NIRMAL GUPTA Vs. YOGESH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No.17735/2012 (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC) and IA No.16373/2013 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC)

(2.) THE matter came up for hearing on 25.09.2012. This Court passed an ex parte injunction restraining the defendant from constructing a boundary wall or other construction on the aforesaid 80 sq.yards. Vide order dated 12.11.2013 this Court appointed Ms.Sangita Dhingra Sehgal the then Registrar General of this Court (as she then was) to act as a Local Commissioner to measure and demarcate the disputed site measuring 80 sq.yards. On 29.11.2013 the defendant was directed to maintain status quo with regard to the construction and SHO Police Station Miawali was directed to ensure that no further construction is carried out by any of the parties at the suit premises. Against the said order dated 29.11.2013 an appeal was filed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench clarified that the order dated 29.11.2013 may not be read as disposal of the application filed by the plaintiff and stated that the two applications herein would be decided without being influenced by the previous order. An observation was made to the Delhi High Court Rules concerning revenue related matters and the learned counsel for the parties were directed to bring the same to the notice of the Single Judge on the next date of hearing. I may clarify that neither of the parties have made any submissions regarding any rules of the Delhi High Court regarding revenue related matters.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strenuously urged that as long as the combined property was in possession of the plaintiff and his brother in -law Krishna Kumar, there was no dispute. The plaintiff had constructed on 170 Sq.yds and left the balance 80 sq.yards vacant. There was no need to construct a boundary wall in view of the cordial relationship between Krishan Kumar and the plaintiff. He has urged that now after having bought the property on 16.4.2012 the defendant is taking undue advantage of the fact that the property is lying vacant and has attempted to usurp the property within her own area. Reliance is also placed on the Local Commissioner's Report to state that the defendant is admittedly occupying the area in excess of her area.