KRISHAN Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer is made by the petitioner for setting aside an order passed on 11.4.1994 by Senior Sub Judge/Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application seeking review of an order dated 24.12.1993 by which his appeal had been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is a defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in a civil suit which is presently pending in the Court of Ms. Sarita Birbal, Sub Judge, Delhi. On 30.1.1989 the suit was filed by the respondent claiming a decree for injunction against the petitioner restraining him from dispossessing her forcibly from Shop No.2727, as shown in red in the site plan attached to the plaint. The respondent claimed that her husband was a tenant in the shop for the last twelve years who died two years ago and since the date of death of her husband she has been in occupation of the shop and carrying on business therein. Along with the suit an application for interim relief was made under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code seeking temporary injunction. On 1.2.1989 an ex parte order was made directing status quo to be maintained. In pursuance to this the petitioner put in appearance on 7.2.1989 on which date neither written statement, nor reply to misc. application was filed. Reply and written statement were filed on 17.2.1989.

(3.) Before the adjourned date an application was made under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Code by the plaintiff-respondent alleging disobedience of the order of status quo. It was stated that on 7.2.1989 when the plaintiff had gone to attend the court, in her absence the defendant, accompanied by his brother-in-law Suresh with the help of police and some other bad elements raided the shop in question while the plaintiff's workers were inside. Both the workers were man handled, some papers were torn whereafter lock was put by the defendant on the shop. Thus, the status quo as existed till 7,12.1989 was wilfully disturbed. On the plaintiff's prayer to the court, on 17.2.1989 an order with the consent of the parties was made by the trial court that the property be sealed with the seal of the court till disposal of the misc. application. Ahlmed of the court was directed to visit the property and seal the same by putting a seal on the lock and taking the seal from the court of Administrative Sub Judge. On 16.9.1989 the defendant-petitioner made a statement in court that he himself was not doing any business at the shop. Rather his son and son of his sister-in-law used to work. Son of his sister-in- law had expired. Since his wife was looking after the work, therefore, he was not aware about the particulars of the goods lying in the shop. Keeping in view these facts court directed the Ahlmad to open the seal and prepare an inventory of the goods.