MANGAT Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constituion of India has been filed against the order dated 18th November, 1991 passed by the trial Court before whom a suit filed by the petitioner herein is pending. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the case stood adjourned to 27th November, 1991 when it came up on 14th November, 1991. Mr. Rajinder Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, informs that while filing the suit, the petitioner had also moved an application under Order 39 Rules I & 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent (D.D.A.) from demolishing the structure on the property in suit or dispossing the plaintiff. He has also filed a copy of the plaint and the main prayer in the suit is also for grant of a decree of perpetual injunction which is reproduced below:

(2.) The Court did not deem it fit to pass an interim order in the first instance and exercised discretion under Order 27 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code granting time to the learned Counsel for D.D.A. to file written statement and documents, and then hear the matter after the pleadings are complete.

(3.) The petitioner by a subsequent application which was disposed of by the impugned order passed on 18th November, 1991 pleaded that inspite of pendency of the suit, the D.D.A. has allegedly resorted to demolition of the property and the prayer was reiterated that pending further orders, the defendant should be restrained From forcibly dispossessing the petitioner. The learned Court, however, thought it fit to adjourn this application also, to 27th November, 1991, after written statement and documents had been filed by the defendant.