notice of the application was given to the defendants. ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the application is matter of record and the application is wrong and false. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that application may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice. 4. The ld. Counsel on behalf of both the parties have argued regarding the contents in details of the application before the Court. 5. In order to seek relief by way of present application, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to prima-facie prove on record that the plaintiff is having its business as detailed in the plaint since the year 1995 and he had been since a sizeable share in the supply of said components to the rail coach factories. But, the defendant No.2 asked the plaintiff to raise the rent to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month and to vacate the premises. 6. To prove his case, plaintiff has placed on record site plan, photo-copy of electricity bill, photocopy of certified of Provisional Registration, Photocopy of pan card, photocopy of office of Asstt. Excise and Taxation commissioner, photocopy of allotment of New excise control, photocopy of tax income and vat tax, photocopy of retail invoice bill, photocopy of M/s universal stainless products, photocopy of partnership deed, photographs, photocopy of lease deed. 7. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. M/s Mohan Tech Vs M/s Mohal Rail Component &ors.6 UID No. PB0561 8. After perusal of the documents on record, it has come to my knowledge that no doubt, the agreement between the parties as placed on Judicial record has been executed between them. Moreover, certificate of provisional registration of Mohan Tech has also been placed upon file. Moreover, relevant documents regarding the transaction between the parties has also been placed upon record. Moreover, the photographs of the disputed suit land has also been placed upon record in which, plaintiff has been showing to be in possession of the disputed land. 9. I take support from the case law titled as “Suman Chand Vs Krishan Gopal” CrM NO. 3903 of 2001. it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where by the photographs , it is clearly shown that the petitioner is in physical possession of the suit property but also seen working in the said property. 10. In this very particular case, it has been clearly stated by the defendant that the plaintiff has not paid the rent to the defendant . So’ the defendants have every right to evict the plaintiff from the suit property. But, this is the provisions of law that if the tenant has not paid the rent then he has to seek the provisions under the Rent Act but he has no right to get the shop be evicted/vacated illegally without due course of law. This fact with regard to relationship of parties, nature and character of the property is not disputed by the parties. So’ this Court is of the considered and firm view that the defendants have not to dispossess the plaintiff without due course of law. Due process of law means nobody or to be condemned Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. M/s Mohan Tech Vs M/s Mohal Rail Component &ors.6 UID No. PB0561 unheard. The due process of law means a person in settled possession will not be dispossess except by due course of law. It is an opportunity for the defendant to file including in the written statement and documents before the court of law. It does not mean the whole trial. So’ after perusal on the documents on record, it has come to knowledge of the Court that the plaintiff is in a settled position of the disputed shop and if defendants have any grudge against the plaintiff for the reason being of arrear of rent or he want the rent which has not been paid by the defendants to plaintiff then he has a option/remedy to file a rent petition. 11. In order to fortify my view, I have taken the support from the case law titled as “ Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Vs Hotel Imperial, 2006 (88) DRJ 545 , ‘ due process’ or ‘due course’ is the condition is satisfied the moment, the right of the parties are adjudicated upon by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The principals of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under:- 1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. (2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. (3) The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. M/s Mohan Tech Vs M/s Mohal Rail Component &ors.6 UID No. PB0561 premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant. (4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour. (5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession. 12. Heard. At this stage, On perusal of above stated documents and from the material available on record, it is prima facie clear that if the defendant is not restrained from doing the act complained of, the plaintiff will cause an irreparable loss & injury and the very purpose of granting the injunction will be defeated by the delay. 13. The petitioner has a prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. So’the interest of Justice, the application U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 r.w.s 151 CPC in hand stands allowed and defendant be restrained the doing the act complained of. However, nothing observed here shall affect the case of the parties on merits. Pronounced in Open Court. Dated:13.03.2018. (Poonam Kashyap) (Pooja) Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kapurthala. UID No. PB0561 Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala.

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendants. Replication not filed. Argument heard. Vide my separate detailed order of even date, the application U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed, as detailed therein. Now case is adjourned to 26.03.2018 for framing of issues. Pronounced in Open Court. Dated:13.03.2018. (Poonam Kashyap) (Pooja) Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kapurthala. UID No. PB0561 Next Date:26.03.2018 Purpose:

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendants. Heard. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed:- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP. 2 Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD. 3 Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed and suppressed the material facts and has not revealed the actual facts?OPD 4 Relief. No other issue arises, claimed or pressed. Now, to come up on 09.04.2018 for evidence of the plaintiff. PF/DM and list of witnesses be filed within 7 days, failing which no assistance shall be given by the Court. Dated:26.03.2018 (Pooja) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:07.04.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendants. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 13.04.2018 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Dated: 09.04.2018 (Jaskaran Singh) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date: 13.04.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt (UID:PB0561) Purpose:

zimmni MS Mohan Rail Vs MS Mohan Rail Components & Ors.3 UID No. PB0561 In the Court of Ms. Poonam Kashyap, PCS, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. CNR No: PBKP020001412018 CS- 76-2018 Date of Order – 13.04.2018 M/S Mohan Rail Vs M/S Mohan Rail Components & Ors. ….. Plaintiff ..…Defendants (Application u/o 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 r.w.s 151 CPC for amendment of plaint and addition of parties. ) Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv., counsel for the applicant/ plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv., counsel for the defendants. ORDER 1. This order of mine shall dispose of an application u/o 6 rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 r.w.s 151 of CPC for amendment of plaint and addition of parties filed by the counsel for the plaintiff/applicant. 2. The ld. Counsel for the applicant pleading that the pendency present suit, i.e. on 07.04.2018, the Branch Manger, Canara Bank Mall Road, Kapurthala along-with 3-4 unknown person came to the property in dispute and tried to take the forcible possession, however, the situation was adverted due to timely intervention of local and respectable. On inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants had mortgaged the suit property with the canara Bank who wants to take possession of the suit property on account of default in repyament of the loan amount. So' in such circumstances, it is necessary to implead the Canara Bank as defendant No.3 being necessary party to the suit. Thus, the applicant/plaintiff intends to amend the topographic discussion of the plaint in which the following defendant No.3 is to be added:- Canara Bank, The Mall, Kapurthala through its Branch Manager. Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. MS Mohan Rail Vs MS Mohan Rail Components & Ors.3 UID No. PB0561 It is further alleged that the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint and wants add the following para as para No. 6A. In the plaint:- During the pendency present suit, i.e. on 07.04.2018, the Branch Manger, Canara Bank Mall Road, Kapurthala along-with 3-4 unknown person came to the property in dispute and tried to take the forcible possession, however, the situation was adverted due to timely intervention of local and respectable. On inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants had mortgaged the suit property with the canara Bank who wants to take possession of the suit property forcibly and illegally on account of default in repayment of the loan amount by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 though the plaintiff is not bound by any alleged act of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is further alleged that the present proposed amendment is very much essential and necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case. Lastly, it is averred that the suit is at its initial stage and the trial of the suit has not yet started and in case the present amendment is allowed, it will not change the nature of the suit and shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. The above said defendant is very essential to be impleaded as a party as defendant No.3 to the present suit and the suit can not be adjudicated properly without impleaded him as necessary party to avoid any future technicality. If the present application is not allowed the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which can not be compensated in terms of money. It is therefore prayed that the application may kindly be allowed. 3. On the other hand upon notice ,the opposite counsel verbally contested the same and recorded his statement in this regard that Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala. MS Mohan Rail Vs MS Mohan Rail Components & Ors.3 UID No. PB0561 he has no objection, if the application for amendment of plaint and impleadment of party is allowed. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel of both the parties on the application u/o 6 Rule 17 and order 1 rule 10 r.w.s 151 of CPC filed by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and have gone through the file very carefully. 5. The ld. Counsel for the applicant intents to implead “Canara Bank, The Mall, Kapurthala as party to the suit as defendant No. 3. 6. To my mind, the object of order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to bring on record, the person, who are parties to the dispute relating to subject matter. So that, dispute may be determined in their presence without any inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding. There are two conditions in order to implead any person as party to the suit. Firstly, there must be right to some relief against him in respect of the suit matter involved in the suit and secondly that his present should be necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle of the questions involved in the suit. Basically, the fact and circumstances of the present case false under the second requirement as above stated U/o 6 Rule 17 and U/O 1 rule 10 r.w.s 151 CPC. Therefore, the application in hand stands allowed as the opposite counsel has no objection to implead as the party and amendment of the plaint in the interest of justice. The fact and circumstances of the case demand it. Pronounced in Open Court. Dated:13.04.2018. (Poonam Kashyap) (pooja) Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kapurthala. UID No. PB0561 Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kapurthala.

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendants. It has come to my notice that an application u/o 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 rule 10 r.w.s. 151 has been filed on 09.04.2018 by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff but due to inadvertently it does not reflected in the last zimni order. The mistakes stands rectified from today. Ld. Counsel for the defendant suffered a statement that he has no objection if the application for amendment of plaintiff and impleadment of party is allowed. Arguments heard. Vide my separate detailed order, application for u/o 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 rule 10 r.w.s. 151 stands allowed, as detailed therein. Now case is adjourned to 04.05.2018 for filing amended plaint. Dated: 13.04.2018 (Jaskaran Singh) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date: 04.05.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt (UID:PB0561) Purpose:

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., has filed power of attorney on behalf of defendant No.3. Now case is adjourned to 17.05.2018 for filing written statement and reply to stay application. Dated:04.05.2018 (Pooja) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:17.05.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Written statement on behalf of defendant No.3 filed. Copy supplied. Application U/S 151 CPC by defendant No.3 Canara Bank filed. Copy supplied. Notice of this application be given to the opposite party through his counsel for 31.05.2018. Dated:17.05.2018 (Pooja) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:31.05.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan rail Components & Ors. 4 UID No. PB0561 I N   T H E   C O U R T   O F   MISS. POONAM KASHYAP,   P C S,    C I V I L   J U D G E   (J R. D I V.),   K A P U R T H A L A.  CNR No. PBKP020001412018 Case No. ­ CS/76­2018 Date of Decision – 31.05.2018 M/S Mohan Tech Vs M/S Mohan Rail Component & Ors. …..Plaintiff …...Defendants. (Application U/S 151 of the CPC by Defendant No.3 Canara Bank) Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. ORDER 1. An application has been filed by the defendant No.3 Canara Bank U/ S 151 of CPC. In the application, it has been stated that this court has granted the stay order when, the defendant No.3 was not party to the suit. But, the plaintiff through an amendment impleading the defendant No.3 Canara bank as party to the suit on dated 13.04.2018 but, the stay granted on dated 13.03.2018 by this Court to the plaintiff against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the stay granted is creating shadow upon the rites of the defendant No.3 as defendant No.3 is taking possession of the suit property in a legal manner. 2. Notice of the same was given to the opposite party through his counsel who did not file any written reply but, contested the same verbally. 3. I have heard both the parties upon the application file U/S 151 CPC. Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kpt. UID No. PB0561 MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan rail Components & Ors. 4 UID No. PB0561 4. After perusal of the pleadings of the parties and written statement of defendant No.3 Canara Bank, it has come to my knowledge that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant NO.1 and 2 in order to defeat the valuable rites of the secure creditors/defendant No.3. As the defendant No.3 is to be recovered a sum of Rs. 27,03,14,225.97 P along-with interest from the property of defendant No.1 and its guarantors which were equitable defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 is taking physical possession of the mortgage property which also consist of the suit land. Therefore, one thing, which is pertinent to clear here that the stay which was allowed U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 to the plaintiff on dated 13.03.2018 is applicable only against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Through that stay order, the defendant No.1 and 2 be restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and not to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. But, to my mind, this stay has not been allowed against defendant No.3 canara Bank because defendant No.3 has made a party after allowing the stay application. Therefore, according to the facts and circumstances, after allowing allowing the stay application, the stay order has not been applicable against the defendant No.3 and defendant NO.3 be not restrained from doing the act of taking the possession of the premises in dispute in due process of law and it is further clarified that the stay order passed upon dated 13.03.2018 has been applicable only against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 because at that time, defendant No.3 is not a party to the suit and defendant No.3 has a rite to take to Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kpt. UID No. PB0561 MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan rail Components & Ors. 4 UID No. PB0561 possession of the property as detailed in the head note of the plaint in due course of law because such, stay application has not restrained the defendant No.3. Pronounced in Open Court. Dated:31.05.2018. (Poonam Kashyap) (Pooja) Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kapurthala. (UID NO. PB0561) Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kpt. UID No. PB0561

zimmni MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan Rail Component & Ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP020001412018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Argument heard. Vide my separate detailed order of even date, application U/S 151 of the CPC by Defendant No.3 Canara Bank for clarification for clerification of stay order has been allowed, as detailed therein. Replication to the written statement on behalf of defendant No.3 filed. Copy supplied. Now case is adjourned to 09.07.2018 for argument on stay applicaiton. Pronounced in open Court. (Poonam Kashyap) Dated:31.05.2018 Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), (Pooja) Kapurthala. (UID PB0561) Next Date: 09.07.2018. Purpose:

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 23.07.2018 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Dated:09.07.2018 (Sukhbir Kaur (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date23.07:.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan rail Components & Ors. 5 UID No. PB0561 MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan Rail Component & Ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP020001412018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Copy of order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Ld. Hon’ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh vide which a direction has been given to this Court to expunge Para No.4 of the order dated 31.05.2018. In compliance of the above stated order, the phrase as stated in the application has been expunged. Now case is adjourned to 24.08.2018 for entire evidence of plaintiff, at own responsibility. Dated:23.07.2018 (Pooja) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:24.08.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561) Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kpt. UID No. PB0561

zimmni MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan rail Components & Ors. 5 UID No. PB0561 I N   T H E   C O U R T   O F   MISS. POONAM KASHYAP,   P C S,    C I V I L   J U D G E   (J R. D I V.),   K A P U R T H A L A.  CNR No. PBKP020001412018 Case No. ­ CS/76­2018 Date of Decision – 31.05.2018 M/S Mohan Tech Vs M/S Mohan Rail Component & Ors. …..Plaintiff …...Defendants. (Application U/S 151 of the CPC by Defendant No.3 Canara Bank) Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. ORDER 1. An application has been filed by the defendant No.3 Canara Bank U/ S 151 of CPC. In the application, it has been stated that this court has granted the stay order when, the defendant No.3 was not party to the suit. But, the plaintiff through an amendment impleading the defendant No.3 Canara bank as party to the suit on dated 13.04.2018 but, the stay granted on dated 13.03.2018 by this Court to the plaintiff against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the stay granted is creating shadow upon the rites of the defendant No.3 as defendant No.3 is taking possession of the suit property in a legal manner. 2. Notice of the same was given to the opposite party through his counsel who did not file any written reply but, contested the same verbally. 3. I have heard both the parties upon the application file U/S 151 CPC. Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kpt. UID No. PB0561 MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan rail Components & Ors. 5 UID No. PB0561 4. After perusal of the pleadings of the parties and written statement of defendant No.3 Canara Bank. As the defendant No.3 is to be recovered a sum of Rs. 27,03,14,225.97 P along-with interest from the property of defendant No.1 and its guarantors which were equitable defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 is taking physical possession of the mortgage property which also consist of the suit land. Therefore, one thing, which is pertinent to clear here that the stay which was allowed U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 to the plaintiff on dated 13.03.2018 is applicable only against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Through that stay order, the defendant No.1 and 2 be restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and not to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. But, to my mind, this stay has not been allowed against defendant No.3 canara Bank because defendant No.3 has made a party after allowing the stay application. Therefore, according to the facts and circumstances, after allowing allowing the stay application, the stay order has not been applicable against the defendant No.3 and defendant NO.3 be not restrained from doing the act of taking the possession of the premises in dispute in due process of law and it is further clarified that the stay order passed upon dated 13.03.2018 has been applicable only against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 because at that time, defendant No.3 is not a party to the suit and defendant No.3 has a rite to take to possession of the property as detailed in the head note of the plaint in due course of law because such, stay application has not restrained the defendant No.3. Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kpt. UID No. PB0561 MS Mohan Tech Vs MS Mohan rail Components & Ors. 5 UID No. PB0561 Pronounced in Open Court. Dated:31.05.2018. (Poonam Kashyap) (Pooja) Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kapurthala. (UID NO. PB0561) In compliance of the order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, the phrase in the first part of paragraph 4 of the order i.e. it has come to my knowledge that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant NO.1 and 2 in order to defeat the valuable rites of the secure creditors/defendant No.3 has been expunged from the above stated order of dated 31.05.2018 passed by the undersigned. Pronounced in open Court. (Poonam Kashyap) Dated:23.07.2018 Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), (Pooja) Kapurthala. (UID PB0561) Ms. Poonam Kashyap, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kpt. UID No. PB0561

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 07.09.2018 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Dated:24.08.2018 (Sukhbir Kaur) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:07.09.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. An application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been filed by ld. counsel of plaintiff against defendant no.3. Now, to come upon for dated 15.09.2018 for filing its reply by defendant no.3. Dated:07.09.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:15.09.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Reply has not been filed of application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 by the ld counsel on behalf of defendant no. 3. Now, case is adjourned for dated 05.10.2018 for filing the some on behalf of defendant of defendant no. 3. Dated:15.09.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:05.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Reply has been filed of application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 by the ld counsel on behalf of defendant no. 3. Now, case is adjourned for dated 09.10.2018 for arguments on such application. Dated:05.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:09.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Argument has not been addressed upon the stay application by the ld counsel on behalf of plaintiff as well as defendant no. 3. Now, case is adjourned for dated 11.10.2018 for the purpose of arguments. Dated:09.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:11.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Arguments has not been addressed by the ld counsel of both the parties. Now, case is adjourned for the purpose of arguments for the next date of hearing i.e. 17.10.2018. Dated:11.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:17.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Arguments has not been addressed by the ld counsel of both the parties. Now, case is adjourned for the purpose of arguments for the next date of hearing i.e. 18.10.2018. Dated:17.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:18.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Arguments has not been addressed by the ld counsel of both the parties. Now, case is adjourned for the purpose of arguments for the next date of hearing i.e. 23.10.2018. Dated:18.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:23.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Arguments has not been addressed by the ld counsel of both the parties. Now, case is adjourned for the purpose of arguments for the next date of hearing i.e. 30.10.2018. Dated:23.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:30.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Arguments has not been addressed by the ld counsel of both the parties. Now, case is adjourned for the purpose of arguments for the next date of hearing i.e. 31.10.2018. Dated:30.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:31.10.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Arguments has not been addressed by the ld counsel of both the parties. Now, case is adjourned for the purpose of arguments for the next date of hearing i.e. 05.11.2018. Dated:31.10.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:05.11.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. Arguments has not been addressed by the ld counsel of both the parties. Now, case is adjourned for the purpose of arguments for the next date of hearing i.e. 16.11.2018. Dated:05.11.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:16.11.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. 14 In   the   Court   of   Ms.Poonam   Kashyap,   PCS,   Civil   Judge   (Junior  Division), Kapurthala CNR No.PBKP02­000141­2018 CS No.76 of 12.2.2018 Date of Order: 16.11.2018               M/s Mohan Tech   Vs  Mohan Rail Components & Others                     (Application U/o 39 Rule 1&2 read with Section 151 CPC  for  grant  of  ad­interim  injunction  against   defendant  no.3  also) Present: Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Adv., counsel for the plaintiff Sh.Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv., counsel for defendant  nos.1 and 2 Sh,.Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant no.3 ORDER: 1. This order of mine shall dispose off an application U/o 39  Rules 1&2 read with section 151 CPC filed by the ld counsel for the  plaintiff­applicant against defendant no.3 2. Present   application   is   filed   on   the   ground   that   plaintiff­ appellant has a good prima facie case in his favour and there is every hope  that plaintiff  will    succeed in his case. It  has been further averred that  earlier at the time of filing of suit, an application under order 39 Rule 1&2  read   with   section   151   CPC   has   been   filed,   which   was   subsequently  allowed   and   later   on   the   defendant   no.3   started   interfering   into   the  peaceful possession of the plaintiff and consequently and application U/s  6 Rule 17 read with order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed which was allowed,  however,  this Hon`ble Court on an application filed by defendant no.3  Ms.Poonam Kashyap, PCS, CJJD, Kapurthala UID No.PB0561 Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. 14 unilaterally and without providing and opportunity of being heard, passed  order   which   had   subsequently   been   modified   by   Hon`ble   Punjab   &  Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, however, the defendant no.2 inspite  of   that   is   continuously   interfering   into   the  peaceful  possession  of   the  plaintiff.  Hence,   the   plaintiff   has   no   other   remedy   to   file   the   present  application. In case the defendants succeed in their illegal designs,  the  plaintiff   shall   suffer   an   irreparable   loss   and   injury   which   cannot   be  compensated in terms of money and prayed that ad interim injunction be  passed in favour of the applicant/applicant and against the defendant no.3.  Hence, the present stay application.  3. Upon notice, defendant no.3 appeared through its counsel and  filed  written   reply.   In   the   reply   it  has  been   submitted  on  preliminary  objections that present application filed by the plaintiff is blatant abuse of  the process of the ld court as the ld court has already expressed its opinion  as regards the injunction against the answering respondent in the present  suit vide order dated 31.05.2018. The order dated 31.5.2018 passed by ld  court  has  become final  as   the  plaintiff/petitioner  has  also   filed  a  civil  revision assailing the aforesaid order before the Hon`ble High Court at  Chandigarh   wherein   also   the  plaintiffs   could   not   find   any   relief.   The  present application is another futile attempt being made on the part of the  borrower company or its Directors and guarantors to stall the proceedings  somehow or other. Knowing pretty wall the consequences and the lack of  legal sanctity for such an understanding, the petitioner, who is nothing but  an off­shoot of the borrower company i.e.  M/s Mohan Rail component  Pvt.  Ltd   and   their   guarantors.  The  present   suit   has  been   filed  by   the  Ms.Poonam Kashyap, PCS, CJJD, Kapurthala UID No.PB0561 Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. 14 plaintiff   in  a  clandestine  manner  and  in  collusion  with   the  defendants  nos.1 and 2 in order to defeat the valuable rights of the secured creditor/  answering defendant as the answering defendant is to recover a sum of  Rs.27,03,14,225.97   paise   along   with   interest   from   the   properties   of  defendants  nos.1 and  that  of   its  guarantors  and  its  directors  etc which  were equitable mortgage with the answering defendant and the answering  defendant   is   taking physical  possession of  mortgaged properties  which  also   consist   of   the   suit   land.   The   plaintiff   has   deliberated   has   not  mentioned   the   khasra   numbers   of   the   suit   property   in   its   plaint   to  camouflage   the   facts   before   the   learned   court.   The   plaintiff   has   just  attached   the   site  plan  by  marking   the   same  as  ABCDEF.  Further   the  plaintiff has not mentioned in the plaint as regards the date of the alleged  agreement of  lease,   if  any,  alleged to have been executed between the  plaintiff   and   the   defendants   nos.1   and   2.   The   present   suit   is   not  maintainable  before   the   learned court   in  view of  Section  69(2)  of   the  Indian Partnership Act.  It has been further averred that the alleged lease  deed if any, being relied upon by the plaintiff is a sham document which  have been created only with a view to defeat the legitimate claim of the  answering   defendant/secured   creditor.   The   SARFAESI   Act   has   been  enacted   to   enable   the   secured   creditors   to   recover   the   secured   debts  without the intervention of courts and tribunals and third parties claiming  to   be   lessees   but   not   bonafide   lessees   under   leases   which   are   not   in  accordance with section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act should not  be allowed to frustrate this laudable object of the Act by preventing the  secured creditors   from taking  the possession of   the secured assets  and  Ms.Poonam Kashyap, PCS, CJJD, Kapurthala UID No.PB0561 Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. 14 realising the secured debts. The plaintiff has not approached the learned  court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. As  the jurisdiction of the civil court is totally barred under Section 17 and  Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets  and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (No.3 of 2002), in respect  of   any  matter   and  action   initiated  by   the   answering  defendant   so   the  instant suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The remedy of a bonafide  lessee   is,   therefore,   to   surrender   possession   under   Section   14   of   the  SARFAESI  Act  and  to   file   an  application  under  Section  17(1)  of   the  SARFAESI   Act   before   the   Debts   Recovery   Tribunal   and   in   case   he  succeeds before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to establish that the lease  was created prior to the mortgage and the lease was to the knowledge of  the secured creditor or that the lease was created after the mortgage in  accordance with Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, the Debts  Recovery Tribunal will restore possession of the secured asset. On merits,  it   has   been   further   averred   that   the   plaintiffs   and   defendants   are   in  collusion with each other and the present suit has been filed just to delay  the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial  Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act,  2002 (No.3 of 2002)  initiated by the answering defendant. Rest of the averments made in the  application   were   denied   being   wrong   and   incorrect   and   prayer   for  dismissal of the same has been made.  4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused  the material placed on record. Ms.Poonam Kashyap, PCS, CJJD, Kapurthala UID No.PB0561 Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. 14 5.  Having   given   the   heedful   consideration   to   the   arguments  advanced by the ld counsel for the plaintiff and defendant no.3 in the light  of material available on record, this court is of the considered view that at  this stage, no prima facie case appears to be in favour of plaintiff against  defendant no.3 as the same clearly admitted in his plaint that the action of  the bank in mortgaging of the suit land was the outcome of the mortgage,  executed by defendants nos.1 and 2 in their favour.  It goes without saying  that the aforesaid action of the bank thereby auctioning the property of its  borrower, falls under the purview of Sarfaesi Act, 2002. 6.  It is a settled preposition of law that as per section 34  of the  Act of 2002,  the Civil  Court  is  debarred from entertaining any suit  or  proceeding in respect of any matter, which a Debts Recovery Tribunal of  the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine  and   further   that  no   injunction  shall  be  granted  by any Court  or  other  authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any  power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of debts due  to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). Result being,  the present  application of   the plaintiff  against  defendant  no.3 deserves  nothing but dismissal at this stage. Remaining pleas of the plaintiff are  subject matter of evidence, which is yet to be adduced at trial. 7. Resultantly, in view of what has been discussed above, the  present  application   stands  declined  against  defendant  no.3.  Hence,   the  order.   The   application   stands   disposed   off   accordingly.  However,  nothing observed here shall affect the case of the parties on merits. Ms.Poonam Kashyap, PCS, CJJD, Kapurthala UID No.PB0561 Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. 14 8. Before parting with this order it is hereby made clear that the  observations made herein are tentative in nature and shall not have any  bearing at the time of deciding the suit during trial. Pronounced in Open Court. Dated:16.11.2018.            (Poonam Kashyap) (Narinder)                   Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kapurthala.        UID No. PB0561 next date: 5.12.2018 Ms.Poonam Kashyap, PCS, CJJD, Kapurthala UID No.PB0561 2018-11-27T18:22:02+0530 "I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document." NARINDER KUMAR PURI

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. 14 UID No.PB0561 Ms Mohan Tech  Vs  Ms Mohan Rail Components & Ors. Cs 76­18 CNR No.PBKP02­000141­2018 Present: Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Adv., counsel for the plaintiff Sh.Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv., counsel for defendant  nos.1 and 2 Sh,.Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant no.3 Argument  heard.  Vide  my separate  detailed order  of  even  date,  present application stands declined against defendant no.3. Hence,  the order. The application stands disposed off accordingly.  Now to come  up on 05.12.2018 for  evidence of the plaintiff.  Pronounced in Open Court. Dated:16.11.2018.            (Poonam Kashyap) (Narinder)                   Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Kapurthala.        UID No. PB0561 next date: 05.12.2018 Purpose 2018-11-16T18:37:40+0530 "I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document." NARINDER KUMAR PURI

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 13.12.2018 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility . Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:05.12.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:13.12.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 13.12.2018 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility . Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:05.12.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:13.12.2018 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. File taken up today, as the undersigned is on leave for 13.12.2018. So, this case is adjourned to 02.01.2019 for the purpose already fixed. Parties be informed accordingly. Dated:08.12.2018 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:02.01.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 07.01.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:02.01.2019 (Manpreet Sharma (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:07.01.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 08.01.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:07.01.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:08.01.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 09.01.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1200/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:08.01.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:09.01.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 11.01.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1500/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:09.01.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:11.01.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 18.01.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:11.01.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:18.01.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 30.01.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2500/- to be deposited in DLSA. Dated:18.01.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:30.01.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 06.02.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to be deposited in DLSA. It will be last and final opportunity. Dated:30.01.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) Next Date:06.02.2019 CJ(JD)/Kpt Purpose: (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 11.02.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4000/- to be deposited in DLSA. It will be last and final opportunity. Dated:06.02.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) CJJD/Kpt (UID:PB0561)

zimmni Ms Mohan Tech Vs Ms Mohan Rail components & ors. CS 76-18 CNR No. PBKP02-000141-2018 Present: Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Raman Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Sh. Vinay Garg, Adv., counsel for the defendant No.3. No PW is present. Date is requested by learned counsel for the plaintiff. On his request, case is adjourned to 16.02.2019 for entire evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4500/- to be deposited in DLSA. It will be last and final opportunity. Dated:11.02.2019 (Manpreet Sharma) (Poonam Kashyap) CJJD/Kpt (UID:PB0561)