RP BAJAJ Vs. SHEELA KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether the orders passed by the learned ADJ on 03.08.2010 in Suit No.172/2009 needs any interference by this Court.

(2.) The relevant observations made in the above-said impugned order are reproduced hereunder:

(3.) It is submitted by the appellant that the appellant is in possession of the suit property as a tenant. In fact, the appellant is aggrieved of an agreement between the predecessor of R-1 and R-2 and of a decree which is stated to have been obtained by respondent No.2 which he submits was a policy decree. From the very fact that the possession of the tenant has been protected and the second respondent who now claims ownership of the suit property on the basis of a decree in his favour has been restrained from dispossessing the appellant from the suit property, it is apparent that at this stage, in the absence of any suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of the agreement on the basis of which he claims ownership in the suit property and the rights of the parties are yet to be crystallized and necessary protection having been granted to the appellant by the learned ADJ to protect his interest, I find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the ADJ while passing the impugned order