Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 406/23
BIMLA DEVI Vs. PRADEEP
10/05/2023
Present : Sh. Amit Rana, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
(physically appeared).
Sh. Anupam Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendants
(physically appeared).
One certified copy of WS of some connected
case is filed on behalf of plaintiff. Copy supplied.
On request of Ld counsel for defendant, the
matter is pass over.
( Virender Singh )
SCJ / RC/ North
Rohini Court / 10/05/2023
12.10 AM
Present : Sh. Amit Rana, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
(physically appeared).
Sh. Anupam Singh amd Sh. Adamya Pal, Ld.
Counsels for defendants (physically appeared).
Further arguments heard on application under
Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC.
Be awaited for 04.00 PM.
( Virender Singh )
SCJ / RC/ North
Rohini Court / 10/05/2023
04.00 PM
Contd...p2
-- 1 of 5 --
Page 2/5
Present : None.
Arguments already heard under Order 39 rule 1
and 2.
Ld counsel for the plaintiff has argued to the effect that
the plaintiff is owner and in possession of plot area measuring
575 Sq yds in Khasra no. 35/1, situated in the revenue estate
of Village Sannoth, colony known as Sannoth Exention Part-I,
Narela, Delhi-40 hereinafter refered to as ‘suit property’.
He has further argued that originally Sh. Chhotey was
the Bhoomidar / owner of the suit property, however during
his lifetime from 1984 to1987 he has sold his entire share in
Khasra no. 35/1 of Village Sannoth to different persons as
specifically mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. The defendants
are legal heirs of the original owner of the suit prorperty.
Though, the entire share was sold by Late Sh. Chhotey but
mutation remained in his name. The defendants are trying to
take advantage of that mutation entry. After selling the entire
share by Late Sh. Chhotey the defendants have not inherited
any property from him but they are trying to dispossess the
plaintiff and create third party interest in the suit property.
He has further drawn attention of this Court on the sale
purchase document executed in favour of plaintiff, her
erstwhile predecessor in interest. According to him the
description of the suit property is similar as in registered sale
deed of Smt. Indra Devi W/o Sh. P C Jain i.e. the purchaser,
who purchased the property from Late Sh. Chhotey. The said
Smt. Indra Devi had sold the suit property to Smt. Chameli
Contd...p3
-- 2 of 5 --
Page 3/5
Devi and she sold the suit property to the plaintiff herein.
Defendants had filed the suit against one Ravinder Dagar qua
the suit property. The certified copy of the suit for the
permanent injunction filed by defendants against Ravinder
Dagar is filed with present plaint. The area of one of the plots
of that suit has been mentioned as 530 Sq Yds, however the
area of plaintif of present suit property is 575 sq yds but the
identification of the suit property is shown as similar to the
present suit property which is not possible. The defendants do
not have any document except revenue record to show their
ownership or possession but the plaintiff has complete chain
of documents in her favour qua the suit property.
The contention that there is already status quo order qua
the said property is an eye wash as the plaintiff herein was not
party to the suit wherein the said order has been passed.
Application under order 1 rule 10 CPC of plaintiff herein was
allowed in that matter but the plaintif i.e. the defendants
herein had challenged the order before Hon’ble High Cout and
the order of allowing application under order 1 rule 10 CPC
has been stayed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Now the status
quo order is not between plaintiff and the defendants however
the same is between the plaintiff and said Ravinder Dagar.
The said suit was a collusive suit as he has already
stated in the Court that he has nothing to do with the suit
property. Plaintiff has filed present suit to protect the suit
property and her rights qua the same. Therefore the defendants
Contd...p4
-- 3 of 5 --
Page 4/5
should be restrained from dispossessing plaintiff from the suit
property and to create third party interest in the same till the
final disposal of suit.
Per contra, the Ld counsel for the defendant has argued
that, there is already status quo order qua the suit property in
some other case. The suit is not maintainable as there are
clouds on the title of plaintiff. The prima facia case is not in
favour of plaintiff therefore the application should be
dismissed.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties
and gone through the judicial file.
As per record, the plaintiff has relied upon the chain of
documents qua the suit property. It has not been contended on
behalf of the defendants that said Sh. Chhotey had not sold out
his share in Khasra no. 35/1. Further as per the record the suit
property is situated in Colony which is not a n agriculture
land. Though there is Khatoni / mutation in the name of Late
Sh. Chhotey in revenue records but that does not prove that
the defendants are owner or in possession of the suit property.
Reliance can be placed on “Jitender Singh Vs The State of
Madhya Pradesh decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13146/2021”.
Further the status quo order is a term of ambiguity and
at times gives rise to doubts and difficulty. Reliance can be
placed on “M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs State of Bihar
and Ors in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 127”. As per the facts
Contd...p5
-- 4 of 5 --
Page 5/5
the status quo order is not between the plaintiff and
defendants, therefore said status quo order is not of any use for
plaintiff.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the
prima facie case is in favour of plaintiff. Irreperable loss will
be caused to the plaintiff if the present application is not
allowed. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of
plaintiff. Hence the application under order 39 rule 1 and 2
allowed.
The defendants are restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiff and entering in the suit property. They are also
restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property
i.e. plot area measuring 575 Sq yds in Khasra no. 35/1,
situated in the revenue estate of Village Sannoth, colony
known as Sannoth Exention Part-I, Narela, Delhi-40 till the
final disposal of the suit.
Put up for completion of pleadings with advance
copy to opposite party, admission-denial of documents and
framing of issues on 26.07.2023.
( Virender Singh )
SCJ / RC/ North
Rohini Court / 10/05/2023
-- 5 of 5 --