GURVIR INDER SINGH Vs. JUGVIR INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This appeal is directed against the order dated 10/3/1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No.3084/1991. The present appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents herein are the defendants, in the aforesaid suit.

(2.) . The present appellant as plaintiff initially instituted a suit registered as S.NO. 2526/1987 claiming partition of alleged Hindu undivided properties, one of which properties was the property situate at B-21, west End Diplomatic: Enclave Extension, New Delhi, which is the subject matter of the suit out of which the present appeal arises. The aforesaid Suit No.2526/1987 was compromised between, the parties and a judgment/ order to that effect was passed on 5/9/1989. However, on the allegation that the aforesaid compromise decree was not given effect to by the other parties the appellant herein filed the present suit as the plaintiff seeking for a decree for partition of the aforesaid property located at west End Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi.

(3.) . The said suit is being contested by the respondents herein. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit a number of applications came to be filed. I.A. No.1117/1991 was filed by the present appellant on 20/9/1991 praying for appointment of a Receiver for the safe custody and protection of the suit property namely, B-21, west End Enclave, New Delhi. The learned Single Judge took up the said application for consideration on 10/3/1998 and by order of the same date dismissed the said application holding that since the entire subject property, is in the occupation of one Mrs. Ute Banerjea Kommers there is no need to appoint a Receiver to take care of the said premises, althrough there is a serious controversy between the parties with regard to the alleged-tenancy of said Mrs. Kommers. There was another application being I.A. No.10382/1997 which was also pending disposal. The said application was also filed by the appellant herein praying for appointment of a Receiver to take vacant possession of the suit property and also to keep the said property under the Receiver's watch and ward. An order was passed on the said application also on 10/3/1998 giving leave to the plaintiff to withdraw the said application with liberty to file a comprehensive application setting out the subsequent events and the said application was dismissed as not pressed. I.A. 11583/1997 was disp6sed of by the learned Single Judge directing that the cheques issued by Mrs. Kommers towards rent of the premises shall be encashed by the defendants and the proceeds thereof deposited in the court within a week of the encashment. It was further ordered on the said application that Mrs. Kommers would issue cheques for the user of the suit properties favouring the Registrar of the High Court so that the cheques could be deposited directly in the Registry. There were few other applications relating to the occupation of the suit premises by the previous tenant Mr. H.C.Von Sponeck, Resident Representative of United Nations Development Programme on Research Coordination. As Mr. Sponeck vacated the suit premises, those applications were held to have become infructuous and were accordingly disposed of. Orders on all the aforesaid applications were passed on 10/3/1998.