AJIT SINGH Vs. ARVIND KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of IA No.1043/97 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 INDIAN PENAL CODE by the plaintiffs and IA No.9977/98 under Section 151 INDIAN PENAL CODE also filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) Suit was filed alleging that plaintiff No. 1 who has been carrying business of export of garments in the name of 'SIMRAN CREATIONS' as proprietor thereof, took the entire property bearing No.324, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi on monthly rental of Rs.12,000.00 from defendant No.2 in January 1996. Said property comprises of basement, ground, first, second and third floors and was Jointly owned by defendants 1 & 2 who are brother and sister. It is further alleged that approximately Rs.19,62,000.00 had accumulated towards property tax against the said property and MCD, therefore, issued notice dated 16/5/1995 for auction of property for recovery of the dues. Defendant No.1 expressed inability to pay his share of property tax dues and he asked defendant No.2 to explore possibility for sale of the property to clear the dues. Defendant No.2 apprised plaintiff No.1 he being a family friend regarding auction notice as also the decision of defendants 1 & 2 to sell the property. It is stated that plaintiff No.1 offered to purchase the said property at the prevalent market price and to clear property tax dues. After informing defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 sold the property to plaintiffs 1 to 4 under registered sale deeds, all dated 15/6/1996. Amount of Rs.8,62,500.00 being the share of sale consideration of defendant No.1, was sent to defendant No.1 by bank drafts through a registered cover dated 17/6/1996 and the bank drafts were also got encashed by defendant No.1. Legal possession as owner of the property was also handed over to the plaintiffs on execution of sale deeds. It is also alleged that plaintiffs being permanent residents of Bombay, the business run under the said name in Delhi, was managed by Harvinder Singh under thi guidance of defendant No.2. On 24/1/1997, Harvinder Singh told plaintiff No.1 on telephone at Bombay that defendant No.1 alongwith his brothers defendants 3 & 4 and some other persons visited the said property and forcibly removed the staff of 'SIMRAN CREATIONS' under threat of physical attack. Harvinder Singh had locked the said property before leaving. It is stated that plaintiff No.1 could reach Delhi only on the night of 28/1/1997 and on his visiting the said property on 29/1/1997, he saw some bad elements sitting inside the gate. Accordingly, plaintiff No.1 telephoned the police at No.100 for assistance. On seeing police, goondas ran away except for one security man who was taken by the police to chowki. In the meantime, defendants 1, 3 & 4 reached there and told the police that efforts will be made to resolve the dispute amicably. Thereafter, defendants 1, 3 & 4 placed lock over the lock of plaintiff No. 1 in order to obstruct ingress and egress to the property and also posted some goondas outside the property. Plaintiff No.1 was thus compelled to approach Garhi police chowki and file a complaint against defendants 1, 3 & 4 supported by the title deeds of property etc. However, the Incharge of chowki informed plaintiff No.1 that there being dispute between the parties, he would seal the property and file report under Section 145 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Immediately thereafter, plaintiff No.1 filed appropriate complaint with ACP, Lajpat Nagar within whose jurisdiction said police post fell. On 1/2/1997 around 8.00 PM plaintiff No .1 was told by police officials that none of the locks put on the said property be removed. It was prayed that by decree of permanent injunction, defendants 1, 3 & 4 be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the said property.

(3.) They are further sought to be restrained from taking illegal possession of the property from the plaintiffs.