HAIDER ALI Vs. HASSAN AHMAD AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned ADJ on an application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in a suit filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction against the Respondents No 1 & 2 whereby the appellant wanted a declaration that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property on account of having purchased the suit property from Shri Hasan Ahmed respondent No.1 on the basis of agreement to sell, registered GPA, receipt etc against both respondents No 1 & 2.

(2.) By the impugned order the learned ADJ has dismissed the application of the appellant The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned ADJ, reads as under: As mentioned above, the plaintiff has also sought an order of this court to stay judgment/decree passed by High Court of Delhi without challenging legality of it. I find force in the plea of Ld. Counsel for defendant stating that this court has no power to stay the execution of judgment/decree passed by High Court of Delhi. The plaintiff may explore his remedy anywhere else.

(3.) According to the appellant, the impugned order is not sustainable as the said order is directly in conflict with rights and interest of the appellant in as much as both the respondent no 1 and 2 in connivance with one another had entered into a compromise in a suit bearing No 1859/99 titled as Kuldeep Rai Vs. Hassan Ahmed.. with respect to property bearing No.S-611E, New Enclave, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-92, plot falling under Khasra No 240. (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Property). It has been stated that by an order dated 29.05.2002, this Court had passed a compromise decree and directed respondent No.1 to handover the possession of the suit property to respondent No 2, despite the fact that the respondent No 1 had already parted with the possession of the suit property in favor of the appellant on 16.12.1999. Appellants further submit that respondents in connivance with each other had not disclosed the name of the appellant nor the appellant was made a party by the respondent No 2 in CS(OS) No. 1859/99 which itself shows the falsity of claim as well as concealment of material fact from this Court. It is also a matter of record that the suit bearing No 1859/99 was instituted by the respondent No 2 on 21.08.1999 against respondent No.1 while appellant claims to have come into possession of the suit property on 16.12.1999 through respondent No 1 by way of having purchased the suit property which is during the pendency of suit No. 1859/1999.