BIMLA Vs. ANIL KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, however, really the same had to be filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Since in law heading of the petition cannot make a difference, I am hence treating this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as one under Section 115 CPC.

(2.) THIS petition impugns the judgment of the trial court dated 21.12.2011 by which the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been dismissed. Along with the suit the petitioner/plaintiff had also claimed the reliefs of injunctions and damages along with the relief of possession, which reliefs have been rejected on the ground that such reliefs cannot be joined with the relief claimed for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner/plaintiff was that the respondent/defendant wrongfully and illegally took over the possession of the suit property on 1.6.2003. Possession was taken during the pendency of the earlier legal proceedings being a suit for injunction filed by the respondent herein/defendant. In that suit the respondent/defendant claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Sh. Ram Karan, and the respondent/defendant in that suit was successful in securing an interim order dated 30.10.2002 restraining the present petitioner/plaintiff from taking over the possession of the suit property, although, in reality the petitioner/plaintiff was in actual possession of the suit property and had constructed a superstructure of two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom over the suit property. The injunction which was granted in favour of the respondent/defendant in his suit for injunction was vacated on an appeal being filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein vide order dated 27.02.2003. The present respondent/defendant had filed a revision petition against the said order dated 27.02.2003 in the High Court of Delhi being civil revision no. 627/2003 and in which the High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Subsequently it transpires, and which position is not disputed before me by the respondent/defendant, that, the suit for injunction filed by the respondent/defendant was not pursued and was therefore disposed of with the liberty to the respondent/defendant to raise all the pleas as raised in the revision petition in the suit filed by the respondent therein. The petitioner/plaintiff hence pleaded that she was illegally dispossessed by the respondent/defendant on 1.6.2003, and that the respondent/defendant has thereafter raised certain unauthorized construction over a portion in the suit property as shown in red colour in the site plan. Accordingly, the reliefs of possession, injunction and damages were claimed in the subject suit.