S AMRIK SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 21st March, 2009 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge - 22 (Central) Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.290/04/01 filed by the appellant, for declaration that he is entitled to the benefit of the policy of the respondent/defendant of regularization of plots/flats in occupation of the persons since prior to the year 1977 , and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from forcibly dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from property No.R-536, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.

(2.) Trial Court record was requisitioned and notice of the appeal issued. Though the appellant/plaintiff along with the appeal had not filed any application for interim relief but after notice of the appeal had been issued, filed an application for stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree and to restrain the respondent/defendant from dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from property No. R-536, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi during the pendency of the appeal. Notice of the said application was also issued, though no ad interim relief granted. The appeal was on 20th July, 2010 admitted for hearing. The appellant/plaintiff filed another application for interim relief pleading that he had learnt that this Court in W.P.(C) No.5885/2012 had directed the respondent/defendant to hand over possession of the plot of land bearing No.R-536, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi to one Shri Surjit Singh and contending that unless DDA was restrained from taking possession from the appellant, the appeal will become infructuous. The said application came up before this Court first on 21st October, 2013 when the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff was asked to address on the appeal itself. However the counsel stated that he was not ready to address arguments and on his request, the matter was adjourned to today. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the counsel for the respondent/defendant have been heard.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, in or about January/May, 2001, pleading:-