VIKRAMJEET BHAMBRI Vs. SANJEEV JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to decide both these petitions filed by the petitioners respectively under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this common order. The petitioners have assailed the order(s) dated 21st July 2012 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the respective applications filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC were dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petitions are that the relation between the two petitioners is that of nephew and uncle, respectively. The property bearing No.236 -250 situated at G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi -32 (hereinafter referred to as the ''suit property '') was taken on rent by Sh. Kasturi Lal Bhambri, father of Vikram Jeet Bhambri (petitioner in CM(M) 941/2012), from Late Sh. Ram Chander, grandfather of the respondent on 24th January, 1952. Later on the tenancy of the suit property devolved among Kasturi Lal Bhambri, in respect of 2/3rd of the suit property and the rest of the 1/3rd portion came into the tenancy of Dharambir Bhambri (petitioner in CM(M) 942/2013).

(3.) DURING the pendency of the two suits, the petitioner(s) filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim relief seeking to restrain the respondent from alienating, transferring, parting with possession, creating third party interest and from making any sort of construction over the suit property in any manner till the final disposal of the suit. It was stated therein that the attorney of the petitioner(s) had seen 2 -3 persons in front of the suit property and on enquiry, he came to know that they were the intending buyers of the suit property. The petitioner(s) averred that the respondent wanted to create third party interest in the suit property. In the reply to the said application, the respondent contested the application and stated that the petitioner(s) had filed another suit against the respondent wherein also an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed. It was stated that this was the third application which was based on presumption and assumption and filed with a view to mislead the Court. It was averred that not even a single document had been filed by the petitioner(s) to prove their tenancy over the suit property at the time of filing of the suit for possession.