RAMIT DHALLA Vs. SH KAMAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, dismissing the first appeal against the order dated 18.8.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi. The Civil Judge vide the said order dismissed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 &

(2.) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the plaintiff. The first appellate court vide said judgment dismissed the appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge. I have heard Mr.Sunil Melhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.C.Dua, learned counsel for the respondent on the point of admission and have gone through copies of the documents filed with the petition. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners herein (plaintiffs in the trial court hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs') filed a suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that plaintiffs are owners/landlords in possession of a plot measuring 600 sq. yards. bearing property No.W-12/34-B, situated in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The said property was allegedly purchased from the defendant, on 16.12.2002 vide documents:- Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter and General Power of Attorney (The General Power of Attorney is registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar vide document No.1094 on 16.12.2002). It is alleged that the actual vacant physical possession was handed over to the plaintiffs on the same date and the members of their family are residing in the said plot of land. It is alleged that defendant s intentions became malafide and he wanted to take back possession forcibly and on 7.8.2005 at about 8.00 P.M. the defendant came with his henchmen and tried to throw away the belonging of the plaintiffs by breaking the wall at point A shown in the site plan. Mohalla people gathered, whereupon the defendant and his henchmen left with a threat to return within 2-3 days with larger force. The matter was reported to the police, but the police are said to be under the influence of the defendant. Hence the suit. The cause of action accrued on 16.12.2002 and again on 7.8.2005. A decree is sought for restraining the defendant and his associates from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs or from interfering in their lawful possession and occupation or from blocking the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs in the said property. On the file a copy of the counter claim of defendant for possession, declaration and perpetual injunctions in respect of the same property is placed. The defendant filed reply in this court alleging that the petition is an abuse of process of law and has been filed with ulterior motive to grab the vacant plot, measuring 600 sq. yds. bearing property No.W-12/34-B, situated at Neb Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi, belonging to the defendant. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have forged and fabricated the agreement to sell, receipt, letter of possession, all bearing the date 16.12.2002 and have forged the signatures of the defendant and have not come to the court with clean hands. Further, the plaintiffs have concealed material facts from this court. It is averred in the reply that all the alleged documents viz., agreement to sell, GPA, receipt etc. have been allegedly notarized, but the said notary public Ms.Savita Dhaiya has given a certificate to the defendant that she never notarized the said documents. The said documents were filed in the appellate court and it is alleged that even notary s signatures have been fabricated in order to create a title in the plot of the defendant measuring 600 sq. yards.

(3.) Further it is alleged in the reply that the defendant inspected the register maintained by the stamp vendor in the office of the collector of stamps and found that the alleged stamp papers No.18612 on which the agreement to sell has been fabricated in the name of the plaintiffs were never sold to them, but were sold to one M/s Kalluc Limited. Photographs have been filed by the defendant which show that the iron gate fixed by the defendant had been removed and the new wall has been constructed in its place.