HARMEET SINGH Vs. ANSHU AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appears in person and seeks an adjournment. I refuse to grant adjournment because this is one of the extreme cases of abuse of the process of the law which this Court has seen and which will become clear from the factual details, which I am stating below. Also, this case has already come up on two occasions earlier, yet no notice till date is issued. Therefore, no adjournment as prayed for can be granted as prayed by the petitioner on the ground that his counsel is not well.

(2.) THE present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff impugning the judgment dated 30.03.2013 of the first appellate court in MCA No. 09/2012 by which the first appellate court has dismissed the first appeal against the order of the trial court dated 28.4.2012 dismissing the injunction application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that since the year 1990, either the petitioner/plaintiff himself or his father have kept on unsuccessfully claiming rights in the suit property bearing no.2429, Tilak Street, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. In all these previous legal proceedings, it has been held that neither the petitioner/plaintiff nor his father had a right in the suit property.