Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
Contempt Petition 15/24, 21/24 & 28/24
ANJU Vs. SUDESH
10.01.2025
Present: Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Ms. Kavita, Ld. Proxy counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Sachin Aggarwal and Sh. Aditya Chaudhary, Ld.
Counsels for respondent.
Matter is at the stage of orders.
Order
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the present applications u/O
39 Rule 2A r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submitted that the
plaintiff had filed an application u/O 39 Rule 1 and 2 and the said application
was disposed off with the direction to maintain status quo on the suit property
vide order dated 02.11.2022. He further submitted that in violation of the said
order the defendant/respondent have removed 6 iron beams, one iron gate,
4500-5000 bricks as well as 4-5 feet wall demolished and removed bricks
from the wall. He further submitted that the applicant changed the status of the
property and with ulterior motive demolished the wall of 4-5 feet and on
enquiry from the neighbour, it came to be known that wall had been
demolished by defendants and with the help of their tenants Noor Mohd and
Shokat. The counsel has further requested for restoring the suit property in its
original form.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent/defendant submitted that
the applicant/plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. The
allegations made by the plaintiff are false, frivolous and manipulated. The
allegations of stolen bricks and iron beam is totally false and frivolous as there
is no evidence to support the allegation. He further submitted that there is
no relation between defendant and Noor Mohd and Shokat Ali. He further
-- 1 of 4 --
2
submitted that the present application has no merits and the applicant has
failed to put any valid, genuine and true documentary evidence in support of
their allegations. The applicant failed to put any date, month and year when
the applicant came to know about alleged illegal act.
Heard. Record perused.
Perusal of the order dated 02.11.2022 reveals that the Ld.
predecessor of this court had directed both the parties to maintain status quo
regarding the suit property measuring 150 Gaj out of 1200 sq. yards of Khasra
No.10/23, Khata Khatoni No. 331/317 Min, situated in revenue estate of
Mohammadpur Majri, Karala, Delhi-81. However, the status quo was not
defined in the said order. This court is of the opinion that for the ends of
justice in the present case, it is very much essential to define the status quo
and to adjudicate the present applications accordingly.
It is the case of the plaintiff that they had purchased a land
measuring 150 sq. yards from Sh. Pradeep, who was husband of the defendant
no.1 and father of defendant no.2 vide GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and the
said GPA alongwith other documents are annexed with plaint and on
05.10.2022 and 06.10.2022, the defendant no.1 and 2 had criminally
trespassed the suit property by using JCB and broke the existing structure ie.
walls, two rooms, toilet and temporary kitchen of plaintiff. In support of the
suit, the plaintiff has filed copy of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to
Sell, Copy of cash receipt, Will, Possession Letter, copy of Affidavit signed
by Sh. Pradeep ie. husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2,
photographs, electricity bill, water bill, copy of police complaint and copy of
FIR.
Per contra, it is the case of the defendant that defendant no.1 is a
widow lady and owner of 1200 sq. yards, out of khasra no. 10/23,
khata/khatoni No. 331/317 min., situated in the revenue estate of village
Mohammad Pur Majri, Karala, Delhi and the suit property measuring 150 sq.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
yards was given on rent to plaintiff no.2 who had surrendered his tenancy on
28.09.2022 in presence of public witnesses. In support, the defendant has filed
copy of complaints to police authority, photographs and legal notice.
Firstly, on the basis of material on record ie. General Power of
Attorney, Agreement to Sell, cash receipt, Will, Possession Letter and
Affidavit of Sh. Pradeep, prima facie it appears that Sale and Purchase
transaction took place between the plaintiff and Sh. Pradeep ie husband of the
defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2.
Secondly, on the basis of electricity bill in the name of plaintiff
for the month of September, 2022, prima facie shows that plaitniff had been in
possession of the suit premises immediately before filing of the present suit.
Thirdly, water bill dated 03.07.2020 shows that prima facie, the
plaintiff had been in continuous possession of the suit property.
Forthly, on the basis of the photographs of the suit property,
complaint to police and FIR shows that the suit property has been demolished.
Fifthly, it is admitted fact in the written statement, defendant
no.1 came to know on 07.10.2022 that somebody has demolished built up
structure on site plot of 150 sq. yards and further dumped soil. Thus, the
demolition of the suit property is not in dipsute.
Sixthly, as per complaint filed by the defendant to the police
dated 06.10.2022, it is admitted fact that the suit property was given on rent to
the plaintiff by husband of defendant no.1. it can be inferred that the plaintiff
entered in lawful possession of the suit property. However, the defendant in
the WS has stated that the plaintiff had surrendered his tenancy on 28.09.2022.
But there is no handing of possessioin letter or rent agreement on record to
prove the contentions of the defendant.
In view of the above discussion, it can be inferred that the
plaintiff had been in lawful possession of the suit property immediately before
-- 3 of 4 --
4
filing of the present suit and the suit property had been demolished
unlawfully.
Thus, plaintiff is granted the right to construct the boundary wall
of the suit property upto 5 feet and also to construct rooms on the suit property
as per site plan attached with the suit. The defendants and their associates are
restrained from interferring in the possession of the plaintiff till final decision
of the court. The ultimate rights of the parties will be determined in the course
of trial.
Accordingly, the present applications are disposed off as
allowed to the extent as stated in the above paragraph.
Copy of this order be attached in the main file and the present
applications are disposed off and the same be attached with the main file.
(Arjun Kirar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts/10.01.2025
-- 4 of 4 --